Lost in Aquila (pass the DSCs)

Spent an hour or so fiddly about in Aquila last night, looking for the
mag 11 galaxy there (NGC ?) and the string of half a dozen planetary
nebula (NGC 6803, 6804 etc). All these objects are described as
visible in an 8" scope in John Stanford's excellent book Observing the
Constellations.

Transparaency wasn't great, and it was near the brighter Sydney side
of the sky, but I couldn't find any of these objects, admittedly not a
huge effort made on my part. Part of the problem was sky brightness
and a lack of good reference stars for close hoppping.

During a previous session in Centuarus I managed to find 3 galaxies
without too much trouble, so I'll claim the problem was not complete
ineptitude :-)

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

PS Part of the problem may have been the glare from Mars, which is
soooooooo high and bright at 35deg south :-)

Hello, Mark,
I like Sanford' book too. Very helpful.
I think DSC's are extremely helpful for urban and suburban observers
in particular, and also far dark skies unless you are quite skilled or are
looking for bright objects. They make a fine addition to a Dob, in my
view. Goto, and tracking I find less essential, more like pleasant
luxuries. but digital DSC's, sometimes called "push-to," make an enormous
difference in finding objects.
Bill Meyers

Mark Elkington wrote:

Spent an hour or so fiddly about in Aquila last night, looking for the
mag 11 galaxy there (NGC ?) and the string of half a dozen planetary
nebula (NGC 6803, 6804 etc). All these objects are described as
visible in an 8" scope in John Stanford's excellent book Observing the
Constellations.

Transparaency wasn't great, and it was near the brighter Sydney side
of the sky, but I couldn't find any of these objects, admittedly not a
huge effort made on my part. Part of the problem was sky brightness
and a lack of good reference stars for close hoppping.

During a previous session in Centuarus I managed to find 3 galaxies
without too much trouble, so I'll claim the problem was not complete
ineptitude :-)

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

PS Part of the problem may have been the glare from Mars, which is
soooooooo high and bright at 35deg south :-)

Hello, Mark,
I like Sanford' book too. Very helpful.
I think DSC's are extremely helpful for urban and suburban observers
in particular, and also far dark skies unless you are quite skilled or are
looking for bright objects. They make a fine addition to a Dob, in my
view. Goto, and tracking I find less essential, more like pleasant
luxuries. but digital DSC's, sometimes called "push-to," make an enormous
difference in finding objects.
Bill Meyers

Mark Elkington wrote:

Spent an hour or so fiddly about in Aquila last night, looking for the
mag 11 galaxy there (NGC ?) and the string of half a dozen planetary
nebula (NGC 6803, 6804 etc). All these objects are described as
visible in an 8" scope in John Stanford's excellent book Observing the
Constellations.

Transparaency wasn't great, and it was near the brighter Sydney side
of the sky, but I couldn't find any of these objects, admittedly not a
huge effort made on my part. Part of the problem was sky brightness
and a lack of good reference stars for close hoppping.

During a previous session in Centuarus I managed to find 3 galaxies
without too much trouble, so I'll claim the problem was not complete
ineptitude :-)

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

PS Part of the problem may have been the glare from Mars, which is
soooooooo high and bright at 35deg south :-)

A word more on Sanford's book: find the scale of the maps is too small to be
of much help in starhopping but he approximate locations of the deep sky
objects is readily apparent the yellow on black markings on the maps. His
lists of objects, combined with the mapped positions of these objects, make it
useful as a kind of expanded Volume 2 of the Steve Gottlieb's Deep Map 600
(marketed by Orion). Combined with DSC's to find the depicted and listed
objects, the result is a very good approach to observing, IMO.
Bill Meyers

Bill Meyers wrote:

Hello, Mark,
I like Sanford' book too. Very helpful.
I think DSC's are extremely helpful for urban and suburban observers
in particular, and also far dark skies unless you are quite skilled or are
looking for bright objects. They make a fine addition to a Dob, in my
view. Goto, and tracking I find less essential, more like pleasant
luxuries. but digital DSC's, sometimes called "push-to," make an enormous
difference in finding objects.
Bill Meyers

Mark Elkington wrote:

Spent an hour or so fiddly about in Aquila last night, looking for the
mag 11 galaxy there (NGC ?) and the string of half a dozen planetary
nebula (NGC 6803, 6804 etc). All these objects are described as
visible in an 8" scope in John Stanford's excellent book Observing the
Constellations.

Transparaency wasn't great, and it was near the brighter Sydney side
of the sky, but I couldn't find any of these objects, admittedly not a
huge effort made on my part. Part of the problem was sky brightness
and a lack of good reference stars for close hoppping.

During a previous session in Centuarus I managed to find 3 galaxies
without too much trouble, so I'll claim the problem was not complete
ineptitude :-)

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

PS Part of the problem may have been the glare from Mars, which is
soooooooo high and bright at 35deg south :-)

A word more on Sanford's book: find the scale of the maps is too small to be
of much help in starhopping but he approximate locations of the deep sky
objects is readily apparent the yellow on black markings on the maps. His
lists of objects, combined with the mapped positions of these objects, make it
useful as a kind of expanded Volume 2 of the Steve Gottlieb's Deep Map 600
(marketed by Orion). Combined with DSC's to find the depicted and listed
objects, the result is a very good approach to observing, IMO.
Bill Meyers

Bill Meyers wrote:

Hello, Mark,
I like Sanford' book too. Very helpful.
I think DSC's are extremely helpful for urban and suburban observers
in particular, and also far dark skies unless you are quite skilled or are
looking for bright objects. They make a fine addition to a Dob, in my
view. Goto, and tracking I find less essential, more like pleasant
luxuries. but digital DSC's, sometimes called "push-to," make an enormous
difference in finding objects.
Bill Meyers

Mark Elkington wrote:

Spent an hour or so fiddly about in Aquila last night, looking for the
mag 11 galaxy there (NGC ?) and the string of half a dozen planetary
nebula (NGC 6803, 6804 etc). All these objects are described as
visible in an 8" scope in John Stanford's excellent book Observing the
Constellations.

Transparaency wasn't great, and it was near the brighter Sydney side
of the sky, but I couldn't find any of these objects, admittedly not a
huge effort made on my part. Part of the problem was sky brightness
and a lack of good reference stars for close hoppping.

During a previous session in Centuarus I managed to find 3 galaxies
without too much trouble, so I'll claim the problem was not complete
ineptitude :-)

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

PS Part of the problem may have been the glare from Mars, which is
soooooooo high and bright at 35deg south :-)

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

Hang in there. I've seen nights that looked pretty transparent at first
glance, but behind a scope, even looking at the brightest "M" objects, I
might as well have been under a layer of sheetrock.
Marty

Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

Hang in there. I've seen nights that looked pretty transparent at first
glance, but behind a scope, even looking at the brightest "M" objects, I
might as well have been under a layer of sheetrock.
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

Hang in there. I've seen nights that looked pretty transparent at first
glance, but behind a scope, even looking at the brightest "M" objects, I
might as well have been under a layer of sheetrock.
Marty


So darned true, from Casper Wyoming, Marty.
I'll take steady seeing over transparency anytime; at least, that's what I'm
currently
claiming. ;^)

Best regards,
Bill

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Tips and suggestions welcome.

Mark

Hang in there. I've seen nights that looked pretty transparent at first
glance, but behind a scope, even looking at the brightest "M" objects, I
might as well have been under a layer of sheetrock.
Marty


So darned true, from Casper Wyoming, Marty.
I'll take steady seeing over transparency anytime; at least, that's what I'm
currently
claiming. ;^)

Best regards,
Bill

It would have been really nice to have definite way of knowing I was
looking in the right spot, then upping the mag to increase contrast
and maybe pick them out. I can see the appeal of DSCs. Do you want to
spend your time "looking for" or "looking at"? Both valid and fun,
IMO. Maybe I just need more aperture :-)


Or just more practice and experience. ;-)

I want results now! Instant coffee, lottery tickets, and DSOs!!!

/kidding

Mark