ASTRO: NGC 7008

The same nights of super seeing that I imaged the gravitational arcs
created by Abell 2218 I also imaged this guy. When the galaxy cluster
got too low and into poor seeing this planetary was within an hour of
the meridian and rising so I'd finish with it. Again, first night was
really good, second fair and third lousy (still far better than normal).

Of the 9 lum frames I used only 3 from the first night and one (last)
from the second. Using all 9 did reduce noise but cost a lot of
resolution. I decided the noise was a small penalty for far greater
resolution.

Like the cluster, I imaged this one at 0.5" per pixel and it was quite
sharp and clear at that resolution as you can see. Much tighter stars
than I usually get at 1" per pixel in fact. I'm quite happy with how it
turned out but always wonder what it must be like for those lucky enough
to have this seeing on a regular basis rather than once every 3 years.

This is a crop of the full image and displayed at the same 0.5" per
pixel it was taken at. Not much out there to see in the full frame as
the dust in this part of Cygnus seems to be blocking the light of the
faint fuzzies I normally pick up. Also I didn't dig as deep into the
noise as I had to for the cluster which makes for much tighter stars
than I ended up with in the cluster shot. I had no need to go nearly as
deep in this shot.

Visually the central star in this one is rather bright. Brighter in
relation to the nebula than in post planetaries. But the two bright
stars to the south east really made viewing it difficult when I did the
Herschel 400 back in the early 80's according to my notes.

You may notice the stars on the far left are a bit out of focus. A set
screw holding the camera square to the film plane had worked loose. Due
to my poor seeing I'd not noticed it before or maybe it just happened.
Seems some gremlin has to strike. Least this one didn't bother the object.

14" LX 200R @ f/10, L=4x20' binned 1x1, L=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

that's an awesome image Rick

I've been meaning to image this object for years. I may do it sometime soon

Yours looks great


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
. com...
The same nights of super seeing that I imaged the gravitational arcs
created by Abell 2218 I also imaged this guy. When the galaxy cluster
got too low and into poor seeing this planetary was within an hour of
the meridian and rising so I'd finish with it. Again, first night was
really good, second fair and third lousy (still far better than normal).

Of the 9 lum frames I used only 3 from the first night and one (last)
from the second. Using all 9 did reduce noise but cost a lot of
resolution. I decided the noise was a small penalty for far greater
resolution.

Like the cluster, I imaged this one at 0.5" per pixel and it was quite
sharp and clear at that resolution as you can see. Much tighter stars
than I usually get at 1" per pixel in fact. I'm quite happy with how it
turned out but always wonder what it must be like for those lucky enough
to have this seeing on a regular basis rather than once every 3 years.

This is a crop of the full image and displayed at the same 0.5" per
pixel it was taken at. Not much out there to see in the full frame as
the dust in this part of Cygnus seems to be blocking the light of the
faint fuzzies I normally pick up. Also I didn't dig as deep into the
noise as I had to for the cluster which makes for much tighter stars
than I ended up with in the cluster shot. I had no need to go nearly as
deep in this shot.

Visually the central star in this one is rather bright. Brighter in
relation to the nebula than in post planetaries. But the two bright
stars to the south east really made viewing it difficult when I did the
Herschel 400 back in the early 80's according to my notes.

You may notice the stars on the far left are a bit out of focus. A set
screw holding the camera square to the film plane had worked loose. Due
to my poor seeing I'd not noticed it before or maybe it just happened.
Seems some gremlin has to strike. Least this one didn't bother the
object.

14" LX 200R @ f/10, L=4x20' binned 1x1, L=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

That is a weird looking one, nice job Rick!


John N. Gretchen III
http://www.tisd.net/~jng3

Rick, I just saw the picture on spacebanter.com. Detail is really
outstanding, I always thought that there is no small-scale detail in NGC
7008.

Stefan


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
. com...
The same nights of super seeing that I imaged the gravitational arcs
created by Abell 2218 I also imaged this guy. When the galaxy cluster
got too low and into poor seeing this planetary was within an hour of
the meridian and rising so I'd finish with it. Again, first night was
really good, second fair and third lousy (still far better than normal).

Of the 9 lum frames I used only 3 from the first night and one (last)
from the second. Using all 9 did reduce noise but cost a lot of
resolution. I decided the noise was a small penalty for far greater
resolution.

Like the cluster, I imaged this one at 0.5" per pixel and it was quite
sharp and clear at that resolution as you can see. Much tighter stars
than I usually get at 1" per pixel in fact. I'm quite happy with how it
turned out but always wonder what it must be like for those lucky enough
to have this seeing on a regular basis rather than once every 3 years.

This is a crop of the full image and displayed at the same 0.5" per
pixel it was taken at. Not much out there to see in the full frame as
the dust in this part of Cygnus seems to be blocking the light of the
faint fuzzies I normally pick up. Also I didn't dig as deep into the
noise as I had to for the cluster which makes for much tighter stars
than I ended up with in the cluster shot. I had no need to go nearly as
deep in this shot.

Visually the central star in this one is rather bright. Brighter in
relation to the nebula than in post planetaries. But the two bright
stars to the south east really made viewing it difficult when I did the
Herschel 400 back in the early 80's according to my notes.

You may notice the stars on the far left are a bit out of focus. A set
screw holding the camera square to the film plane had worked loose. Due
to my poor seeing I'd not noticed it before or maybe it just happened.
Seems some gremlin has to strike. Least this one didn't bother the
object.

14" LX 200R @ f/10, L=4x20' binned 1x1, L=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Originally Posted by Rick Johnson[_2_]

The same nights of super seeing that I imaged the gravitational arcs
created by Abell 2218 I also imaged this guy. When the galaxy cluster
got too low and into poor seeing this planetary was within an hour of
the meridian and rising so I'd finish with it. Again, first night was
really good, second fair and third lousy (still far better than normal).

Of the 9 lum frames I used only 3 from the first night and one (last)
from the second. Using all 9 did reduce noise but cost a lot of
resolution. I decided the noise was a small penalty for far greater
resolution.

Like the cluster, I imaged this one at 0.5" per pixel and it was quite
sharp and clear at that resolution as you can see. Much tighter stars
than I usually get at 1" per pixel in fact. I'm quite happy with how it
turned out but always wonder what it must be like for those lucky enough
to have this seeing on a regular basis rather than once every 3 years.

This is a crop of the full image and displayed at the same 0.5" per
pixel it was taken at. Not much out there to see in the full frame as
the dust in this part of Cygnus seems to be blocking the light of the
faint fuzzies I normally pick up. Also I didn't dig as deep into the
noise as I had to for the cluster which makes for much tighter stars
than I ended up with in the cluster shot. I had no need to go nearly as
deep in this shot.

Visually the central star in this one is rather bright. Brighter in
relation to the nebula than in post planetaries. But the two bright
stars to the south east really made viewing it difficult when I did the
Herschel 400 back in the early 80's according to my notes.

You may notice the stars on the far left are a bit out of focus. A set
screw holding the camera square to the film plane had worked loose. Due
to my poor seeing I'd not noticed it before or maybe it just happened.
Seems some gremlin has to strike. Least this one didn't bother the object.

14" LX 200R @ f/10, L=4x20' binned 1x1, L=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

I'll second Richard's assessment. Awesome, Rick.

When you get seeing like those two nights it's amazing what detail pops
out. I had 1.2 to 1.5 FWHM on the stars compared to my norm 3" to 3.5".
Twice before I'd tried this and saw mostly a blob. Oddly the color
difference was stronger in those attempts. Not sure why the difference.

Right now I'm getting some really nasty smoke from the California fires.
It kills transparency but does make for some good seeing. Fighting
clouds however. I tried one more object at 0.5" but can't get color
except at 1.5" which is a bit too low as clouds have moved in. I'd like
a few more frames at 1x1 as well. Nice to have the seeing thanks to the
smoke but weather is a pain to deal with when you need 4x the exposure
as at 1" pixels.

Rick


Stefan Lilge wrote:
Rick, I just saw the picture on spacebanter.com. Detail is really
outstanding, I always thought that there is no small-scale detail in NGC
7008.

Stefan


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
r.com...

The same nights of super seeing that I imaged the gravitational arcs
created by Abell 2218 I also imaged this guy. When the galaxy cluster
got too low and into poor seeing this planetary was within an hour of
the meridian and rising so I'd finish with it. Again, first night was
really good, second fair and third lousy (still far better than normal).

Of the 9 lum frames I used only 3 from the first night and one (last)
from the second. Using all 9 did reduce noise but cost a lot of
resolution. I decided the noise was a small penalty for far greater
resolution.

Like the cluster, I imaged this one at 0.5" per pixel and it was quite
sharp and clear at that resolution as you can see. Much tighter stars
than I usually get at 1" per pixel in fact. I'm quite happy with how it
turned out but always wonder what it must be like for those lucky enough
to have this seeing on a regular basis rather than once every 3 years.

This is a crop of the full image and displayed at the same 0.5" per
pixel it was taken at. Not much out there to see in the full frame as
the dust in this part of Cygnus seems to be blocking the light of the
faint fuzzies I normally pick up. Also I didn't dig as deep into the
noise as I had to for the cluster which makes for much tighter stars
than I ended up with in the cluster shot. I had no need to go nearly as
deep in this shot.

Visually the central star in this one is rather bright. Brighter in
relation to the nebula than in post planetaries. But the two bright
stars to the south east really made viewing it difficult when I did the
Herschel 400 back in the early 80's according to my notes.

You may notice the stars on the far left are a bit out of focus. A set
screw holding the camera square to the film plane had worked loose. Due
to my poor seeing I'd not noticed it before or maybe it just happened.
Seems some gremlin has to strike. Least this one didn't bother the
object.

14" LX 200R @ f/10, L=4x20' binned 1x1, L=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".