Reflections from Coe: Looking In The Mirror Again...

We arrived at Henry Coe State Park to find Peter and Tony in the lot. The sky
had high clouds to the west, over the coastal range and out to the Pacific. It
was shirtsleeve temps. Toward and through sunset we had a wonderful display -
light rays looking like a large crown above a bank of clouds that hid the sun.
This continued through sunset, when reds and golds underlit thinner clouds that
spread across the bay - a really outstanding light show - finishing with a short
deep red solar pillar standing out clearly. Nature is the greatest artist.

There was enough dew early on to wet the seat on my observing chair, but that's
always the first thing to dew up. I heard a comment about a scope being wet,
but I never noticed it on mine. I had my 18" f/4.5 Obsession, as did Richard
set up next to me. As the sky darkened we began doing bright double stars - as
a prelude to a varied observing list I put together. Other observers there
were Peter with his 18" Starmaster, Bob with a 12.5" Portaball, Alan and a Meade
12.5" Lightbridge (is that right?), Tony - who may have had a big dob, and Chris
(who I'm tempted to nickname Houdini after seeing him compress into the back of
a small Audi sports coupe to nap) with a TeleVue NP101.

There were very few visitors. A woman who looked familiar appeared in the
distance from the path to the park headquarters and watched late sunset by the
entry gate, then disappeared again. As dark fell a couple women were looking
through Tony's scope for a while.

First split was of Izar, as the constellations were starting to show. Easy split
with the 12 and 7 Nagler. Didn't take notes on it, but it was such a sharp and
clean split I thought "what's a challenge?"

Once it got dark some yahoos in two vehicles drove into the lot, lights blazing,
until they were shouted at to turn them off - they were out joyriding, not
knowing where they were, and politely left. Peter closed the gate after them.
We had already begun observing.

I pointed the scope south to Antares. In went the 7 Nagler - at 294X there was
a no doubt about it clean split. The companion was in the glare of Antares, but
watching carefully easily showed "The Green Pea". Antares color was great - a
brilliant yellow-orange.

I could hear others mentioning the outstanding seeing.... and this bode well,
as my list had several good doubles.

The list ran from highest to lowest declination, and began with the double Beta
Cephei (8 Ceph, mag 3.23 at RA: 21h 28m 39.60s Dec: +70°33'38.5"). This was an
easy split at low power (20 Nagler = 103X).

We moved to the middle of the box of Cepheus to Xi (17 Ceph, mag 4.26 at RA: 22h
03m 47.45s Dec: +64°37'40.7"). Similar PA as Beta Ceph - closer - brighter is
yellow/white, dimmer gold.

Next was the nice same field pair, NGC 6939 (mag 7.8 at RA: 20h 31m 24s Dec:
+60°38") and NGC 6946 (mag 8.9 at RA: 20h 31m 24s Dec: +60°38'). While there
was more detail in the bigger scopes, the nicest view may have been in Chris'
NP101, where both objects were framed nicely in the wide field. I observed them
with the 20 Nagler. 6939 is a a nice large open, many stars with 3 chains
hanging off the S to SSW, tight knot of stars to the east of center. 6946 is
large, as big as open, has a brightened tight core, arms curling
counterclockwise - the arms are to E and W. This galaxy is current the record
holder for most supernovae.

It was a short hop to Mu Cephei. Known as Herschel's Garnet Star (mag 4.23 at
RA: 21h 43m 30.46s Dec: +58°46'48") - Very deep orange - highlight red star
compared to others I'd observe during the night. The description "ruddy" orange
applies.

W Cygni is a nice red star at nearly mag 6 (RA: 21h 36m 02.50s Dec:
+45°22'28.53"), located very close to mag 5 Rho Cygni. W is coppery or dried
blood red.

61 Cygni (mags 5.2 and 6.0, RA: 21h 06m 53.9s Dec: +38°44'57.9") is a famous
double with nice cream and gold colors. This double has a large proper motion,
which drew attention to it early on, and it became the second star after the sun
to have its distance measured (via parallax).

We had periods of clouds coming through. At one point, looking toward
Sagittarius and along the Milky Way, a cloud band seemed to merge with it, along
its length, and it was difficult to tell the earthly clouds from the band of the
galaxy.

