M51, I think...

Took advice from the group and tried for M51...I was looking in the area,
that some star charts said it would be in, and I found a faint fuzzy. In my
excitement I bumped the scope, and lost the image. Never found it again.
*sigh*

--
BenignVanilla
Pond Site: www.darofamily.com/jeff/links/mypond

BenignVanilla wrote:

Took advice from the group and tried for M51...I was looking in the area,
that some star charts said it would be in, and I found a faint fuzzy. In my
excitement I bumped the scope, and lost the image. Never found it again.
*sigh*

Actually it will be two faint fuzzies side by side, M51 and NGC 5195. Dim but
do-able, at least if you can get about 25 miles away from Balto-DC. It's one
that you need to move the scope around to confirm there's something there.

I viewed it a couple nights ago, and what's tantalizing is that it looks like
some structure would be visible it the darn thing was just brighter, or the
skies darker.

Should add that, before it gets too low to the horizon (haven't checked
its position lately) try M104; I saw it from suburban skies in the 60s
through
a 60mm refractor. A 5 inch should star showing some sign of the shape of
the thing, although the dust lane might require an 8-inch or larger, and/or
darker skies.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never be afraid of trying something new for the love of it.
Remember... amateurs built the Ark.
Professionals built the Titanic!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Chillyvek" wrote in message
...
BenignVanilla wrote:

Took advice from the group and tried for M51...I was looking in the area,
that some star charts said it would be in, and I found a faint fuzzy. In
my
excitement I bumped the scope, and lost the image. Never found it again.
*sigh*

Actually it will be two faint fuzzies side by side, M51 and NGC 5195. Dim
but
do-able, at least if you can get about 25 miles away from Balto-DC. It's
one
that you need to move the scope around to confirm there's something there.

I viewed it a couple nights ago, and what's tantalizing is that it looks
like
some structure would be visible it the darn thing was just brighter, or
the
skies darker.

David Nakamoto wrote:
Should add that, before it gets too low to the horizon (haven't checked
its position lately) try M104; I saw it from suburban skies in the 60s
through a 60mm refractor. A 5 inch should star showing some sign of
the shape of the thing, although the dust lane might require an 8-inch
or larger, and/or darker skies.

I saw the dust lane unmistakably in the C5+ from Lockwood. Given good
seeing (it's smaller, and the dust lane thinner, than you might think)
and dark skies, I think it should be visible in a rather smaller scope.
(The dust lane, that is.)

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Hi Brian !

Could be . . . but I've never tried with a smaller scope from dark skies.
Has anyone ?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never be afraid of trying something new for the love of it.
Remember... amateurs built the Ark.
Professionals built the Titanic!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
David Nakamoto wrote:
Should add that, before it gets too low to the horizon (haven't checked
its position lately) try M104; I saw it from suburban skies in the 60s
through a 60mm refractor. A 5 inch should star showing some sign of
the shape of the thing, although the dust lane might require an 8-inch
or larger, and/or darker skies.

I saw the dust lane unmistakably in the C5+ from Lockwood. Given good
seeing (it's smaller, and the dust lane thinner, than you might think)
and dark skies, I think it should be visible in a rather smaller scope.
(The dust lane, that is.)

David, 104 is not only is it getting low, but it's not the easiest
galaxy to find for a newbie, unless he already knows about the
'stargate'and 4 star arrow asterisms that points toward the galaxy in
Corvus.
I would suggest and easier "DSO" for a newbie to find...say, globular
cluster M-4 just one degree west of Antares.
OR a brighter one, M-80, about halfway between Antares and Beta Scorpii.
FWIW,
Tom W.



David Nakamoto wrote:
Should add that, before it gets too low to the horizon (haven't checked
its position lately) try M104; I saw it from suburban skies in the 60s
through
a 60mm refractor. A 5 inch should star showing some sign of the shape of
the thing, although the dust lane might require an 8-inch or larger, and/or
darker skies.

If you think so, and if it is getting low then that's that. I found it as a
newbie
a long time ago however, as I recall by going a certain distance off the
Northeast
corner of Corvus and scanning. It was luckly bright enough to pick up, with
patience.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never be afraid of trying something new for the love of it.
Remember... amateurs built the Ark.
Professionals built the Titanic!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...
David, 104 is not only is it getting low, but it's not the easiest
galaxy to find for a newbie, unless he already knows about the
'stargate'and 4 star arrow asterisms that points toward the galaxy in
Corvus.
I would suggest and easier "DSO" for a newbie to find...say, globular
cluster M-4 just one degree west of Antares.
OR a brighter one, M-80, about halfway between Antares and Beta Scorpii.
FWIW,
Tom W.



David Nakamoto wrote:
Should add that, before it gets too low to the horizon (haven't checked
its position lately) try M104; I saw it from suburban skies in the 60s
through
a 60mm refractor. A 5 inch should star showing some sign of the shape
of
the thing, although the dust lane might require an 8-inch or larger,
and/or
darker skies.

.so you search and search...sometimes
you hit it lucky...sometimes you don't....those have to be, by far,
the *toughest* of the Messier objects to locate just by eyeball (telrad)
'sighting'.

I hate them. But love to see them, especially 82
at ultra high powers.

Yeah, M82 is a favorite of mine too.

Plus you probably need 6.5 mag skies to see the stupid triangle. If anyone
has any easy way of sighting in on this duo, I would certainly appreciate any
help in this regard.

For whatever it's worth:

I most often use an 8x50 finder starting from 23 Ursa Major. Traveling about
4.5 degrees past 23 UM on a line from 29 UM there is a 3 star group. When I
find that, I move 4.5 degrees parallel to a line between 23 UM (and towards)
Dubhe and that puts me pretty close. With a Telrad I think one just sort of
points it and knows where it is....

This is what works for me and I can most often find them under the 3.5 skies
that are about the best I have at home. In my experience Telrads work nicely
in dark skies but magnifying finders are a necessity when when light pollution
is a problem. I find having both is the best for me.

jon isaacs

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message ...
Took advice from the group and tried for M51...I was looking in the area,
that some star charts said it would be in, and I found a faint fuzzy. In my
excitement I bumped the scope, and lost the image. Never found it again.
*sigh*

I've always thought that M51 is overrated. There are other galaxies in
Canes Venatici that impress me more..but then I don't have a huge-ass
light bucket telescope either.

M82 kicks m51's ass

BenignVanilla wrote:
Took advice from the group and tried for M51...I was looking in the area,
that some star charts said it would be in, and I found a faint fuzzy. In my
excitement I bumped the scope, and lost the image. Never found it again.
*sigh*

Perhaps, the biggest key to starhopping is learning to translate the
finderscope and eyepiece views to the charted representation of the sky. Begin
by determining the area of sky encompassed in your finderscope. For example, my
8x50 straight-through finder shows about 5-degrees of sky. Even a unit-power
finder, such as the Telrad, will often include one or more rings which
correspond to a range of field diameters.

Next, determine the orientation of the sky in your finder. Unit-power finders
maintian the normal orientation and, in most areas of the sky, you'll want to
arrange your charts with north at the top and east to the left. A traditional
straight-through finder will both invert (flip from top to bottom) and reverse
(flop from side to side) the view. If this is the kind of finderscope you have,
simply rotate the charts 180-degrees so they're upside down. They'll be easier
to compare against the finderscope view in most parts of the sky.

The celestial pole is one area where these tactics often doesn't work. For
example, most charts present the Big Dipper asterism in Ursa Major with the
handle to the left and the bowl to the right. But many observers wait to scour
this part of the sky until the Dipper is at its highest elevation, which is
when the Dipper is upside down.

If you use a unit-power finder, then you'll want to rotate your charts to put
north at the bottom and east to the right. Since a traditional straight-through
finder already inverts the view, you don't need to rotate your charts when
observing in this part of the sky.

Which charts do you use in the field? You mention referencing several charts
when searching for M51 (=NGC 5194 & NGC 5195). There are a lot of good chart
sets, out there, but it's best to find one primary set that you rely on for
most of your starhopping. Over time and with practice, translating the
finder/eyepiece views to the chart will become second nature. And as you gain
experience, you'll find it easier to reference multiple charts for starhopping.
But until you attain that comfort level, choose one set of charts and run 'em
into the ground.

Good hunting,

Bill Ferris
"Cosmic Voyage: The Online Resource for Amateur Astronomers"
URL: http://www.cosmic-voyage.net
=============
Email: Remove "ic" from .comic above to respond