Jump to content


Photo

Big fish with light tackle

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#26 Pricewool

Pricewool

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:48 PM

I really loved reading this thread. I'm not alone! I too have read Mr. Freeman's adventure with his 60mm Refractor Red. Honestly, I found it very exciting and inspiring. Back in the 80's, while my friends viewed with their 13 inch Coulters, I was busy doing the Messier list with a Meade 4045, 4 inch SCT.  When I traded it for an 8 inch SCT, I soon had "seller's remorse". After I read Mr Freeman's article I had one correspondence with him, asking if he felt the H400 could be done with my Stellarvue 80ED. He said yes, so I was pumped. It's been a difficult start. My time out is limited and my observing site is suburban/rural.  I got about 15 "for sure" observations, but also some DNO's (did not observe).  Additionally, it was taking me WAY to long to hunt down and confirm an object. But the thrill of "catching a big fish with small tackle" is, to me, extremely satisfying and huge fun. Not just anybody can do this! 

Fast forward to today. I've now added a computer to my mount and am currently getting it tweaked for the next new moon. I've also added a SV110ED to the arsenal. So we'll see where this goes. In a couple of months I'll be under very dark, Oklahoma skies. With luck, it could be nirvana. I share the OP's  "mad desire". There's a big thrill, reeling in a very small, faint DSO with small aperture!



#27 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22581
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 15 August 2014 - 01:52 PM

A series of anecdotes leading up to some questions:

- From the first time I read it, I have had a strange fascination with Jay Reynolds Freeman's "Refractor Red meets the Herschel 400" (available here). In it, he wrote, "Ask people who land big fish with light tackle, why I do what I do."

- Lately I've been working through a slew of the open clusters in the Herschel 400 myself. And I have found that some clusters are dead easy to recognize as distinct bright patches in my 9x50 finder, but at the eyepiece they just sort of dissipate into the background starfield. That plus some fairly transformative RFT experiences with small refractors are working some kind of alchemy on me.

- My friend Terry Nakazono is up to about 500 galaxies observed in the past 3 or so years, most of them logged and sketched with an Orion SkyScanner 100, mostly from at least somewhat light-polluted skies. He is just religious about dark adaptation, averted vision, and patience.

- Possibly as a result of all of the above, lately I have had this mad desire to go out to the desert with a 70mm or even a 50mm refractor and spend the whole night observing with only that instrument.

So, questions:
- Anyone else ever feel like that? Besides binocular observers? Not that I'm not interested--rather the opposite. I _love_ binocular observing. But lately I've had a yen for small-aperture telescopic DSO chasing.
- What's the smallest instrument you've carried out a serious DSO observing program with?
- Why'd you do it? I'm just curious. For me, it feels like my reverse aperture fever and my deep-sky interests are slowly colliding. That plus a sort of perverse desire to knowingly commit to a "suboptimal" (aperture-wise) observing program just because it sounds fun. I realize there are many variables one could optimize--aperture, portability, optical quality, etc--so which one pushed you toward small-scope observations of DSOs?

I wanted to create a Beginner's List of 500 Best DSOs I could give to friends who wanted to branch out beyond the Messier list, but weren't ready for the 10,000 objects in the SAC list.

So I pulled a couple thousand bright objects from my log and went to observe them all with a 127mm Maksutov (it's actually 121mm).  I viewed all the objects on my list over a few years, excluding those I thought too faint or completely uninteresting in a small scope, and eventually arrived at around 500 objects.

That list, by the way, is available upon request for anyone PMing me their email addresses.

 

In a sense, I do that with the 12.5", too, as I am always pushing the boundaries, knowing full-well that a larger scope might see the objects more easily.  I don't want a larger aperture, but I want to see what a 12.5" scope can actually see (hint: it's a lot, and it's really faint).  Going after globulars in M31 or faint companions to larger galaxies or Abell planetaries might be the same as Freeman going after objects in a small scope.  There is a thrill in the hunt.  And I notice the number of NFs (not founds) seems to be going down over the years.

 

Friends tell me it would be a lot easier to just get a larger aperture.  But where's the fun in that?  



#28 IVM

IVM

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1056
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 15 August 2014 - 02:00 PM

You probably meant it rhetorically, Don, but I will answer it literally before this goes too far. The fun of the larger aperture (as far as the views) is that you get more detailed views. As for featureless faint fuzzies, I won't exhaust my 12" any sooner than I will my 16", that is true.

 

P.S. Love that new quotation line in your signature!


Edited by IVM, 15 August 2014 - 02:11 PM.


#29 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22581
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 15 August 2014 - 02:44 PM

And there's no reason a bigger scope owner can't push the limits, either.  Jim Lowrey comes to mind......



#30 IVM

IVM

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1056
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 15 August 2014 - 03:02 PM

Exactly. There is fish for any size tackle that makes it look light. When torn between the desire to buy a bigger scope or dust off my 4", I find peace in this "small big scope" frame of mind ;)


  • havasman likes this






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics