Jump to content


Photo

Most under-rated DSO?

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#26 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15627
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:53 PM

I have always thought that NGC 7008, also known as the Fetus Nebula, is quite underrated.

Also, I really like NGC 7510, which is a surprisingly attractive little open cluster in Cepheus, deserves more attention.


Yes, NGC 7510 is quite pretty. I have nick-named it "the Wedge Cluster". It is within a couple of degrees of several interesting nebulae like the Bubble Nebula (NGC 7635), the "Fingers" (Sh2-157), and NGC 7538. Clear skies to you.

#27 Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Virginia, USA

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:30 PM

Some that come to mind: NGC 7635 (Bubble Nebula), NGC 7023 (Iris Nebula), IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula) with B168, and M 2-9 (Minkowski's Butterfly). All very impressive targets!

-Nick Anderson

#28 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11204
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:47 AM

M55 is a rather impressive globular cluster, especially when viewed from southern latitudes.


Yes, M55 is a mighty fine globular that's underestimated by northerners because it's usually seen very low in the sky, and rarely mentioned by southerners because it's overshadowed by the two southern titans, Omega Cen and 47 Tuc.

The truly great far-southern globs NGC 6752 in Pavo and NGC 6397 in Ara also suffer from comparison with Omega Cen and 47 Tuc.

Among galaxies, M83 is another DSO that's visible to most northerners, but low enough so that few northerners appreciate just how magnificent it really is. It rivals M51 among great spiral galaxies.

#29 John_G

John_G

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2010

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:07 AM

I have always thought that NGC 7008, also known as the Fetus Nebula, is quite underrated.


I saw this planetary just recently with my 200mm. It's one of the one's that had me wishing for an 18" Dob.

#30 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15627
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:32 PM

Some that come to mind: NGC 7635 (Bubble Nebula), NGC 7023 (Iris Nebula), IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula) with B168, and M 2-9 (Minkowski's Butterfly). All very impressive targets!

-Nick Anderson


Impressive? Maybe astrophysically or via imaging (or some in rather large apertures), but visually, some of these are less than impressive. The Bubble is particularly unimpressive, as you can't really see the entirely of its bubble-like form except when imaging is used. The Iris Nebula might belong in that class, but even then, it isn't exactly a showpiece although it is one of the better diffuse reflection nebulae. Clear skies to you.

#31 galaxyman

galaxyman

    Vendor - Have a Stellar Birthday

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Limerick, Pa

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:34 AM

I have always thought that NGC 7008, also known as the Fetus Nebula, is quite underrated.

Also, I really like NGC 7510, which is a surprisingly attractive little open cluster in Cepheus, and I think it deserves more attention.


Yes, Ngc 7008 (Tourmaline nebula…see image below) is one of my favorite planetary nebulas in the sky with the 22" dob. It's actually quite impressive in the 8" refractor.

Other DSO's that I feel are underrated would be:

Open Cluster - Ngc 2362 (looks like a bunch of moths flying around a bright light)
Glob - M-56 (sits in a wonderful rich FOV, and stars in the glob resolved in very modest size scopes)
Galaxy - Many of them out there, so lets go with Ngc 4088. In a larger scope, It's one cool galaxy (yes, a future GL video object)



Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Galaxy Log Blog - http://galaxylog.blogspot.com/
HASB - http://www.haveastellarbirthday.com
Telekit (Swayze optics) 22" F/4.5 Dob
Homemade (Parks Optics) 12.5" F/4.8 Dob
TMB/APM 8" f/9 Refractor”The Beast”. One great DEEP SKY achro
ES 6" f/6.5 achro. Good one
Celestron Omni XLT 102 refractor.
Celestron 10x60mm Binos

Attached Files



#32 ThreeD

ThreeD

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1029
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Sacramento suburbs

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:25 PM

NGC4656

It's not like it's a big bright object that is overlooked but it is unusual enough that I'm surprised it doesn't get mentioned more. I observed it a little more than two years ago and I definitely need to make sure I visit it next year. Hmmm... I think I might give it a bit of time in a few weeks even though it will be only be at about 30 degrees and slipping away at the end of twilight.

#33 KidOrion

KidOrion

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 810
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Carbondale, IL

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

NGC 2362 in Canis Major. The double star h3945 just north of it is the most underrated double in the sky, too.

#34 Fuzzyguy

Fuzzyguy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Colorado/Kansas

Posted 20 July 2013 - 10:38 PM

I don't know how underrated it is, but I like MEL 111 in Coma Berenices. I can see it naked eye from my fairly dark backyard, but in my 15X70 binoculars, it reminds me of a mosquito looking head on at me. Maybe it's appropriate though, cause the time of year it starts clearing my trees in the evening, is usually the start of mosquito season! :crazy:

#35 blb

blb

    Aurora

  • -----
  • Posts: 4509
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont NC

Posted 21 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

I almost never hear anyone talk about IC4665, an open cluster in Ophiuchus. It is one of my favorite binocular targets because it is bright and resolves into stars with my 10x50's. This cluster is to large for the field-of-view of all but wide field telescopes or binoculars.

#36 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10823
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

Buddy,
IC4665 would seem to be evidence of the miniscule FOVs employed by the Herschels that this oh-so-obvious cluster would be overlooked. This is a seasonal favourite of mine, to be enjoyed every summer through my binos. And add to it the nearby wide pair of clusters NGC 6633 and IC 4756 (the latter being another missed cluster in the vein of IC 4665.) All three are naked eye fuzzies under dark skies.

#37 blb

blb

    Aurora

  • -----
  • Posts: 4509
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont NC

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:12 AM

All three are naked eye fuzzies under dark skies.

Yep! I agree. Whenever this portion of the sky is visible, It is binocular seasion, much like spring is like galaxy seasion is for telescopes.

#38 davebuechler

davebuechler

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Red River Gorge Kentucky

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:31 PM

Some objects can be "under-rated" when they are situated too close to a really spectacular object that simply overwhelms them!

M92 is a beauty and frequently overshadowed by M13. I will vote for this easy target.

#39 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:40 PM

I like 92s more intense core.

Pete

#40 wags1

wags1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23 May 2013
  • Loc: PA, USA

Posted 30 July 2013 - 10:18 PM

I was bouncing between M92 and M13 last night for about an hour or so. M92 gets my vote!

#41 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:43 AM

I will go with an easy to see object here. Mizar. Bright easy to see quad in the Ursa Major constellation. Beautiful to view alongside the Alcor binary, but not as thrilling to most as others are, and often disregarded since the dipper is not that thrilling to most.

#42 wags1

wags1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23 May 2013
  • Loc: PA, USA

Posted 31 July 2013 - 07:19 AM

Mizar and Deneb are my 2 most viewed objects since I typically use them this time of year for alligning my go-to. That said, they probably don't qualify for this questiions as they really aren't DSO's.

#43 MrJones

MrJones

    Apollo

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1398
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Indiana

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

Melotte 111 and NGC 6910. The first is one of the best small binocular objects and the second a small open cluster that always impresses me and guests with its beautiful center.

#44 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:10 AM

Mizar and Deneb are my 2 most viewed objects since I typically use them this time of year for alligning my go-to. That said, they probably don't qualify for this questiions as they really aren't DSO's.


That depends on your perspective of what is Deep Space, and what isn't. If I cant travel to it before I die (in theory, not in actuality) I consider that deep enough. At 80+ light years (for Mizar and Alcor) and over 1425 light years for Deneb (some say up to 7000), they both qualify in my book.

As an aside: This is what I meant when I said that people do not find the dipper to be all that thrilling...

#45 wags1

wags1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23 May 2013
  • Loc: PA, USA

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:03 AM

Mizar and Deneb are my 2 most viewed objects since I typically use them this time of year for alligning my go-to. That said, they probably don't qualify for this questiions as they really aren't DSO's.


That depends on your perspective of what is Deep Space, and what isn't. If I cant travel to it before I die (in theory, not in actuality) I consider that deep enough. At 80+ light years (for Mizar and Alcor) and over 1425 light years for Deneb (some say up to 7000), they both qualify in my book.

As an aside: This is what I meant when I said that people do not find the dipper to be all that thrilling...


The traditional definition of DSO's includes things like Star Clusters, Nebulea, and Galaxies. See here:

DSO Definition

#46 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11204
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:27 PM

Mizar and Deneb are my 2 most viewed objects since I typically use them this time of year for alligning my go-to. That said, they probably don't qualify for this questiions as they really aren't DSO's.


Double stars are often considered to be DSOs -- opinions vary. For whatever reason, individual stars usually aren't. Make sense? Probably not, but there it is.

Including double stars makes sense, since the line between a multiple star and a small star cluster is impossible to draw. Consider, for instance, the Trapezium in Orion.

Technically, it's classified neither as a multiple star nor as a cluster but as a "trapezium system." (Yes, the entire category is named after this one example.) But it makes perfect sense to treat it either as a multiple star or a cluster.

#47 wags1

wags1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23 May 2013
  • Loc: PA, USA

Posted 01 August 2013 - 02:04 PM

agreed...the definition of DSO's is sort of like some DSO's...fuzzy... :grin:

#48 ensign

ensign

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 812
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Southwestern Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 11:39 AM

The definition of DSO varies widely. NASA has a Deep Space Network that is, obviously, strictly interplanetary. I guess one definition of deep space is "Where no man has gone before . . . " Or the more politically correct "Where no one has gone before . . ."

#49 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 02 August 2013 - 11:22 PM

The definition of DSO varies widely. NASA has a Deep Space Network that is, obviously, strictly interplanetary. I guess one definition of deep space is "Where no man has gone before . . . " Or the more politically correct "Where no one has gone before . . ."


Well said!






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics