Cherokee #4 Pronto & Cygnus (Part II)

Pronto & Cygnus (Part II - Deep Sky)

Equipment Used

TV Pronto
Gibraltar Mount
24mm konig, Ultima barlow
Nigh****ch, Audbon book to the night sky

Summer Triangle (attempt #2)

Last time I observed I only found 2 stars in the summer triangle. Tony
Flanders suggested Aquila is still rather low in the sky at dusk. I
went out a bit later then usual and walked to the far western edge of
my backyard. I lay down on the grass and immediately found the summer
triangle. It looks like a large isosceles triangle and is unmistakable
once you know where to look. It consists of;

Altair : Aquila
Deneb: Cygnus
Vega: Lyra

The evening was another breathtaking dark and clear night. Stars were
bright and the constellation Cygnus was directly to the NE and shining
beautifully. I still see a giant cross and must remind myself "Swan".
I want to get it right if I ever have to explain it to an interested
neighbor.

Deep Sky Objects

M29:

This one turned out to be a tough one to identify. When I pointed the
Pronto at Gamma Cygnus, there are lots and lots of Stars! I mean,
bright stars, dim stars, colorful stars, double stars - what a sight!

I spent 10 minutes just panning around and enjoying the splendor of
such a dense scattering of stars. Finally I turned to the photographic
section of my Audobon Guide to the Sky and looked up M29. The picture
showed a small "X" shaped cluster of stars. With that in hand I
quickly found M29 and inserted the barlow. It is indeed an X shaped
small cluster of stars.

Cygnus Star Chain

Nigh****ch lists this as a "star chain, 2-degree arc". It is located
roughly halfway between Gamma and Eta Cygnus. I found it very easy to
find and I found it to be a pretty arc of stars. I also found a "U"
shaped arc of stars right below it.

M39

This was a hard to find cluster. There are no bright stars close to it
to use in locating M39. I ended up approximating the location of M39
using Deneb and Epsilon as markers in a "right triangle". I did find
it and it was a sprawling cluster inside of a triangle of stars.

NGC6940

I couldn't find this cluster. It's located as part of an imaginary
triangle between Epsilon and Beta Cygnus. If anyone can give me some
pointers here, I would be grateful.

NGC7000

I found nothing - zip - nada. All I saw in this area was open space
with some stars scattered about

NGC6992

Same as NGC7000 I didn't see anything.

This marked my first night in not finding some objects. I don't like
to leave loose ends and would like to go back and find these if you
fine folks can give me some hints.

peace,
Cherokee

NGC7000 I found nothing - zip - nada. All I saw in this area was open space
with some stars scattered about
NGC6992
Same as NGC7000 I didn't see anything.

These are extremely faint objects that require very dark skies to see,
so don't worry that you missed them. NGC 7000 is a low-surface
brightness object that is probably more easily seen with binoculars
that with a telescope (I'm not sure what size a "TV Pronto" is), but
only from a very dark location. I've never seen it with my 8" telescope
(nor with binoculars, for that matter).

NGC 6992 is definetly an object for telescopes, since the filaments of
nebulosity are narrow. It was a challenging object, though one
definetly seen, with my 8" telescope twenty years ago before light
pollution rendered it invisible from my observing site. I would guess
that it might be detectable in a 6" telescope under optimum observing
conditions.

Cherokee wrote:

M29:

This one turned out to be a tough one to identify. When I pointed the
Pronto at Gamma Cygnus, there are lots and lots of Stars!

There sure are! You stumbled on the Cygnus Star Cloud, the
brightest and richest part of the northern Milky Way.

NGC6940

I couldn't find this cluster.

Hmm. I wouldn't say this to most people who have been observing
for as little time as you have, but you need better charts. If
Nigh****ch has one flaw, it's the stars in those detailed charts.
All but the brightest are plotted just the same, making it really
hard to correlate the charts against what you actually see.

The detailed charts in the Audubon Guide have nice stars but
not enough deep-sky objects. You've already proved that you
have more enthusiasm than 90% of all people who set out to
do astronomy, so you owe it to yourself to buy a real star
atlas -- or maybe Orion's Deep Map 600. Or if your taste
runs that way, you can use planetarium software to plot
your own charts.

Oh yes -- and do you have binoculars? If not, run out and get
some; it'll be the best $50 you ever spend. It's always smart
to reconnoiter an area in binoculars before you start in with
a telescope.

Anyway, if you turn to the Cygnus chart in the Audubon Guide,
you'll find two stars labeled 39 and 41. They should both be
visible naked-eye, although 39 will be tough if you have lots
of light pollution. A line from 39 through 41, continued for
the same distance again, falls on NGC 6940. It's pretty bright
and easy to see.

NGC7000 and NGC 6992

These are *very* tough objects for beginners under any
circumstances, and they're pretty much impossible for
anybody under heavy light pollution.

The one thing that would make them relatively easy to see
is a nebula filter -- which costs serious money. But it is
a worthwhile investment. The Veil through an O-III filter
under dark skies is one of the finest sights in the heavens.

- Tony Flanders

wrote:

NGC 6992 is definetly an object for telescopes, since the filaments of
nebulosity are narrow.

NGC 6992 certainly looks most magnificent through a big scope.
But under moderately dark skies, it's quite obvious in my 10x50
binoculars.

The very nicest view I've ever had of the Veil as a whole was
through my little 4.5-inch f/4 reflector equipped with an O-III
filter. Not just the bright eastern arc (NGC 6992/6995) and
the slightly fainter western arc (NGC 6960), but also the
complex and subtle nebulosity in between were all visible in
a single field of view. The filter and eyepiece together cost
more than the scope, by the way.

- Tony Flanders

On 3 Aug 2005 08:08:53 -0700, wrote:

NGC6940

I couldn't find this cluster.

Anyway, if you turn to the Cygnus chart in the Audubon Guide,
you'll find two stars labeled 39 and 41. They should both be
visible naked-eye, although 39 will be tough if you have lots
of light pollution. A line from 39 through 41, continued for
the same distance again, falls on NGC 6940. It's pretty bright
and easy to see.

I would disagree. NGC 6940 is difficult to observe under light
polluted skies. Use a wide-field EP and look for a fuzzy cloud of
equal brightness stars about a half-degree in size.

NGC7000 and NGC 6992

These are *very* tough objects for beginners under any
circumstances, and they're pretty much impossible for
anybody under heavy light pollution.

In my experience, you need at least a mag 5.0 sky to observe NGC 6992
and 7000 -- and a filter is required. If you can find a darker sky,
say mag 5.5 or better, the amount of detail you can observe will
increase.

For NGC 7000, select an EP that has at least a 3 degree true field of
view. The easiest part of the nebula to visually observe is the Mexico
region and the dark region that corresponds to the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't expect much more than smudges of fuzzy light for either in a
70mm refractor unless you have a very dark sky.

The one thing that would make them relatively easy to see
is a nebula filter -- which costs serious money. But it is
a worthwhile investment. The Veil through an O-III filter
under dark skies is one of the finest sights in the heavens.

For a Pronto I think a UHC filter (or equivalent) would be a better
first investment as it yields a brighter image overall for such a
small aperture and works for more objects.

A UHC works great on both NGC 6992 and 7000 in a 100mm refractor. I
haven't personally tried one with a smaller refractor.

---
Michael McCulloch

Cherokee don't feel bad about not being able to detect those NGC's, you are
not the only one.. I recently got a XT8 from orion and I had the same
"problem". I was also using Nigh****ch, and telrad to help me find stuff, I
quicky learned to locate Vega, Deneb and Altair, Polaris too and all from
the big dipper. Anyhow, I have not had much luck finding the NGC's myself,
so it's sort of dissapoing. Anyhow, I'll try again tonight, hopefully it
will be as nice of a night as it was last night.

Allison,

I have a pair of 7x50 binoculars. I will try using them the next time
I'm out. I never guessed my binos could see something my scope
couldn't :}

peace,
Cherokee

Tony,

Thanks for the helpful post. Let me see if I understand you correctly;

1. I should get a detailed star atlas. A deep Map 600 is the
recommended book. Can you give me a quick hint where I can order one?
If it will assist me in hunting down these objects then I'll order one
up today.

2. I'll check the audubon guide for 39 & 41 and will follow the line.


3. Can you explain what an "O-III filter" is and how it works?

peace,
cherokee

Hi Zarkovic,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Boy, if you aren't finding them
with an XT8 my heart sinks that I won't be able to find them with my
Pronto. Perhaps a more detailed star map (per Tony's suggestion) will
help me.

peace,
Cherokee

I should get a detailed star atlas. A deep Map 600 is the recommended
book. Can you give me a quick hint where I can order one? If it will
assist me in hunting down these objects then I'll order one up today.
2. I'll check the audubon guide for 39 & 41 and will follow the line.
3. Can you explain what an "O-III filter" is and how it works?
peace,
cherokee
======================================

Hi Cherokee, Yes, some sort of decent Star Atlas is a must. After
awhile, folks learn generally where the brighter, more popular Deep Sky
Objects are.

The Sky Atlas I use, and many others do, but it's not a cheap Atlas, is
Wil Tirion's Sky Atlas 2000. Mine is the laminated large size desk
version with Black Stars on a White background, and if memory serves me
correctly, this Atlas set me back $90.00

There are less expensive versions, which are usually unlaminated. Some
laminate them themselves, and some draw in constellation lines
beforehand to aid in helping them be more familar.

An O-III filter is a Oxygen Filter, which is a specialized, very narrow
bandpass filter.

By this, it means that it rejects most wavelengths of light, and only
permits certain portions of the light spectrum to pass through it.
Typically with an O-III, it lets the light emitted by gaseous nebulae
through (such as the Veil Nebula), thus darkening the sky background,
sodium, and mercury vapor lamps emittance, and increases the contrast of
these objects by permitting the wavelengths of light these objects to
pass through the filter.

The problem is not so much with Zarkovic's scope that he cannot detect
certain dimmer objects, as an 8" reflector is large enough.

The problem is perhaps Zarkovic's somewhat lack of astro-experience,
that he never has personally seen these objects, and doesn't know what
to look for, and also, he may not be viewing under really dark sky
conditions.

Zarkovic could own a 25" Obsession Reflector, but if he lived in the
heart of the city of Chicago for instance, even with all the aperture in
the world, he will not see much of the dimmer objects listed in the NCG
Catalog. Mark