M29 was the next target. This is to me the least impressive of the Messier
catalog, aside from the double star and asterism. Easy to locate (mag 6.6 at
RA: 20h 23m 54s Dec: +38°32') near Gamma Cygni, this open cluster is a pair of
chains in slight arcs bowing away from each other running generally E/W. There
are many dim components in between - Northern arc (each arc is 3 stars) has two
more stars off NW end.

Lamda Cygni (54 Cygni at RA: 20h 47m 24.54s Dec: +36°29'26.58") is a tight
double, with a 0.9' separation - a very tight split. Used a 2x barlow and 7mm
for 588X, giving a clean split. Bright component mag 4.8 to the north, dimmer
mag 6.1 is southern star. This double is very easy to find with the unaided eye.
Interesting that The Sky does not show it as a double.

We knew the seeing was good, but going after a galaxy trio off Miles Paul's list
would test the transparency. NGC 7273, NGC 7274 and NGC 7276 are in Lacerta
just east of 1 Lacertae. NGC 7274 (RA: 22h 24m 11s Dec: +36°07'32") was the
brightest at mag 13.3. Three galaxies in a line running n/s, southern two closer
together but not much - middle is brightest, two others about equal mag. S one
is very close to a dim star. Middle has bright core.

V 460 Cygni is on the red star list. I found it unimpressive, but it has color
- lightly tinted - more yellow than red. Its a little tougher to find, but
helped that it is one of three naked eye stars in a slight arc ranging from mag
6 to 6.5.

Next we viewed the Veil Nebula and its finder/double star 52 Cygni. The Veil was
showing very well - the NGC 6960 western section at 171X using a 12 Nagler and
OIII filter was outstanding - the thin section looking like a glowing tube - or
like a high power microscopic view of cilia on plankton. 52 Cygni is a close
double with wide mag difference. Bright yellow and dim green. Dimmer is to
EENE of primary. Nice color contrast. The NGC 6979 section of the Veil was
very billowy compared to Witch's Broom side, long, outstanding detail in
Waterfall area, which is brighter - down toward other end as it gradually dims.

NGC 6934 is a good globular off the tail of Delphinus (mag 8.9, RA: 20h 34m 12s
Dec: +07°24'). Very nice at 294X. 3 density zones with a bright core overlayed
by many of the brightest stars in the cluster. Seems elongated NS but also seems
to have spikes to E and W.

Mu Cygni (78 Cygni, mag 4.5 and 4.8, RA: 21h 44m 08.59s Dec: +28°44'33.48").
Good clean split at 294X, sitting NW/SE with brighter to SE. Brighter is
yellow/white and dimmer gold yellow. Easy location on border with Pegasus.

Back toward the Veil, but in Vulpecula, is open cluster NGC 6940 (mag 6.3 at RA:
20h 34m 36.s Dec: +28°18') is a treat. Large filling the field of both 20
Nagler and pretty much in 35 Panoptic. Many bright members throughout - a
greatly overlooked cluster - better than many Messier opens - nice red star in
denser southern half. Easy location.

It was now past 2 a.m. and the sky was dark. Fog lay in all the valleys and the
light dome over San Jose was muting down. A few observers had left, I think one
was sleeping in his truck, and four of us remained at our telescopes. This was
probably the best observing of the night, aside from the great steadiness we
enjoyed earlier. Now the breeze picked up a bit, making us work harder on tight
doubles But the increased dark was what we needed for some of the dim galaxies
we'd go after.... I hadn't observed like this at Coe in about two years,
energized, engrossed.

Gamma Delphinus is the nose of the dolphin.... a very easy target. Its a clean
split at 103X with yellow white primary E of yellow green slightly dimmer
companion. Nice double.

South of Gamma is the galaxy trio NGC 6956, UGC 11620 and UGC 11623. The NGC is
the brightest (mag 14 at RA: 20h 44m 0s Dec: +12°31'). In almost an
equilateral triangle. Brightest is round with two dimmer ones both elongated
NE/SW. Dimmer galaxies stood out with 12 Nagler, difficult in the 20 Nagler.

Moving off the tail of the dolphin, back toward the globular, is the galaxy trio
of NGC 6927, NGC 6928 and NGC 6930. This is from the Miles Paul Atlas, which
mistakenly has NGC 6929 instead of NGC 6930. The brightest is NGC 6928 (mag
13.5, RA: 20h 32m 51.0s Dec: +09°55'49"). All three are elongated - nice view
- 6928 brightest and at E/W cant, 6930 also obvious, 6927 difficult but can be
held averted - two dimmer at N/S elongation.

We also viewed six galaxies in one tight field in Aquarius. NGC 6962 is the
brightest (mag 12, RA: 20h 47m 18s Dec: +00°19'). I used the 7 Nagler at 293X
to bring out the dimmer components. NGC 6963 is the challenge in the group at
mag 14.7. Peter had a very nice view of this group.

It was now late, after 3 a.m. We looked at Zeta Aquarii - a tight double star
with almost identical colors and magnitude (mags 3.3 and 3.4, RA: 22h 28m 49.9s
Dec: -00°01'11.9"). It is the center of the "Mercedes Symbol" in Aquarius.
White yellow / green yellow NW/SE nice clean split and beautiful with 7 Nagler.

Our last object of the night was Hickson 88 in Aquarius - NGC 6975, NGC 6976,
NGC 6977 and NGC 6978. NGC 6978 is the brightest (mag 13.3 at RA: 20h 52m 36.s
Dec: -05°43'). NGC 6975, 76 and 77 In a line. 6978 brightest, 77 slightly
larger, 76 further away and dimmest. Did not find nearby NGC 6975.

I got into my truck, onto a tri-fold futon for the night. I've ended many great
nights at Coe this way.

In the morning, the fog was still low over the valleys. To the east fog was
higher, lapping at the ridges dividing us from the Central Valley. I packed up
and headed down the mountain. Nearing the freeway I found myself looking in the
rear view mirror, reflecting back to the night, and smiled.

Mirrors can sure show us a lot!

--
- - - Lumpy Darkness - - -

I enjoyed that, Lumpy. I have an 8" sct and I stopped going to Coe
because several years ago the site was "discovered" as an alternate to
Fremont Peak, which apparently became unfriendly to telescope users way
back then. After I read that on the local message boards I never went
back. The last time I drove up there from Morgan Hill there were only
two people all night and it was a peaceful place. One person had a
motorized noisy telescope and the other person I talked to had a
reflector scope from Orion. I remember that night well. That day
displayed a really peculiar sunset over the distant Santa Cruz
Mountains.

I enjoyed reading your observing report for that evening.

On 1 Aug 2006 20:01:50 -0700, wrote:

I have an 8" sct and I stopped going to Coe because several years ago the site was "discovered" as an alternate to Fremont Peak, which apparently became unfriendly to telescope users way
back then.

Yes, that was several years ago. The Peak has a group of observers that put up
with the (unnecessarily) stingent rules. There's a group that goes to Coe,
others that go to Montebello Open Space Preserve, some who go to Coyote Lake
County Park. The old group from Fremont Peak spread out.

The last time I drove up there from Morgan Hill there were only two people all night and it was a peaceful place.

It still is peaceful.


One person had a motorized noisy telescope

The only noisy scope last weekend was Peter's 18". We call it the Singin
Starmaster... whenever it slews, it sounds musical. But it is not a bother like
the coffee-grinder sounds the Meade LX-200's used to make!

I enjoyed reading your observing report for that evening.

Thanks. It was a surprisngly good night!

---
Lumpy Darkness

Nice report. I observed at Coe once, about 8 or 9 years ago, in March,
after a particularly useless winter in the foothills. But the glare
from San Jose just allowed viweing to the north - I recall observing a
multitude of galaxies in Ursa Major - but most of the sky was unusable
because of the San Jose light.

Clears,
Shneor

On 5 Aug 2006 15:53:58 -0700, "Shneor" wrote:

Nice report. I observed at Coe once, about 8 or 9 years ago, in March,
after a particularly useless winter in the foothills. But the glare
from San Jose just allowed viweing to the north

That must have been a very odd night, as San Jose is generally to the northwest
from Coe, and there is minimal light intrusion from the southeast and east.
Other lesser light sources are Morgan Hill and Gilroy to the west and southwest.
However, when the marine layer pshes in from the ocean, and blankets the
valleys, and San Jose (Santa Clara Valley), Coe can be as dark any good
observing site. Although you will get disagreement on this, it is the equal of
Fremont Peak. And, for those of us stuck in the south San Francisco bay area,
Coe is the closest "dark" site we have. FYI, I've observed the Herschel catalog
primarily from there, so it can't be that bad very often, you just got a bad
night, and one in which the glare apparently changed direction! ;-)

Hi,

That's a very nice observing report. But to tell you the truth it sort
of left me cold because I don't know who you are. Why not sign your
real name? You know exactly who I am... doesn't seem fair.

I feel that the use of aliases on SAA has led to a loss of community
here (what little there was buried in the noise in the first place).
Anybody else agree? If so, please consider signing your posts with a
real name.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

I feel that the use of aliases on SAA has led to a loss of community
here (what little there was buried in the noise in the first place).
Anybody else agree? If so, please consider signing your posts with a
real name.

I disagree!

From what I've noticed the two most outspoken exponents for posting
with a real name (and against posting with an alias) include in their
signature either a book or software from which they stand to make
financial gain. Furthermore, one or the other of these individuals
will occasionally respond to known trolls and/or off-topic postings
for no apparent reason (unless it's to further propagate the
advertisements contained within their signatures).

If you're not selling something or looking for handouts there's little
reason to provide a true identity or personal contact information with
your postings. The argument that one can tell the worth of a posting
by whether or not an alias is used is totally bogus.

A person's real name, by itself, has no greater significance than a
made up alias. It's only when that name is used to search for a
physical address, phone number or other personal information that it
gains a greater significance.

These occasional postings advocating the use of real names may (or may
not) in reality be efforts to gain names with which to do searches for
more critical personal information. It raises an even larger red flag
when the request comes from someone with something to sell.

Willie R. Meghar

Willie R. Meghar wrote:
From what I've noticed the two most outspoken exponents for posting
with a real name (and against posting with an alias) include in their
signature either a book or software from which they stand to make
financial gain. Furthermore, one or the other of these individuals
will occasionally respond to known trolls and/or off-topic postings
for no apparent reason (unless it's to further propagate the
advertisements contained within their signatures).

If you're not selling something or looking for handouts there's little
reason to provide a true identity or personal contact information with
your postings. The argument that one can tell the worth of a posting
by whether or not an alias is used is totally bogus.

A person's real name, by itself, has no greater significance than a
made up alias. It's only when that name is used to search for a
physical address, phone number or other personal information that it
gains a greater significance.

These occasional postings advocating the use of real names may (or may
not) in reality be efforts to gain names with which to do searches for
more critical personal information. It raises an even larger red flag
when the request comes from someone with something to sell.

I think you're being a bit hard on Greg. He does sell a product, but as
far as I can tell, he doesn't come here to sell it. And I certainly do
not think he's harvesting names! He's been here for several years, and
if he were harvesting names, I think we'd all have heard about it by
now.

There is value in seeing a real name, but I don't think it's the fact
that's the real name; it's the fact that it's permanent. I have no real
clue as to whether any of the folks that go by the names Rod Mollise,
Greg Crinklaw, Stephen Paul, or whoever--whether those are really their
names. It doesn't matter, as far as SAA is concerned. What I do know
is that I know what to expect out of the posts their names are attached
to. That, in my opinion, is the value of using a real name. One could
do the same thing with a pseudonym like Lumpy Darkness, who I know has
been posting to SAA, off and on, for a long time indeed. I know what
kind of posts he produces (and for the record, I like them), and that's
what matters here.

I seem to recall that you're using a pseudonym yourself, and that might
be why you take umbrage at Greg's rationale for his request, but I also
read your posts, because I know that posts with the "Willie Meghar"
stamp are generally full of useful content.

So, although I disagree with Greg on a matter of principle--that it's
the reality of names that make a post meaningful, rather than their
constancy--I will be an equal-opportunity disagreer g and say that I
can't believe Greg has a nefarious purpose in mind in pushing for the
use of real names. It simply does not accord with what I know of him
from his posts.

--
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.html

Willie R. Meghar wrote:

A typical stupid senseless boring and childish troll by someone using an
alias who clearly has absolutely no real life whatsoever...

Thanks for making my point (even if it was done ironically).

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Harald Lang wrote:
However, "Lumpy" used to write here under his real name, then he
started use this pseudonym, so it isn't really "permanent".

It's permanent enough to mentally attach a posting profile to, though.

Cheers -- Harald

Speaking of permanent, Harald: How are you? Didn't know you were
lurking about. Should I post something geometrical to induce you to
start posting again?

--
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.html