Jump to content


Photo

What r the Oldest Objects 2C4 a 6" Refractor

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

Hi I would like to simulate the famous hubble view of the oldest universe
stuff out there that is within range of amateur telescopes.
What are some of the best candidates to view. I will definitely use my Mallincam Xtreme to provide the best possible sensitivity.
I just want to be able to say, Wow, thats 2 billion light years away :)

Ross

#2 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:59 PM

3c273 is 2 billion LY away.
http://astrocpo.trip...3c273?i=202&s=1

#3 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

3c273 is 2 billion LY away.
http://astrocpo.trip...3c273?i=202&s=1

Cool, thats a great start. Wow a Quasar

#4 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:24 PM

Einstein Cross...8 billion LY away...but magnitude 16.8...can mallincam on your 155mm go that deep? Maybe your 10"...

#5 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

i have that one on my to-do list :D

but resolving it would require me to barlow my C9.25 (separation is 0.6") and who knows how long an exposure would be required... Roland's image was 10 hours at f15.

not sure an AP155 can pull that off..

#6 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8601
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:53 PM

Things don't necessarily need to be very far away to be very old. The Milky Way's globular clusters are about 10 to 13 billion years old.

If you want to see the oldest photons, that's when distance becomes important.

#7 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 11:38 PM

oldest photons is the idea! and distance was
the main thought behind this post. however, your point is a goodun!
the quasar mentioned above is perfect for me at my home. due east is my best view. A Quasar hunting, I must go :jump:
maybe tonight!

#8 Joe C

Joe C

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2008

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:05 AM

At Mag 14.4, Q1634+706 in Draco may be obtainable from dark skies or with the help of a mallincam. It is 8.6B LY away.

#9 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12533
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Yes, a difference between Oldest and furthers.

The furthest galaxies that Hubble has imaged have been about 13 billion miles away, and because of this, they have been red-shifted well into the infra-red portion of the spectrum.

To even have have a chance of seeing something this disant you will have to use a near infra-red filter.

Hubble has four near Ifra-red filters for this purpose.

But hubble also has image scale that you don't have. I doubt that your scope even with the correct infra-red filters would provide enough scale for these targets to even show as stellar points of light.

Not that you can't find galaxies way out there. It might be possible. But I don't think you will come close to reaching the distances that Hubble does even with infrared filter. They just won't have the angular size to show up as anything more than a single pixel on your camera.

Even in the hubble pictures, they often appear as only slightly bigger than stellar.

Again, not saying that you should not try to see how far you can go, but the best you will do is most likely fall well short of Hubble.

#10 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:50 PM

Yes, a difference between Oldest and furthers.

The furthest galaxies that Hubble has imaged have been about 13 billion miles away, and because of this, they have been red-shifted well into the infra-red portion of the spectrum.

To even have have a chance of seeing something this disant you will have to use a near infra-red filter.

Hubble has four near Ifra-red filters for this purpose.

But hubble also has image scale that you don't have. I doubt that your scope even with the correct infra-red filters would provide enough scale for these targets to even show as stellar points of light.

Not that you can't find galaxies way out there. It might be possible. But I don't think you will come close to reaching the distances that Hubble does even with infrared filter. They just won't have the angular size to show up as anything more than a single pixel on your camera.

Even in the hubble pictures, they often appear as only slightly bigger than stellar.

Again, not saying that you should not try to see how far you can go, but the best you will do is most likely fall well short of Hubble.


I Agree! I never even thought it was possible to come close to what the hubble can do with its deep field shots. Nope, I just want to get as far out as I can :rainbow:
Got any possibilities?

#11 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12533
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:37 PM

In terms of actual targets?

No, not right off hand.

But the NGC catalog is stuffed with distant, faint galaxies. I know because I have tried seeing a couple of hundred if them with my C14 and finally gave up.. LOL.

Anyway, just look for a couple of glaxies a a few thousand light years away and hammer away at them. Virgo has a hundred or so.

In fact, this might be a great place to start. Just aim your scope at Virgo and fire away.

Find the smallest, dimmest galaxy you can identify in the image and then use a chart to actually determine what its catalog number is, then find the distance in the catalog.

That actually might be fun. You would in essence be doing a "Hubble-like" study of your own.

Hubble though knows the distance due to the red shift. The galaxy in your picture might just be a small galaxy that is not far away.. So maybe you have to do this with several areas of sky to see what the furthers one you can image.

But Virgo is freaking loaded with galaxies and of the smallest, dimmist galaxies in your images, odds are that some are much more distant than others. A sample of 10 identified galaxies should give you an idea of what you can achieve.

http://www.nightskya...Data.jsp?id=VIR

#12 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5113
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:27 PM

Anyway, just look for a couple of glaxies a a few thousand light years away and hammer away at them. Virgo has a hundred or so.


Actually, the Virgo galaxy cluster is about 60 million light years away... The galaxies in the Coma-Virgo-Ursa Major cluster are closer, at 20 - 30 million light years.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#13 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

I don't want to spend large amounts of time charting the heavens!
6-12 Far away objects will be fine. Bright dots are not all that interesting for me to look at repeatedly. Just the idea that I have been there looking thru my ota with my eyeballs is the reward. I spend my research time reading the works of those who earn their livlihood this way and have access to the finest professional gear available to them in the far off corners of our planet. My latest read, "Gravitys Engines" by Caleb Scharf.
So if anyone has a few more favorite real distant objects that would be cool.

#14 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:22 PM

I did something like this (DIY Deep Field) as one of my projects at Swinburne Astronomy.

In my case I was able to reach Mag 20. This was 200 minutes worth of 20-minute subs on a (rented) FSQ-106 at GRAS in New Mexico, with an ST8300C. A mono camera would have gone deeper.

#15 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12533
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

Yes, but as a "test" if he can't see these, he has no chance of seeing galaxies a couple of hundred thousand light years away. Tt would give him a benchmark for how far he might be able to go.

#16 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20036
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:23 AM

Your best bet is a quasar.

This one is the easiest, visually, but still by no means easy, and it's currently accessible later in the wee hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273

If you have reasonably dark skies, you won't even need a Mallincam; it's visually detectable in an unobstructed 6" under dark skies.

Regards,

Jim

#17 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

Yup, this one was pointed out earlier in this post, so I have already used some astro software to check its location. It actually seems to be in a visible part of the sky by about 9:30pm, perhaps even earlier.
I am hoping to give it a try tonight.

#18 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20036
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

We've had a fair amount of moisture in the air at night of late locally. You might want to wait until a bit later when it's near zenith to minimize extinction. Good luck, and please report back with your results.

Regards,

Jim

#19 Rossmon

Rossmon

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Marin County, CA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

thanks for the tip Jim!
I'll try earlier and later if I have to. The weak link right now is my back which I tweaked recently helping my wife who fractured her shoulder last week.
I may need you to come over and mount my 155 for me! Either that or load up my np127 which I have not sold yet. Something to be said for a 14lb 5" fractor. II would keep it as my grabngo, if I could afford to.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics