ASTRO: IC 1262 Group

IC 1262 anchors a small cluster of galaxies. I've mentioned before I
sometimes get requests, this one came from Sakib Rasool, a name I'm
mentioning a lot of late. Not often do these make it onto my to-do list
but his one did since the cluster contains the rather wacky galaxy IC
1263 to its north. As is obvious, I have a penchant for these. Maybe
it's because my ham call sign, given me in sequence by the FCC 49 years
ago, is WA0CKY (third character is a zero so my dad said the FCC knew I
was a wacky nothing -- he was joking, I think). This field is located in
Hercules not far from M92. The cluster is anchored by the elliptical cD
galaxy IC 1262. Redshift puts it at about 440 million light-years from
us. Though the distance to various members varies quite a bit due to
rather high orbital motions of the cluster members. The cluster goes by
many names, IC 1262 group, Zwicky 8239, WBL 643 and many others. Of
course the one I was told was Zwicky 8239 which isn't recognized by NED.
Fortunately Simbad did know of it. We have created quite a tower of
Babel with these many catalog names for the same object, often with
slightly different positions due to which galaxies they include and
exclude.

IC 1263 is classed as SBab. I'd have expected a ring designation but
apparently not. A note at NED indicates it may be interacting with IC
1262. I see no sign of any distortion to IC 1262 so rather doubt this
connection. Red shift puts it at 391 million light-years. A rather
large difference for interacting galaxies. If they really are at about
the same distance (or were), the interaction would have been very brief
due to the velocity difference. Still IC 1263 is a very interesting
looking galaxy.

Cut off at the bottom of the image is IC 1264. NED classes it as E/S0.
It seems to have a plume or weak spiral arm. Is that due to the small
companion to its east northeast? The two share the same UGC number,
10904 but this happens with totally unrelated galaxies all the time and
is meaningless. They do have somewhat similar redshifts.

The annotated image shows the distances to all galaxies for which they
are available, that's nearly all of them listed in NED. Most without
distance measurements are not in NED. Most that are, are in the 2MASX
IR catalog though a few are from other more obscure catalogs. Those few
from somewhat major catalogs are listed by that identification. Those
from the 2MASX and other lesser known ones like the Galaxy Index Number
and NOAO Fundamental Plane (NFP) that use only location as the
designation are shown by redshift look back distance only.

As usual some blue galaxies are totally omitted. I marked the brightest
with a question mark. Really blue galaxies often meet this fate. I
still don't know why. Several others are very obvious in the image. I
can understand they often don't have strong enough IR emissions to make
the 2MASX which constitutes the majority of identified galaxies but I'd
think some of the other catalogs would pick them up. They must not meet
their entrance requirements.

All measured galaxies seem to be members of the NGC 1262 group. Many of
the rest likely are as well. Some though are likely far more distant.
The distant ones are likely the most reddened ones but that can be
deceiving.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
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 made a typo in the annotated image. This is the corrected annotated
image.

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:50:32 -0500, Rick Johnson
wrote:

I made a typo in the annotated image. This is the corrected annotated
image.

Rick

I realize the purpose here is Deep Sky Objects but I just wanted to
say I like that little "string" of four stars - each a different color
down in the lower right, just to the 3 o'clock of the G 0.45 you
tagged down there. Just chance I suppose but nice. True colors
or did you process somehow?

- Andrew

On 8/10/2011 12:16 PM, Andrew wrote:
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:50:32 -0500, Rick
wrote:

I made a typo in the annotated image. This is the corrected annotated
image.

Rick

I realize the purpose here is Deep Sky Objects but I just wanted to
say I like that little "string" of four stars - each a different color
down in the lower right, just to the 3 o'clock of the G 0.45 you
tagged down there. Just chance I suppose but nice. True colors
or did you process somehow?

- Andrew

That's just the way we see them from our spot in the Universe. They are
likely completely unrelated to each other. Colors are as close to
"real" as I can make them. Hot stars are blue, cool stars quite red
though our eyes see even the reddest as rather a deep orange color.
They vary in temperature and likely in distance and true brightness. As
seen from say Deneb they could very well be on opposites sides of the
sky from each other. There are many such stellar "cascades" in the sky.
Link to Kemble's Cascade http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100128.html

Guess you found Andrew's Cascade.

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Rick,

IC 1263 is a real beauty among distorted galaxies. Although drawn from it's
original form it still looks like it "should be" as it is now...

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.com...
IC 1262 anchors a small cluster of galaxies. I've mentioned before I
sometimes get requests, this one came from Sakib Rasool, a name I'm
mentioning a lot of late. Not often do these make it onto my to-do list
but his one did since the cluster contains the rather wacky galaxy IC
1263 to its north. As is obvious, I have a penchant for these. Maybe
it's because my ham call sign, given me in sequence by the FCC 49 years
ago, is WA0CKY (third character is a zero so my dad said the FCC knew I
was a wacky nothing -- he was joking, I think). This field is located in
Hercules not far from M92. The cluster is anchored by the elliptical cD
galaxy IC 1262. Redshift puts it at about 440 million light-years from
us. Though the distance to various members varies quite a bit due to
rather high orbital motions of the cluster members. The cluster goes by
many names, IC 1262 group, Zwicky 8239, WBL 643 and many others. Of
course the one I was told was Zwicky 8239 which isn't recognized by NED.
Fortunately Simbad did know of it. We have created quite a tower of
Babel with these many catalog names for the same object, often with
slightly different positions due to which galaxies they include and
exclude.

IC 1263 is classed as SBab. I'd have expected a ring designation but
apparently not. A note at NED indicates it may be interacting with IC
1262. I see no sign of any distortion to IC 1262 so rather doubt this
connection. Red shift puts it at 391 million light-years. A rather
large difference for interacting galaxies. If they really are at about
the same distance (or were), the interaction would have been very brief
due to the velocity difference. Still IC 1263 is a very interesting
looking galaxy.

Cut off at the bottom of the image is IC 1264. NED classes it as E/S0.
It seems to have a plume or weak spiral arm. Is that due to the small
companion to its east northeast? The two share the same UGC number,
10904 but this happens with totally unrelated galaxies all the time and
is meaningless. They do have somewhat similar redshifts.

The annotated image shows the distances to all galaxies for which they
are available, that's nearly all of them listed in NED. Most without
distance measurements are not in NED. Most that are, are in the 2MASX
IR catalog though a few are from other more obscure catalogs. Those few
from somewhat major catalogs are listed by that identification. Those
from the 2MASX and other lesser known ones like the Galaxy Index Number
and NOAO Fundamental Plane (NFP) that use only location as the
designation are shown by redshift look back distance only.

As usual some blue galaxies are totally omitted. I marked the brightest
with a question mark. Really blue galaxies often meet this fate. I
still don't know why. Several others are very obvious in the image. I
can understand they often don't have strong enough IR emissions to make
the 2MASX which constitutes the majority of identified galaxies but I'd
think some of the other catalogs would pick them up. They must not meet
their entrance requirements.

All measured galaxies seem to be members of the NGC 1262 group. Many of
the rest likely are as well. Some though are likely far more distant.
The distant ones are likely the most reddened ones but that can be
deceiving.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:13:18 -0500, Rick Johnson
wrote:

On 8/10/2011 12:16 PM, Andrew wrote:
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:50:32 -0500, Rick
wrote:

I made a typo in the annotated image. This is the corrected annotated
image.

Rick

I realize the purpose here is Deep Sky Objects but I just wanted to
say I like that little "string" of four stars - each a different color
down in the lower right, just to the 3 o'clock of the G 0.45 you
tagged down there. Just chance I suppose but nice. True colors
or did you process somehow?

- Andrew

That's just the way we see them from our spot in the Universe. They are
likely completely unrelated to each other. Colors are as close to
"real" as I can make them. Hot stars are blue, cool stars quite red
though our eyes see even the reddest as rather a deep orange color.
They vary in temperature and likely in distance and true brightness. As
seen from say Deneb they could very well be on opposites sides of the
sky from each other. There are many such stellar "cascades" in the sky.
Link to Kemble's Cascade http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100128.html

Guess you found Andrew's Cascade.

Rick

LOL.

Thanks again another great link.
You guys post the best wallpaper in town - for free.

- Andrew