Now Rukl's is out, how about Burhams?

IMO, a far better solution is to use a computer to print out charts as
required.

This works fine when an observing agenda is planned and specific
objects have been selected for the session. But for those of us like
myself who generally just run at it with little plan whatsoever (and
that's a whole lot of us), we need the ability to get a chart for any
part of the sky that happens to strike our fancy that night. And
since many of us don't have a laptop and/or don't wish to deal with
reliance on battery power for six hours in the field, the charts must
be on paper.

Now in theory I could print out 5000 pages from a software atlas down
to Mag 15 and lug this along for every session. But what's the point
of doing that when the Mag 10-11 limit of my MSA is sufficient to
easily starhop to an object 95% of the time, and does so in a far more
compact and attractive fashion?

Anyway, the thirty pounds and two minutes of loading time that the MSA
and my other two printed atlases add to my field observing kit is
relatively insignificant. The rest of my kit easily approaches 200
pounds and takes twenty minutes to set up. I just don't see a
detriment to time or weight of my printed atlases. Cost? Well the
MSA is expensive but so are some of those software packages.

Cheers,
Ritesh

On 14 Nov 2004 15:31:11 -0800, (Axel) wrote:

This works fine when an observing agenda is planned and specific
objects have been selected for the session. But for those of us like
myself who generally just run at it with little plan whatsoever (and
that's a whole lot of us), we need the ability to get a chart for any
part of the sky that happens to strike our fancy that night. And
since many of us don't have a laptop and/or don't wish to deal with
reliance on battery power for six hours in the field, the charts must
be on paper.

Agreed, a paper atlas seems like a good choice for you. Personally, I'd take a
laptop. The catalog is much deeper, good charting software runs from cheap to
free, a good field laptop can be had for a couple hundred bucks, and the
computer is more immune to dew.

But, to each his own, no?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:48:39 +0200, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Rich,

With my multi-year analemma project slowly winding down, this sounds
like a really cool project to pursue. However, would there be sufficient
interest in an updated version of this classic work with respect to the
items you describe below????

I don't know. The idea of computers having replaced paper atlases is
somewhat true. At the last star party I was at (Sat.) there were more
laptops with star programs than there were people using paper.
However, Burham's is a sizable information source, with more than just
coordinates. The reason I liked Burnhams was that my first serious
scope (an 8" Celestron SCT) had setting circles big enough (if you
polar aligned properly) that they would make finding objects using
coordinates feasable, instead of having to do too much star hopping.
Thats why I liked it. Additionally, other books I've had in the field
have disintigrated once they got enough dew exposure. But, the
paper-bound Burnhams have been dewed up at least 50 times and have
suffered no harm, not even rinkled pages. Whatever they used to
publish it on and bind it was exceptional. So, IMO, as a field guide,
it is excellent.


It is certainly a chance for someone to make a meaningful contribution
to a classic masterpiece.

Anthony.

RichA wrote:

Someone might consider updating this terrific set
of books. 2000+ coordinates, re-do the double-star
orbit diagrams with new dates,perhaps include some
more photos or diagrams of various deepsky objects,
update the physics, if needed.
I'm not sure what the procedure would be for
updating it since the original author is dead.
-Rich

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:07:03 -0500, RichA wrote:

I don't know. The idea of computers having replaced paper atlases is
somewhat true. At the last star party I was at (Sat.) there were more
laptops with star programs than there were people using paper.
However, Burham's is a sizable information source, with more than just
coordinates. The reason I liked Burnhams was that my first serious
scope (an 8" Celestron SCT) had setting circles big enough (if you
polar aligned properly) that they would make finding objects using
coordinates feasable, instead of having to do too much star hopping.
Thats why I liked it. Additionally, other books I've had in the field
have disintigrated once they got enough dew exposure. But, the
paper-bound Burnhams have been dewed up at least 50 times and have
suffered no harm, not even rinkled pages. Whatever they used to
publish it on and bind it was exceptional. So, IMO, as a field guide,
it is excellent.

I expect you would be hard pressed to distinguish between epoch 1950 and 2000
coordinates with mechanical setting circles, though!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:32:28 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:07:03 -0500, RichA wrote:

I don't know. The idea of computers having replaced paper atlases is
somewhat true. At the last star party I was at (Sat.) there were more
laptops with star programs than there were people using paper.
However, Burham's is a sizable information source, with more than just
coordinates. The reason I liked Burnhams was that my first serious
scope (an 8" Celestron SCT) had setting circles big enough (if you
polar aligned properly) that they would make finding objects using
coordinates feasable, instead of having to do too much star hopping.
Thats why I liked it. Additionally, other books I've had in the field
have disintigrated once they got enough dew exposure. But, the
paper-bound Burnhams have been dewed up at least 50 times and have
suffered no harm, not even rinkled pages. Whatever they used to
publish it on and bind it was exceptional. So, IMO, as a field guide,
it is excellent.

I expect you would be hard pressed to distinguish between epoch 1950 and 2000
coordinates with mechanical setting circles, though!

No, the idea of changing the coordinates to update to now is just in
the general concept of updating the books.
-Rich

Chris L Peterson wrote:


I expect you would be hard pressed to distinguish between epoch 1950 and 2000
coordinates with mechanical setting circles, though!


50 years gives about 0.7 degrees along the ecliptic - so it might
just matter for great big setting circles. That fits with the
crude rule-of-appendage I heard long ago that precession gives
about an arcminute per year.

Bill Keel

I wouldn't approach it as a reworking, more like cleaning and
restoring an oil painting or fresco by an old master. The
things I'd do if I were to undertake the project:

1) Get the contents online, in XML form or some such. Use
multiple fonts, and perhaps color, in place of the typewriter
mono-font. Generate the document both in printed form and as
a set of web pages.

2) Update the coordinates to 2000+. This should be a farily
mechanical task except for a few of the high proper motion stars.
For the online version, it should be possible to do on-the-fly
recalculation of the coordinates for any desired epoch.

3) Update the PA, separation, and orbit diagrams for double stars.
A bigger task than (2), for sure.

4) Retain all of Burnham's wonderful prose. Update the physics,
etc. where necessary, using supplemental notes.

-Paul W.


On 14 Nov 2004 19:31:40 GMT, (Izar187) wrote:

My atlases live in my vehicle, so I actually haul them everywhere. They are
always in the field so to speak.
It's most of the field guides (like Burnham's) that I leave home. I take target
list coordinates to the field, and then look them up at the scope.

Reworking Burnham's......that's sacrilege!


john

----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

0.7 degrees of RA is enough to make the difference between an object
being inside or outside the field of view, when one positions to it
with DSCs.

-Paul W.

On 15 Nov 2004 08:03:58 -0500, "William C. Keel"
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:


I expect you would be hard pressed to distinguish between epoch 1950 and 2000
coordinates with mechanical setting circles, though!


50 years gives about 0.7 degrees along the ecliptic - so it might
just matter for great big setting circles. That fits with the
crude rule-of-appendage I heard long ago that precession gives
about an arcminute per year.

Bill Keel

----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.