Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Speciality Forums >> Astro Art, Books, Websites & Other Media

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Michael Rapp
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/27/04

Loc: Dickinson, TX
Night Sky Observers Guide
      #5486020 - 10/23/12 08:47 PM

Hi all,

I've been out of visual astronomy for over a decade, busy doing that imaging thing. (My conclusion? Just like for visual, there is no substitute for dark skies.)

When I left visual, the Night Sky Observer's Guide by Kepple and Sanner and was being heralded as the guide to get for visual astronomy both for its object descriptions and sketches. Now that the visual bug is biting again, I'm considering picking up this work.

For a non-internet reference, is it still the best compilation of sketches and descriptions of objects? Does it seem dated in any way?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Michael Rapp]
      #5486046 - 10/23/12 09:05 PM

Quote:

Hi all,

I've been out of visual astronomy for over a decade, busy doing that imaging thing. (My conclusion? Just like for visual, there is no substitute for dark skies.)

When I left visual, the Night Sky Observer's Guide by Kepple and Sanner and was being heralded as the guide to get for visual astronomy both for its object descriptions and sketches. Now that the visual bug is biting again, I'm considering picking up this work.

For a non-internet reference, is it still the best compilation of sketches and descriptions of objects? Does it seem dated in any way?




Whether it's the best or not is really kind of subjective. I think that it's the most concise guide of its kind, and I consider it my favorite. Not only is it not dated, but it was updated a few years back, replacing the old photographs with CCD photos, and a third volume, Southern Skies, covering the southern hemisphere, was added. You will get other answers as to what people think is best, but that's my 2-cents worth.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5486110 - 10/23/12 09:49 PM

The NSOG is still the big boy on the block. Of course, there's also Burnham's Celestial Handbook; but it's a completely different animal, and should be in your library regaredless of what your interests are, just because, well, because it's Burnham's.

There's also Luginbuhl and Skiff's "Observing Handbook and Catalog of Deep-Sky Objects", a single volume that is much the same format as the NSOG, except all the observations are by the authors, who are professionals. The consensus seems to be that it's a more accurate, precise work. The NSOG is a little more oriented toward the amateur. I like them both.

As visual observing guides, these don't get out of date. All that does, is the science, which can change daily anyway. The Webb Society books are also good observing guides, with many sketches by skilled amateurs.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
desertstars

*****

Reged: 11/05/03

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5486135 - 10/23/12 10:02 PM

Subjective, indeed. I have a small library of such works sitting on the shelf behind me as I write. Each one of them has been exactly the book I needed ("the best") for a particular project over the years. But if I could only keep part of the collection, the two volumes of NSOG I own would be it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LivingNDixie
TSP Chowhound
*****

Reged: 04/23/03

Loc: Trussville, AL
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: desertstars]
      #5486208 - 10/23/12 10:51 PM

I am a pretty big fan of the NSOG. However when doing the Herschel 400 list I used the O'Meara handbook.

NSOG is usually the first book I grab when wanting more information about an object. I also enjoy Deep Sky Wonders by Sue French, but it is more of a indoor use book for me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: LivingNDixie]
      #5486443 - 10/24/12 03:20 AM

Tom,
I see your book is in paperback now as well as e-book - congratulations! Now, I'm very likely to get a copy.

Preston,
I've never found the NSOG to be a particularly great source of information on any objects, other than where they are and what they might look like in my scope. Is that what you were referring to?

The "more information" thing is sort of the area where Burnham's pulls out ahead of everyone else, with exhaustive information about lots of stuff. Some a little dated now, but still.
Tom would keep the NSOG; but I'd keep Burnham's over everything else.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Michael Rapp]
      #5486586 - 10/24/12 07:47 AM

Quote:


For a non-internet reference, is it still the best compilation of sketches and descriptions of objects? Does it seem dated in any way?




"Yep" and "nope," respectively...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
desertstars

*****

Reged: 11/05/03

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5486811 - 10/24/12 11:10 AM

Quote:

Tom,
I see your book is in paperback now as well as e-book - congratulations! Now, I'm very likely to get a copy.




Thanks. I've tried to make it as widely available as possible. I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to it.



Quote:

Tom would keep the NSOG; but I'd keep Burnham's over everything else.




It's curious, but I just realized that at some point I've apparently stopped thinking of Burnham's as a nuts'n bolts observing guide. When making my earlier response I had it mentally shelved in another catagory altogether, and so defaulted to NSOG. Seems of late I've gone to Burnham's more for inspiration than information. Not sure when I shaded in that direction. (Not sure I even wanted to go there!)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
omahaastro
sage


Reged: 08/30/06

Loc: Omaha, NE
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: desertstars]
      #5486861 - 10/24/12 11:45 AM

Yeah wow... I've had my Burnham's for years... and I cherish them (the 'romantic' astronomy as much as anything, Admiral Smyth observations, prose, etc)... but quiet honestly... when comparing it to NSOG... I think it's like comparing the Norton Atlas to Sky Atlas 2000.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Michael Rapp]
      #5486895 - 10/24/12 12:12 PM

Quote:

Hi all,

I've been out of visual astronomy for over a decade, busy doing that imaging thing. (My conclusion? Just like for visual, there is no substitute for dark skies.)

When I left visual, the Night Sky Observer's Guide by Kepple and Sanner and was being heralded as the guide to get for visual astronomy both for its object descriptions and sketches. Now that the visual bug is biting again, I'm considering picking up this work.

For a non-internet reference, is it still the best compilation of sketches and descriptions of objects? Does it seem dated in any way?




Well, it depends. It is certainly the most comprehensive collection of sketches and descriptions found in a single work. It isn't exactly "dated", as it is intended as more of an observing manual rather than something with a lot of scientific information. Some of NSOG's double star information can be somewhat dated, as close doubles tend to change separation and position angles notably over a decade or so. However, the deep-sky descriptions don't change much. Their quality varies from good to not all that good, and a few of the drawings might be a little misleading. For accurate descriptive information, I tend to rely more on the OBSERVING HANDBOOK AND CATALOGUE OF DEEP-SKY OBJECTS by Luginbuhl & Skiff, as they tend to be somewhat better overall. However, there aren't nearly as many drawings or photographs in that work as their are in NSOG, and the NSOG covers considerably more objects (especially with Volume 3 for the southern hemisphere). NSOG is a good work to have, although again, one has to take some of the descriptive information with a grain of salt sometimes. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Michael Rapp
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/27/04

Loc: Dickinson, TX
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5487280 - 10/24/12 04:31 PM

Thanks all. I didn't catch that I used the word "best" there lol. I'm glad to hear that it has been updated in the past decade and has stood the test of time.

Using David's words, what I am hoping it is is "the most comprehensive collection of sketches and descriptions found in a single work."

I remember first learning of it at TSP 1999. They may have only had the first volume out at that time. I remember agonizing over whether to get a signed copy from the authors or that cool observing chair and as I didn't want to go the entire week at TSP without a chair by the scope, the chair won.

It will be nice to finally have a copy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LivingNDixie
TSP Chowhound
*****

Reged: 04/23/03

Loc: Trussville, AL
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5487345 - 10/24/12 05:11 PM

Quote:

Tom,
I see your book is in paperback now as well as e-book - congratulations! Now, I'm very likely to get a copy.

Preston,
I've never found the NSOG to be a particularly great source of information on any objects, other than where they are and what they might look like in my scope. Is that what you were referring to?

The "more information" thing is sort of the area where Burnham's pulls out ahead of everyone else, with exhaustive information about lots of stuff. Some a little dated now, but still.
Tom would keep the NSOG; but I'd keep Burnham's over everything else.




Rick,
Finding out how the object should look is mostly what I mean. But it is also good for having the history of some objects (mainly the Messier Catalog). I used it a lot to see what the class a globular cluster was when I was completely that observing pin recently.

However for doing the Herschel 400, I tend to go to the O'Meara book, mainly because it is written well and lays out the observing of the objects.

But if I didn't have the O'Meara book I would be happy with the NSOG. To me if I had only one set of books the NSOG would be the books I would choose. To me they are the closest to perfect... that is not the same as saying they are perfect.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: LivingNDixie]
      #5487557 - 10/24/12 07:57 PM

Gotcha.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5491494 - 10/27/12 10:49 AM

IMO - all depends in ways in how you go about it, if you are familiar and comfortable using the NSOG and it works for you, can't think of 'better', just different. The L&S guide very good and in one volume, large pages - concise and above all very useful. I've always really liked the way Burnhams was ordered and organized as far as content. NSOG I like a lot too, no way do I consider them 'dated', but then I don't consider Burnhams dated either... (I purchased the NSOG 'Southern sky' volume just to complete the set ). For a particular observation I usually go NSOG -> L&S -> Burnhams... or I might go Burnams -> L&S ->NSOG. Also enjoy O'Meara's books and have 3 I use intermittantly, along with maybe Karkoschka' little book (I find myself referring to this last more and more lately) ... What's my point?

There are a lot of very useful guides/references out there to spend your money on, and you own a very good one - I can't see a compelling reason to rush out and buy something else. There have been other useful publications also very good, worth a look? You might appreciate the L&S reference for different reasons, and Karkoschka for yet others, S. O'Meara ($$) for even others / more, and S. French books as well. We're really lucky to have these great folks contributing to our hobby - all offer a resource and insight IMO worthy of the time it takes. I consider all my 'observing buddy'.

[Whoops! yikes - just realized you don't own these (NSOG I and II, III if you want the complete set) - yes! get them while you can!]

Edited by CounterWeight (10/27/12 11:00 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5492622 - 10/28/12 03:25 AM

Quote:

You might appreciate the L&S reference for different reasons, and Karkoschka for yet others, S. O'Meara ($$) for even others / more, and S. French books as well.




I think that a big part of what O'Meara brings to the table is the personal perspective of one of the greatest observers of modern, if not all, time. That could be worth the price of admission.
Not to detract in any way from the others mentioned; but I've seen that which makes me personally convinced of O'Meara's superlative skill as an observer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tony Flanders
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/18/06

Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5492686 - 10/28/12 07:04 AM

Quote:

I think that a big part of what O'Meara brings to the table is the personal perspective of one of the greatest observers of modern, if not all, time.




Steve O'Meara is a great observer. So is Brian Skiff. And Sue French. And several others I could name.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Tony Flanders]
      #5492940 - 10/28/12 11:03 AM

Yeah, and that Flanders guy ain't too shabby either.

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Tony Flanders]
      #5493205 - 10/28/12 02:55 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I think that a big part of what O'Meara brings to the table is the personal perspective of one of the greatest observers of modern, if not all, time.




Steve O'Meara is a great observer. So is Brian Skiff. And Sue French. And several others I could name.




I just knew someone was going to quote me out of context!

Tony, you didn't include this part:

Quote:

Not to detract in any way from the others mentioned; but I've seen that which makes me personally convinced of O'Meara's superlative skill as an observer.




I've seen astounding observations made by O'Meara; but not by Skiff, French, et al. I don't doubt that they exist! My statement was in reference to O'Meara's books and a quality they have. Somewhere, I also said that I don't buy his books.

So don't go misinterpreting my statement. There are millions of excellent observers. My comment was strictly meant to highlight O'Meara's skills in response to a comment about his books. It would have been sort of meaningless to comment on his book with a long list of great observers.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: LivingNDixie]
      #5493823 - 10/28/12 10:32 PM

Quote:

To me if I had only one set of books the NSOG would be the books I would choose. To me they are the closest to perfect... that is not the same as saying they are perfect.




I agree. When I pack up for an observing session at my dark site, space is tight but I always make room for my set of NSOG. It might have some errors here and there but its plusses far outweigh its minuses. Hands down it remains the most comprehensive observing reference going and the best overall IMHO.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stevecoe
"Astronomical Tourist"
*****

Reged: 04/24/04

Loc: Arizona, USA
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: turtle86]
      #5498902 - 11/01/12 04:15 AM

Rob, et al;

If you are willing to post your errors in NSOG here, I will pass them on to Bob Kepple and Glen Sanner so that they can be provided to other users.

Clear skies;
Steve Coe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: stevecoe]
      #5498951 - 11/01/12 06:36 AM

Quote:

Rob, et al;

If you are willing to post your errors in NSOG here, I will pass them on to Bob Kepple and Glen Sanner so that they can be provided to other users.

Clear skies;
Steve Coe




Steve, do they have a website or something where such errata is collected and shared?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
faackanders2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/28/11

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5499981 - 11/01/12 09:38 PM

I have the NSOG and have read the entire Leo chapter, but the truth is I don't or haven't used them for observing; perhaps because they are to large and heavy.

I do carry and use the O'Meade Deep Sky Companion series. I really like his hand drawn images in the first 3 of the series (secret deep used computer images), and these look so much more like the views in my 10" and 17.5" dob than photos ever did. His writing about the objects is interesting, descriptive, and memorable. Can't wait to get his Southern Gems version which I pre-ordered.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom Polakis
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/20/04

Loc: Tempe, Arizona
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: faackanders2]
      #5500699 - 11/02/12 10:55 AM

Quote:

I have the NSOG and have read the entire Leo chapter, but the truth is I don't or haven't used them for observing; perhaps because they are to large and heavy.

I do carry and use the O'Meade Deep Sky Companion series...





I know, an easy astronomical slip to make, but...



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Tom Polakis]
      #5500708 - 11/02/12 11:05 AM

Quote:

I have the NSOG and have read the entire Leo chapter, but the truth is I don't or haven't used them for observing; perhaps because they are to large and heavy.




I too do not carry these books outside, but I do use them regularly when planning my observing session. They are a great resource that is hard to beat.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
omahaastro
sage


Reged: 08/30/06

Loc: Omaha, NE
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5501047 - 11/02/12 02:24 PM

I can't imagine there are too many folks who use these in the field... they are indeed, great for planning, comparing observations, setting expectations, etc.

I'm a little curious why Mr. Knisely seems so down on the descriptions. Of COURSE, they're submitted by many different observers, and they're going to vary from individual to individual... but isn't that what observing is all about?

The ridiculous comprehensiveness of these books, makes them second to none, in my opinion.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: omahaastro]
      #5501706 - 11/02/12 10:33 PM

Quote:

I can't imagine there are too many folks who use these in the field... they are indeed, great for planning, comparing observations, setting expectations, etc.

I'm a little curious why Mr. Knisely seems so down on the descriptions. Of COURSE, they're submitted by many different observers, and they're going to vary from individual to individual... but isn't that what observing is all about?

The ridiculous comprehensiveness of these books, makes them second to none, in my opinion.




+1


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: omahaastro]
      #5501894 - 11/03/12 01:20 AM

Quote:

I can't imagine there are too many folks who use these in the field... they are indeed, great for planning, comparing observations, setting expectations, etc.

I'm a little curious why Mr. Knisely seems so down on the descriptions. Of COURSE, they're submitted by many different observers, and they're going to vary from individual to individual... but isn't that what observing is all about?

The ridiculous comprehensiveness of these books, makes them second to none, in my opinion.




Well, Jeff, I *do* use them in the field, as do a lot of people. NSOG contains a lot of objects that are worth at least a passing look at, so for a list of potential targets, the books are definitely worth having around. I keep them in my "portable library" (a wheeled carry-on luggage container) and pull them out in the van as I need them. As an aside, here is what my Portable Library contained when I went to NSP this year (and *all* of these books get field use)

1. Deluxe 2nd Edition of SKY ATLAS 2000.0
2. Sky and Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas.
3. URANOMETRIA Vols. 1, 2, and 3.
4. NIGHT SKY OBSERVERS GUIDE, Vols. 1 and 2
5. The ARP ATLAS OF PECULIAR GALAXIES.
6. OBSERVING HANDBOOK AND CATALOGUE OF DEEP-SKY OBJECTS
7. Webb Society's DEEP-SKY OBSERVER'S HANDBOOK Vol. 5 (Clusters of Galaxies)
8. DOUBLE STARS FOR SMALL TELESCOPES by Sissy Haas
9. The current volume of my formal Observing Logbook

As for the NSOG books themselves, I might suggest reading the review I did of Volumes 1 and 2 carefully:

CN REPORTS: The Night Sky Observers Guide

The descriptions are far from useless, as they do give you quite a bit to go by. However, with the extensive observing I do, I have run into a few unfortunate foul-ups with the descriptions in NSOG, along with what I like to call a "large scope bias" to their tone. I noted the most prominent problems with some of the descriptions in the review I did of the work, but mainly, some of them just aren't quite as accurate as those in works like Luginbuhl & Skiff's OBSERVING HANDBOOK AND CATALOGUE OF DEEP-SKY OBJECTS (c. 1989, Cambridge Univ. Press). In particular, one that really got my goat early on was the suggestion of using an OIII filter on the Horsehead! That one stuck out like a sort thumb (along with the one suggesting that an H-alpha filter would be good for visual use on nebulae).

NSOG is a quite useful work, as long as you take some of the descriptions with a grain of salt. It is best to observe the objects yourself anyway to get your own descriptions down on paper or on the computer for best reference. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5501923 - 11/03/12 01:59 AM

I use them in the field all the time. More than any other reference, actually.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5502134 - 11/03/12 09:55 AM

Quote:

... have run into a few unfortunate foul-ups with the descriptions in NSOG,...




David,
About how many errors have you found in volumes one and two? I mean how common are they because I have not noticed them. That may be because I use them for planning and not in the field.
Thanks


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5502204 - 11/03/12 11:02 AM

I use'em in the field. I bought a set many years ago that I keep in one of my field cases. They've seen a lot of use and they show it. I purchased the updated version a few years ago, which I use at home.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5502471 - 11/03/12 02:16 PM

Quote:

Quote:

... have run into a few unfortunate foul-ups with the descriptions in NSOG,...




David,
About how many errors have you found in volumes one and two? I mean how common are they because I have not noticed them. That may be because I use them for planning and not in the field.
Thanks




It isn't plagued with errors at all. The Double star tables have a number of errors in them which are generally the fault of the time between publishing and when you do the observations (along with references to older inaccurate data). The deep-sky object descriptive material overall tends to have a little of what I have termed a "large scope bias". This means that what they report in some of their larger aperture descriptions I (and others) have seen in much smaller telescopes. When I was first going through the books as I began to review them, I was surprised at some of the differences between the NSOG descriptions of some of my favorite objects and those I had made in my own notes. In many cases, it just comes down to differences in observers, but once I got into the books more deeply, the "large scope bias" effect really started to get much more noticeable. There were a few true errors, such as the NGC 4111 fiasco (no dust lane guys), but they were not all that common. Despite the problems, NSOG remains a useful work that belongs in most amateur astronomer's libraries. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mayidunk
Don't Ask...
*****

Reged: 02/17/10

Loc: Betwixt & Between...
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5502568 - 11/03/12 03:30 PM

Well, once again you guys have inspired me! First I was inspired last week to purchase, "The Great Atlas of the Sky" from Piotr Brych. A couple of days ago, after reading this thread, I decided to spring for the NSOG, ordering it directly from Willmann Bell as they have the best price for the set. I even got the Southern Hemisphere volume, as if I ever get down south, it can be used there.

I want to get the books while they're still available, before they just stop being published altogether, or publishers decide to cut corners, compromising the quality of the paper, bindings, and covers in order to just keep up with the economic pressures that just keep building!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: mayidunk]
      #5502601 - 11/03/12 03:58 PM

I like NSOG for its pictures, drawings and write ups by Craig Crossen, but to fill the entire book with almost nothing but observational notes was a waste of valuable space. It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore. HAL is real.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5502613 - 11/03/12 04:16 PM

Quote:

I like NSOG for its pictures, drawings and write ups by Craig Crossen, but to fill the entire book with almost nothing but observational notes was a waste of valuable space. It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore. HAL is real.




I disagree.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5502789 - 11/03/12 06:35 PM

Okay, how so?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5502825 - 11/03/12 07:11 PM

Quote:

Okay, how so?




Because that's all I ever expected it to be--the NSOG is, after all, an observer's guide. And because I, for one, find the observational notes useful, giving me a good idea of what to expect at the eyepiece. I've found both the notes and the sketches to be quite useful. The books are more than just a collection of observation notes, although that's a big part of what they are. The books usefulness also stems from the way objects are organized by seasons and constellations, good uncluttered finder charts, and good location data, especially useful for when RA/Dec information is important. I haven't found a more useful observers guide, although I realize that no one book on any subject is what's best for everyone.

I know that you like Burnham better because he waxes poetic and is romantically descriptive in his observations. That's great, I like Burnham too. I think that's good fireside reading, but I just don't find it useful in the field.

I'm a bit preplexed by this statement: "It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5503152 - 11/03/12 10:55 PM

Quote:


I'm a bit preplexed by this statement: "It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore."




Perhaps I could best answer this question by asking you a question.

If you saw Alpha Centauri, would you just stare at it and say to yourself, it's a yellowish star? Or does anything else go through your mind?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5503285 - 11/04/12 01:11 AM

I was so hoping that this would not devolve into a discussion about Burnham. I guess that is not going to happen though.

For those of us who love to look at deep sky objects, the NSOG is a great resource that is filled with wonderful descriptions of what we can see. Except for the large scope bias, the information is great even for small scope observers. The information is clear and concise and it addresses what I will see through the eyepiece. I do NOT need to read a four page dissertation about a double star I can not see from my latitude while observing. That kind of reading is best left for those cloudy nights we all suffer through.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5503288 - 11/04/12 01:13 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Okay, how so?




Because that's all I ever expected it to be--the NSOG is, after all, an observer's guide. And because I, for one, find the observational notes useful, giving me a good idea of what to expect at the eyepiece. I've found both the notes and the sketches to be quite useful. The books are more than just a collection of observation notes, although that's a big part of what they are. The books usefulness also stems from the way objects are organized by seasons and constellations, good uncluttered finder charts, and good location data, especially useful for when RA/Dec information is important. I haven't found a more useful observers guide, although I realize that no one book on any subject is what's best for everyone.

I know that you like Burnham better because he waxes poetic and is romantically descriptive in his observations. That's great, I like Burnham too. I think that's good fireside reading, but I just don't find it useful in the field.

I'm a bit preplexed by this statement: "It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore."




I would have to agree. NSOG is not Burnham's Celestial Handbook, but quite frankly, it was never intended to be. The text "prosaic" work in Burnhams makes a very pleasant read, but those flowery descriptions of those showpieces he managed to describe in detail rarely told me enough of what I wanted to know about how the objects might actually look in my telescope. After a short period of field use, I didn't bother taking Burnham's into the field with me anymore. Even with all the darn Dreyer codes of descriptions, they tended to be not all that helpful, as one didn't know what aperture or conditions those rather cryptic descriptive lines were written for. Fully worded descriptions with apertures and powers noted are far more useful (Luginbuhl & Skiff is especially useful for that). NSOG is clearly intended as primarily a descriptive guide only and not some work of prose. I would have been sorely disappointed if it had just been some extended version of Burnham's. NSOG is clearly vastly superior to the Celestial Handbooks in terms of useful information for visual observations. If I want good "prose" about the heavens, I will read Timothy Ferris. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5503353 - 11/04/12 02:01 AM

Quote:

NSOG is not Burnham's Celestial Handbook, but quite frankly, it was never intended to be.




And the authors said that specifically in the introductory section.
I don't really see why these two works get compared so often; they're completely different!

My main driving car is a Camero; but I also have a Jeep. There's no point in comparing the two, as they're intended for totally different purposes. One isn't "better" than the other - just different. And I love them both for what they do well. Same with BCH and NSOG.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5503364 - 11/04/12 02:36 AM

Quote:

I was so hoping that this would not devolve into a discussion about Burnham. I guess that is not going to happen though.




Buddy you'll never be rid of me. You know me all too well.

Quote:

I do NOT need to read a four page dissertation.





Yes you do


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5503387 - 11/04/12 03:56 AM

Quote:

Quote:


I'm a bit preplexed by this statement: "It's no wonder people have so few things to speak about regarding objects these days. Very few people retain information anymore."




Perhaps I could best answer this question by asking you a question.

If you saw Alpha Centauri, would you just stare at it and say to yourself, it's a yellowish star? Or does anything else go through your mind?




Unfortunately, Alpha Centauri is a bit out of my line-of-sight. However....

When I'm looking at something through the eyepiece Daniel, I constantly marvel, and try to wrap my mind around what I'm seeing. When I look at a tight globular cluster, I wonder what the night sky looks like on a planet orbiting one of its stars. I'm time traveling. When I look at a faint galaxy 70 million light-years away, I'm awed and humbled that the photons from that fuzzy speck of light I'm seeing took that long to get here, only to fall on my eye. I'm amazed that it's comprised of maybe 300 billion or more stars, and stretches two or three hundred thousand light years across. I'm kind of saddened when I look at the Ring Nebula, knowing that it fortells the fate of our own Sun in the distant future. I wonder if there might have been thriving civilizations on a planet orbiting that star, and if so, were they fortunate enough to be technologically advanced enough to leave in time to escape their planet's fate? The Crab Nebula might look like a smudge to some, but knowing that at its heart is a neutron star, the most compactly dense visible object in the universe (purposely excluding black holes here), weighing billions of tons to the spoonful, and spinning 30 times a second is beyond mind blowing!

While I'm contemplating these things, I'm not simply staring at the object I'm looking at. I study it, try to push my visual accuity to its limit, doing my best to tease out detail and contrast. I love looking at closer objects like M51 and M33, working to see as much detail as I can pull out from the arms and HII regions. A real treat is watching one of Jupiter's moons as it emerges from, or ducks behind the planet. I wonder what Jupiter looks like if I were able to stand on one of it's moons? I can't see Alpha Centauri, but I can see Betelgeuse, and find it almost incomprehensible that it dwarfs our Sun the way the Sun dwarfs the Earth. I could site more examples, but I think I've made my point.

Daniel, what I'm trying to say here is that I, and many others, need nothing more in an observing guide other than simple, straightforward information to get me where I'm going, to find and observe the objects in the sky, and still be amazed, humbled, enlightened, and awed--to see much more than what is simply in the eyepiece--to get a better sense of my place in the universe. In the end, I find I am enriched in my observational endeavours far beyond just seeing something in a telescope, and my own sense of curiosity and wonder goes a long way in helping me to see things with my own sense of prosaic vision.

Again, I'm not knocking writers like Burnham. I really do like and read him. But my time in the field is for observation, and it is precious. The time I spend planning a session or afterward in my easychair is time in which folks like Burnham and O'meara can help me to further fill in the blanks.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csa/montana
Den Mama
*****

Reged: 05/14/05

Loc: montana
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Michael Rapp]
      #5503694 - 11/04/12 10:26 AM

I really use my NSOG's alot; not only in the observatory, but armchair planning as well! The NSOG is primary in my book collection.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5503706 - 11/04/12 10:38 AM

Rex, I admire your response sir.

There does however appear to be some misunderstandings about how much astrophysical information one needs about the object at the eyepiece. Take the 1st and 2nd editions of the Sky Atlas 2000 companion for example. It gives a brief observational and astrophysical explanation about each object that's short enough to be easily usable under the stars. Of course I agree, it wouldn't be practical to read entire pages or several detailed pages under the stars.

There are in fact, some interesting but limited deep sky notes about some of the objects in NSOG, for example, Barnards star. In my opinion, it's important to teach others to take a little time to understand more about these interesting objects we are seeing in the night sky. Not doing this, deprives not only the observer, but others from appreciating even the most subtle of objects in appearance, in essence, a cure that helps avoid aperture fever that plagues observers. That's what was so genius about Burnham. He observed with his mind, rather than just his eyes, something lacking all to often with observers these days who are clueless about what they are actually looking at and believe me, they are clueless!

Take M92 and M13. Since everyone will point at M13, it's up to the observer to explain why M92 is also an interesting globular and that's not what's happening. Any observer who lacks the skill to explain or teach others that faint or less attractive objects may have great significance is not a very skilled observer in my opinion. A good observer knows how to make the universe an interesting place by knowing more about what they're seeing. NGC2419 isn't the finest globular from a visual perspective, but I'll bet if you explain to others why it's so faint, they will appreciate it much more. NSOG actually did this, so it's not entirely lacking.

NSOG is still a good guide in my opinion and don't get me wrong, I actually like certain parts of it. If you go to p.97 vol 1 and see the description of NGC2362, NSOG actually gives a nice, little description of the object that could easily be read under the stars at the telescope. All I'm suggesting, is that writers and authors take a little more time to put down something brief, but interesting so it can be shared with others at the eyepiece to help us all contemplate what we are seeing.

Remember folks, the attention span of the average observer is next to nothing. Many of them do not study because they don't have the patience to sit down and read Burnham's but if writers take a little more time to offer a brief explanation about the object, it will be the first step to getting other observers to wake up and think more about what they're seeing. The universe doesn't always need to be a loud, saturated, colorful place like we see in Hubble pictures. Writers, authors, editors, for crying out loud, just put a little more depth into your other than just another endless visual description.

Several of you have already complained about how the visual descriptions don't even match what you see anyway. I'm not saying to eliminate the visual descriptions at all. It's important to have them. Just minimize them and use the space in the book for other important notes. There are always going to be factors like experience, seeing, darkness etc effecting what we see vs. what others see. For that reason I always take other visual observations with a grain of salt.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5503731 - 11/04/12 10:56 AM

Daniel, if you are going to quote me, please quote the whole sentence. Doing that will not change it's meaning. What I said was...
Quote:

I do NOT need to read a four page dissertation about a double star I can not see from my latitude while observing.



When you quote the whole sentence you will see that I said that I do not need to read it while observing, that time is much to precious to spend it reading a four page discription that does little more than tell me the distance to these stars and there spectral type, that Proxima Centauri may be getting brighter. You see I have read it and it is a bunch of nothing that could not be shared in a paragraph in a modern text. Plus if I could see this star, I would have to look up it's curent position angle and seperation, coordinates and other information because that 50 year old information is no longer any good. Even you use sky safari for the curent information on doubles. So whats left is a nice wright up that is best left to the arm chair and not for use at the telescope.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5504140 - 11/04/12 03:49 PM

Quote:

I do NOT need to read a four page dissertation about a double star I can not see from my latitude while observing.




And I don't need a 700 page dissertation on visual descriptions. You even stated yourself you don't take NSOG into the field, so what's the difference.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5504488 - 11/04/12 08:11 PM

No book can be all things to all people. Due to space limitations for printed works, authors and publishers are obliged to make practical choices--it's not easy to have it all in terms of depth, breadth and usability. While I certainly enjoy the depth of the O'Meara guides and Burnham's, they lack the sheer breadth of NSOG. If NSOG went into similar depth for each object it contained it would be completely unusable in the field. As things presently stand, many observers prefer to use NSOG solely as a desk reference anyway. Though NSOG doesn't pretend to be anything more than a comprehensive observing or field guide for amateurs with medium or large scopes, I think it actually manages to do a decent job of giving interesting background information for a lot of the objects it includes, despite its focus and space constraints. Indeed, the wonderful intro by Craig Crossen by itself goes a long way toward doing just that. I have pretty much every astronomy book worth having, but when I go out observing, I certainly can't take them all with me. Occasionally I'll take one of the O'Meara guides but I *always* take NSOG.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: turtle86]
      #5505602 - 11/05/12 03:30 PM

One can have too much information on an object in the field.
From brief, like in the Sky Atlas 2000 reference books, to better, like the Sky Atlas 2000 Companion, to even better (Luginbuhl & Skiff) to even better (NSOG) to too much, like O'Meara's guides.
The best field guides are those from Alvin Huey, containing information, finder charts, drawings, and pictures and descriptions, and they lie flat. But if NSOG were done this way it would be in 20 volumes.
So I don't really have a major complaint about the NSOG, even though my own log now has over twice the number of entries. I take NSOG to the field every time I go.

Well, come to think of it, I do have one complaint--the organization! Whose idea was it to separate the constellations by "season"? What a dumb idea! As if no observer ever observed any other time than the first two hours of darkness every night. How am I to remember if Cepheus is a "summer" or "Autumn" constellation? I view something in Cepheus close to 12 months a year at some time of night or other. Plus, the seasons are reversed down south.

If they ever reprint these, I vote to have all the constellations arranged alphabetically so one book goes A-K, then L-V, then W-Z or something like that.
We all have different southern and northern horizons. Let us find the constellations in alpha order, please!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5505863 - 11/05/12 07:29 PM

Quote:

If they ever reprint these, I vote to have all the constellations arranged alphabetically so one book goes A-K, then L-V, then W-Z or something like that.




Mehhh... that's a tough one.
During at least some parts of the year, you only need take one NSOG volume out. When they're arranged alphabetically, you always have to take everything out. Like with Burnham's.

Maybe arranged RA 0-12, and 12-24? (Hmm; that's sort of how it is now, isn't it.)
Or, just have one huge volume!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5505911 - 11/05/12 08:05 PM

Don said,
Quote:

Well, come to think of it, I do have one complaint--the organization! Whose idea was it to separate the constellations by "season"? What a dumb idea! As if no observer ever observed any other time than the first two hours of darkness every night.



I do agree with that. I still can see looking at fall objects in the sky after sunset now and yet before the sky starts to lighten up in the morning, Orion is already on the west side of my meridian and I am seeing some spring constellations in the east. So if I took them out when observing I would have to take both volums out to cover the whole night.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5505986 - 11/05/12 09:06 PM

Rick, Buddy,
That's what I do--I always take out both volumes in the northern 2/3. And, since I use both volumes every time, I have to remember which "season" a blinkety-blank constellation is in.
Arranged in alpha-sort order, all I have to remember is which letters which volume contains.
I put labels on the front of each volume with the names of the constellations contained therein, but I usually end up looking at the covers of both to find a constellation I'm looking for.
Hercules is a "Spring" constellation? Really? Then why am I still looking at objects in Hercules right after dark in November?
And Cygnus still has a month or more to go--into winter, actually.
Bah.
I think the reason they used the seasonal association was because of how the Observer's Guide was published in magazine form.
Info--good. Arrangement of info--not so good.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5506151 - 11/05/12 11:12 PM

I think I understand what the issue is here with alphabetical vs season. It appears that nobody here constellation mops. I'm fine with it either way and even though each volume is seasonal, they are still alphabetized. I must say though, it's pretty amusing that we can haul around a 20" dobsonian, observing ladder, observing chairs, a case of eyepieces and everyone complains about carrying a couple of extra books It's time to to read my Burnham's

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5506263 - 11/06/12 01:36 AM

Quote:

I think I understand what the issue is here with alphabetical vs season. It appears that nobody here constellation mops. I'm fine with it either way and even though each volume is seasonal, they are still alphabetized. I must say though, it's pretty amusing that we can haul around a 20" dobsonian, observing ladder, observing chairs, a case of eyepieces and everyone complains about carrying a couple of extra books It's time to to read my Burnham's



Well, I often stick to a constellation for quite a while. But, if I want to go over to my table and pick up a volume of NSOG, which one do I pick up for Capricornus? That's a Fall constellation, right? Wrong. It's in the Spring & Summer volume. You see, I either have to memorize which book every constellation is in or look in the table of contents of each volume to find every constellation, and those tables of contents are several pages inside the covers and then I have to take my gloves off to turn the pages. Sure, it's only a problem when I switch constellations, but it's a problem every time I switch constellations.

It's like the original version of Uranometria 2000. It simply didn't make sense that to continue from the right hand side of the chart you were on you had to back a page. Fortunately, they fixed that in the second edition.

I got an idea, but it would raise the prices of the books: add dictionary-style indented tabs with the 3-letter constellation abbreviations on the tabs. Instead of A..B..C, we'd have AQR...BOO...CAM on the tabs. That would work.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5506268 - 11/06/12 01:48 AM

Quote:

I think I understand what the issue is here with alphabetical vs season. It appears that nobody here constellation mops. I'm fine with it either way and even though each volume is seasonal, they are still alphabetized.




I do! But my impetus is laziness. I get situated comfortably pointing at a given constellation, then just look at everything in it. A big SCT is the perfect vehicle for that - just relax, sit back, and bounce from target to target.

Quote:

I must say though, it's pretty amusing that we can haul around a 20" dobsonian, observing ladder, observing chairs, a case of eyepieces and everyone complains about carrying a couple of extra books




Again, not me. I love having a library of good references with me.

Quote:

It's time to to read my Burnham's




It's always time for that! For me, Burnham's will always occupy the top spot. In fact, my indoor copy has an entire bookshelf almost to itself, with two elaborate Star Trek bookends supporting it. The only other thing that rates sharing that shelf is the Barnard atlas reprint.

But, I do use the NSOG a bit more at the eyepiece these days. And I confess, my field copy of BCH is in pretty good condition, not mutilated like your obviously extremely-well-used copy. I never make notes, though I know I should.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5506273 - 11/06/12 01:53 AM

Quote:

You see, I either have to memorize which book every constellation is in or look in the table of contents of each volume to find every constellation, and those tables of contents are several pages inside the covers and then I have to take my gloves off to turn the pages. Sure, it's only a problem when I switch constellations, but it's a problem every time I switch constellations.





Don,
Just make copies of the table of contents pages, and keep them all together. A quick index. I did that for my music fake books, so that when a tune is called, I know which of about 10 books it's in. Not ideal, granted, but easier than looking through each book.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5506530 - 11/06/12 09:28 AM

Quote:



I got an idea, but it would raise the prices of the books: add dictionary-style indented tabs with the 3-letter constellation abbreviations on the tabs. Instead of A..B..C, we'd have AQR...BOO...CAM on the tabs. That would work.




I agree that would be pretty cool and yes it would raise the cost. My friend actually did that for his NSOG. He added stick-on tabs for each constellation. Don, when we observe, your table is pretty well equipped book-wise anyway, heck, I think you even have some of Stephen O'Meara's arm chair books at the table.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5506599 - 11/06/12 10:11 AM

One of my fairly recent observing guides at the table (I took it out for over a year) was the Willmann-Bell "The Arp Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" by Kanipe and Webb.
The slick pages are fairly dew-proof, and there are pages with atlas data, finder charts, B&W photos, observation notes, and a really good history of the Arp Atlas.
But I end up using Alvin Huey's guide to those galaxies more because it's easier to use in the field.
It didn't get used as much this year as last because transparency wasn't as good over the year.
It's worth noting that many, if not most, of the Arp Galaxies are in NSOG.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom Polakis
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/20/04

Loc: Tempe, Arizona
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5506791 - 11/06/12 12:16 PM

Quote:

Well, come to think of it, I do have one complaint--the organization! Whose idea was it to separate the constellations by "season"? What a dumb idea! As if no observer ever observed any other time than the first two hours of darkness every night. How am I to remember if Cepheus is a "summer" or "Autumn" constellation? I view something in Cepheus close to 12 months a year at some time of night or other. Plus, the seasons are reversed down south.





Yeah, that was one of my main complaints when they first came out. I told that to Glenn Sanner, and he reluctantly agreed that it wasn't the best arrangement. I suggested pretty much what you did, Don. Just print the names of all the constellations in each volume in small font on the cover.


Quote:

If they ever reprint these, I vote to have all the constellations arranged alphabetically so one book goes A-K, then L-V, then W-Z or something like that.
We all have different southern and northern horizons. Let us find the constellations in alpha order, please!





I think that Volume 3 for the south is a good marketing decision, since a large number of northerners will never go far enough south to see any of those objects. Why make them purchase that volume? Otherwise, the idea to alphabetize the two northern volumes by constellation name is great. When I used to carry Burnham's out to the field, it was effortless to memorize Andromeda through Cetus, Chameleon through Orion, and Pavo through Vulpecula.

Tom


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5507659 - 11/06/12 10:41 PM

I think another thing that's important to remember is that NSOG is especially intended for observers using larger aperture telescopes, granted small telescope users can use it just fine, but they're going to have to sift through a lot of objects. A lot of us praise NSOG for the amount of objects it contains, myself included. I've used NSOG on many occasions in the field but it is very dark sky reliant. Currently, my largest telescope is only 10", perfectly suited for Burnham's, plus much of my observing is conducted from heavily light polluted skies. For that reason, I use Burnham's because I prefer the layout. For example the double star text is much larger and easier to read in the dark compared to NSOG and it lists the brighter clusters I can view from the city instead if sifting through NSOG.

Many people look at Burnham's as old and outdated, but remember too that its a very inexpensive list of thousands of objects too. An observer can only see so many objects in a night. It's just a list of numbers. Since I only use Sky Safari for all my goto functions, all the updated data is front and center in red screen mode. A lot of emphasis gets placed on the idea that Burnham's just an armchair read, but that's totally untrue. Burnham's was actually designed to be used in the field just like NSOG. I am often surprised how observers don't take their books into the field, heck NSOG is only $35!!!!! That's a steal for the wealth of information it contains and the same goes for Burnham's.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5507747 - 11/07/12 12:01 AM

Quote:

I am often surprised how observers don't take their books into the field, heck NSOG is only $35!!!!!




... per volume!



Quote:

That's a steal for the wealth of information it contains and the same goes for Burnham's.




Yuppers! I especially like Burnham's for the double star lists.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5507788 - 11/07/12 12:46 AM

Even per volume, that's a great deal IMO! For all the knowledge and work, I think it's well deserved. Tonight I'm reading about UV Ceti in Burnham's. I can't wait to see it in my 10" DK from a dark sky!!!

http://jumk.de/astronomie/near-stars/l726-8.shtml


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drollere
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/02/10

Loc: sebastopol, california
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5510127 - 11/08/12 03:20 PM

Quote:

NSOG is not Burnham's Celestial Handbook, but quite frankly, it was never intended to be. The text "prosaic" work in Burnhams makes a very pleasant read, but those flowery descriptions of those showpieces he managed to describe in detail rarely told me enough of what I wanted to know about how the objects might actually look in my telescope. After a short period of field use, I didn't bother taking Burnham's into the field with me anymore. ... NSOG is clearly vastly superior to the Celestial Handbooks in terms of useful information for visual observations.




wow, david, so i am not the only person on CN to, ahem, decline the universal and extreme adulation of grandpa burnham! i feel less isolated, and my estimation of your judgment goes up a notch.

i will say that the inevitable appearance of burnham praise in an astronomy topic is a classic demonstration of gresham's law.

NSOG is a massive achievement, and i especially appreciate that it is a collaborative project. however i regret the basic approach of describing or drawing "what it looks like" in a given aperture: that's getting things backwards. i'd prefer that the object be described as it is, in terms of its size and essential features, then the features indicated as visible or not in different apertures. many objects in NSOG are described along the lines of "a nucleus visible in a 6", a dark bar visible in a 10", a spiral arm visible in a 12 inch", which makes it ambiguous how all those parts fit together, or if the nucleus hasn't changed its appearance in a 12", etc. ...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: drollere]
      #5510409 - 11/08/12 07:09 PM

Wrong, Bruce.

First, that's not what David said.
Second, the only case in which Burnham's comes up short is when you try to make it something it isn't. David's perfectly correct in saying the NSOG is far more useful as a field guide for indicating the appearance of an object. But Burnham's isn't meant for that. The descriptive parts of the book only treat a very few of the most intriguing objects, with extensive discussion as to their nature. The NSOG doesn't do that; it reports what various observers described as the visual appearance of the objects - period.

The fact that the NSOG is a much better NSOG than Burnham's is, is no detraction to the tremendous, unique work that is the BCH. There are several other books like the NSOG; there's nothing else like Burnham's.

(This, of course, is also no detraction from the greatness of the NSOG.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: drollere]
      #5510435 - 11/08/12 07:38 PM

Bruce,

You also can't expect someone to take your dim, two star review of Burnham's on AMAZON that serious. C'mon, you gotta be kidding me. Burnham's and NSOG are wonderful books even with their idiosyncrasies.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LivingNDixie
TSP Chowhound
*****

Reged: 04/23/03

Loc: Trussville, AL
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5510547 - 11/08/12 08:58 PM

Daniel,
I don't know if his review was that bad.

The Burnham volumes are great books to read to get an understanding of what was known when they were written. The fact is much of the science data has been improved on and revised. Astronomy textbooks have almost outdated sections when they are published, let alone after a academic year or two. A good book example of that The New Solar System by Sky Publishing originally printed in the 1990s (Last edition was in the late 90s). It is still a good book, but some sections of the book are completely outdated just because we know more because of missions that have flown since it was published. That being said it is still a good book and much of it is still current... but if I want to know the cutting edge of knowledge it is not the book I grab. If I wanted the latest knowledge I would go to the Internet and look at LPSC papers.

Lastly, I generally look at 3 and 4 star reviews on Amazon to see what people think. 5 Star and 1 Star reviews tend to be blanket praise or blanket hatred.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beatlejuice
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 04/05/11

Loc: Hamilton, ON,Canada
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5510686 - 11/08/12 10:15 PM

Quote:

You also can't expect someone to take your dim, two star review of Burnham's on AMAZON that serious. C'mon, you gotta be kidding me. Burnham's and NSOG are wonderful books even with their idiosyncrasies.




Just as interesting to me are the responders to the review! with whom I must say I agree.

Eric



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: beatlejuice]
      #5510958 - 11/09/12 01:54 AM

Quote:

... so i am not the only person on CN to, ahem, decline the universal and extreme adulation of grandpa burnham! i feel less isolated, and my estimation of your judgment goes up a notch.




You should not feel alone there Bruce. Personally I thought your two star review in Amazon was dead on. Burnhams is a good read on those long stretches of cloudy days and nights but is of little more true value than a good list of objects to view. Even Daniel, who is one of Burnhams strongest supporters, uses Sky Safari for the current information about the double stars he observes in Burnhams. Your review was certainly much better than the five star review that said the three volumes were great with all the charts and R.A. information on the planets in our solar system. What three volumes was he looking at I wonder?
Those stars don't mean a thing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: drollere]
      #5510988 - 11/09/12 02:58 AM

Quote:

Quote:

NSOG is not Burnham's Celestial Handbook, but quite frankly, it was never intended to be. The text "prosaic" work in Burnhams makes a very pleasant read, but those flowery descriptions of those showpieces he managed to describe in detail rarely told me enough of what I wanted to know about how the objects might actually look in my telescope. After a short period of field use, I didn't bother taking Burnham's into the field with me anymore. ... NSOG is clearly vastly superior to the Celestial Handbooks in terms of useful information for visual observations.




wow, david, so i am not the only person on CN to, ahem, decline the universal and extreme adulation of grandpa burnham! i feel less isolated, and my estimation of your judgment goes up a notch.

i will say that the inevitable appearance of burnham praise in an astronomy topic is a classic demonstration of gresham's law.

NSOG is a massive achievement, and i especially appreciate that it is a collaborative project. however i regret the basic approach of describing or drawing "what it looks like" in a given aperture: that's getting things backwards. i'd prefer that the object be described as it is, in terms of its size and essential features, then the features indicated as visible or not in different apertures. many objects in NSOG are described along the lines of "a nucleus visible in a 6", a dark bar visible in a 10", a spiral arm visible in a 12 inch", which makes it ambiguous how all those parts fit together, or if the nucleus hasn't changed its appearance in a 12", etc. ...




I first ran into Burnham's Celestial Handbook when a loose-leaf copy of one volume was placed in our UNL Physics library in the early 1970's. I ran into it by accident while doing a little research and instantly fell in love with it. When all three volumes were finally re-published in paperback form, I snatched them up quite quickly. They covered a lot of the science material in-depth and I spent many hours enjoying them at home, reading them thoroughly. Indeed, in some sections, Burnham very effectively communicated the simple joy of Astronomy in a way few people did at the time (in other words, great prose). The tabular data was particularly valuable to me, as at the time, my old Skalnate-Pleso ATLAS OF THE HEAVENS 1950.0 by Becvar didn't have all the identifying catalog numbers placed on all of its plotted galaxies. Many of these galaxies were ones which I needed to view to get the Herschel 400 award, so I spent a lot of time hand-labeling each galaxy I needed on my copy of Skalnate-Pleso based on the data from Burnham's books. That effort (and a lot of work with my 8 inch f/7 Newtonian) paid-off with Herschel 400 Award #12.

However, not long after that, I acquired a copy of the Skalnate-Pleso Atlas Catalog book which had positional data for any object on the atlas, so I didn't really need to pour through Burnham's anymore in the field. The lack of verbal descriptive information for many of the "non-feature" objects and the somewhat quizzical Dreyer notation in the tables made me start to just leave BCH at home (the paperbacks were somewhat vulnerable to dew and hard to use in dim red light). I had my "modified" atlas and used the "right-angle sweep" technique for finding things, so other than knowing which atlas page the object was on, I didn't really need anything else.

NSOG changed that a bit, as it has verbal descriptions for every single deep-sky object covered in the book, which is something which Burnham's simply couldn't do (and realistically was never intended to do). As a purely observational guide, it definitely is better than BCH. However, the two works are simply different, and as such, any comparison might be a little unfair. Each filled a need at the time, so I am glad I have both. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: LivingNDixie]
      #5512913 - 11/10/12 10:13 AM

Preston,
I just feel that Bruce slammed the door pretty hard on Burnham. It's as if he blames Burnham for being in is era. Burnham's is a timeless classic and a masterpiece. It's unique feel and approach will remain special. The descriptive notes are difficult unlike NSOG but I'm good with it since I have all the abreviation tables memorized. Soon I will post my own review of Burham's and set my own record straight.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mayidunk
Don't Ask...
*****

Reged: 02/17/10

Loc: Betwixt & Between...
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: mayidunk]
      #5513152 - 11/10/12 12:46 PM

Quote:

Well, once again you guys have inspired me! First I was inspired last week to purchase, "The Great Atlas of the Sky" from Piotr Brych. A couple of days ago, after reading this thread, I decided to spring for the NSOG, ordering it directly from Willmann Bell as they have the best price for the set. I even got the Southern Hemisphere volume, as if I ever get down south, it can be used there.

I want to get the books while they're still available, before they just stop being published altogether, or publishers decide to cut corners, compromising the quality of the paper, bindings, and covers in order to just keep up with the economic pressures that just keep building!



They arrived this morning, and I'm impressed! However, I'm curious about the star maps printed on the inside covers.
I see that volumes 2 & 3 have them, but was surprised to see that they're not printed in volume 1! Is this an error, or is this how they've always been?



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: mayidunk]
      #5513171 - 11/10/12 01:03 PM

I just checked: all 3 volumes in my library have the star charts inside the covers.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mayidunk
Don't Ask...
*****

Reged: 02/17/10

Loc: Betwixt & Between...
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5513299 - 11/10/12 03:06 PM

Quote:

I just checked: all 3 volumes in my library have the star charts inside the covers.



I'll have to call Willman Bell on Monday. Fact is, though, that the same charts are inside of vols. 2 & 3, so I wonder if they may have decided to save some money on printing, since most probably buy vols 1 & 2, and maybe not vol. 3, or buy vol. 3, but not the other two. We'll see.

Thanks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
okieav8rAdministrator
I'd rather be flying!
*****

Reged: 03/01/09

Loc: Oklahoma!
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: mayidunk]
      #5513456 - 11/10/12 05:01 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Well, once again you guys have inspired me! First I was inspired last week to purchase, "The Great Atlas of the Sky" from Piotr Brych. A couple of days ago, after reading this thread, I decided to spring for the NSOG, ordering it directly from Willmann Bell as they have the best price for the set. I even got the Southern Hemisphere volume, as if I ever get down south, it can be used there.

I want to get the books while they're still available, before they just stop being published altogether, or publishers decide to cut corners, compromising the quality of the paper, bindings, and covers in order to just keep up with the economic pressures that just keep building!



They arrived this morning, and I'm impressed! However, I'm curious about the star maps printed on the inside covers.
I see that volumes 2 & 3 have them, but was surprised to see that they're not printed in volume 1! Is this an error, or is this how they've always been?






I just checked mine. Volume one doesn't have them, volume two does.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mayidunk
Don't Ask...
*****

Reged: 02/17/10

Loc: Betwixt & Between...
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: okieav8r]
      #5513775 - 11/10/12 10:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Well, once again you guys have inspired me! First I was inspired last week to purchase, "The Great Atlas of the Sky" from Piotr Brych. A couple of days ago, after reading this thread, I decided to spring for the NSOG, ordering it directly from Willmann Bell as they have the best price for the set. I even got the Southern Hemisphere volume, as if I ever get down south, it can be used there.

I want to get the books while they're still available, before they just stop being published altogether, or publishers decide to cut corners, compromising the quality of the paper, bindings, and covers in order to just keep up with the economic pressures that just keep building!



They arrived this morning, and I'm impressed! However, I'm curious about the star maps printed on the inside covers.
I see that volumes 2 & 3 have them, but was surprised to see that they're not printed in volume 1! Is this an error, or is this how they've always been?






I just checked mine. Volume one doesn't have them, volume two does.



Sounds like this may be new with the recent version printed a few years ago. It's not the end of the world by any means at all, but I'm still interested to find out why they were removed.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csa/montana
Den Mama
*****

Reged: 05/14/05

Loc: montana
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: mayidunk]
      #5513874 - 11/11/12 12:19 AM

Mine (6th printing 2005) Vol. 1 does have the star maps in the front & back covers; as does my Vol 2 (4th printing 2000).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5514420 - 11/11/12 12:44 PM

Quote:

NSOG is not Burnham's Celestial Handbook, but quite frankly, it was never intended to be.





Quote:

And the authors said that specifically in the introductory section.
I don't really see why these two works get compared so often; they're completely different!





I wonder if most folks just skip that intro?

Both try and bridge between atlas and guide in their own way and in their own time, the Burnham called a 'handbook' not claiming to be either - but then what else at the time?

As far as scope bias I feel NSOG approach is at the very least quite useful as an indicator. Having gone from dark sky mid-large mirrors to small 160mm and below refractors I do feel that there is far more available to realistically talk about in using larger apertures and IMO the catalogs really 'open up'. Please don't flame me for saying that, it's just my experience and that's all it is. The organization and ordering don't seem to try and dissuade anyone from trying with smaller apertures? Just might not be anything to really talk about? and it does have that nice little synopsis square that includes even bino objects. I could be a goof and say there is a clear smaller scope bias in the "interesting stars" secion of each constellation?

I'm glad I'm not the author struggling with daunting tradeoffs, space requirements, what to include and how, sources and verifications - but I really do think the NSOG is really fantastic as a guide that includes a huge amount of information including location/atlas type location/locating charts - no problem very highly recommending it to anyone.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mayidunk
Don't Ask...
*****

Reged: 02/17/10

Loc: Betwixt & Between...
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5515760 - 11/12/12 10:53 AM

I just got off the phone with Willman-Bell, and they confirmed that the maps were excluded from vol.1 by mistake. We had a good chuckle over it.

The case, she is a sol-ved.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #5519447 - 11/14/12 12:09 PM

Quote:

I just checked: all 3 volumes in my library have the star charts inside the covers.




Don,

Then you probably have the older Vol 1&2 which are not the newer CCD images like Vol 3. When I saw Vol 3 I could tell right away it wasn't film.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
auriga
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/02/06

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5527015 - 11/18/12 10:50 PM

Quote:

Rex, I admire your response sir.

There does however appear to be some misunderstandings about how much astrophysical information one needs about the object at the eyepiece. Take the 1st and 2nd editions of the Sky Atlas 2000 companion for example. It gives a brief observational and astrophysical explanation about each object that's short enough to be easily usable under the stars. Of course I agree, it wouldn't be practical to read entire pages or several detailed pages under the stars.

There are in fact, some interesting but limited deep sky notes about some of the objects in NSOG, for example, Barnards star. In my opinion, it's important to teach others to take a little time to understand more about these interesting objects we are seeing in the night sky. Not doing this, deprives not only the observer, but others from appreciating even the most subtle of objects in appearance, in essence, a cure that helps avoid aperture fever that plagues observers. That's what was so genius about Burnham. He observed with his mind, rather than just his eyes, something lacking all to often with observers these days who are clueless about what they are actually looking at and believe me, they are clueless!

Take M92 and M13. Since everyone will point at M13, it's up to the observer to explain why M92 is also an interesting globular and that's not what's happening. Any observer who lacks the skill to explain or teach others that faint or less attractive objects may have great significance is not a very skilled observer in my opinion. A good observer knows how to make the universe an interesting place by knowing more about what they're seeing. NGC2419 isn't the finest globular from a visual perspective, but I'll bet if you explain to others why it's so faint, they will appreciate it much more. NSOG actually did this, so it's not entirely lacking.

NSOG is still a good guide in my opinion and don't get me wrong, I actually like certain parts of it. If you go to p.97 vol 1 and see the description of NGC2362, NSOG actually gives a nice, little description of the object that could easily be read under the stars at the telescope. All I'm suggesting, is that writers and authors take a little more time to put down something brief, but interesting so it can be shared with others at the eyepiece to help us all contemplate what we are seeing.

Remember folks, the attention span of the average observer is next to nothing. Many of them do not study because they don't have the patience to sit down and read Burnham's but if writers take a little more time to offer a brief explanation about the object, it will be the first step to getting other observers to wake up and think more about what they're seeing. The universe doesn't always need to be a loud, saturated, colorful place like we see in Hubble pictures. Writers, authors, editors, for crying out loud, just put a little more depth into your other than just another endless visual description.

Several of you have already complained about how the visual descriptions don't even match what you see anyway. I'm not saying to eliminate the visual descriptions at all. It's important to have them. Just minimize them and use the space in the book for other important notes. There are always going to be factors like experience, seeing, darkness etc effecting what we see vs. what others see. For that reason I always take other visual observations with a grain of salt.




Daniel,
I have and use both Burnham and NSOG. For an understanding of what the object is and why it is interesting, and why an object is worth looking at, I use Sky Safari Pro, which has lots of data on most objects and their astronomical significance. A book that contained all that would probably be too heavy but versions of Sky Safari run on an iPhone or Android or similar device.
Bill Meyers


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: auriga]
      #5527144 - 11/19/12 12:25 AM Attachment (10 downloads)

That's why it's good to have them all. It's ironic though how many others complain about BCH's 1950's epoch coordinates when in fact I was probably one of the only few who actually re-calculate many of them. If anyone should be complaining about BCH, it should be me.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5527694 - 11/19/12 11:01 AM

Quote:

That's why it's good to have them all. It's ironic though how many others complain about BCH's 1950's epoch coordinates when in fact I was probably one of the only few who actually re-calculate many of them. If anyone should be complaining about BCH, it should be me.




My hat's of to you if you recalculated them all. I would have thought that you would have just let Sky Safari do the work for you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: blb]
      #5532101 - 11/21/12 11:56 AM

Thank you Buddy. Thank goodness for Sky Safari.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #6591751 - 06/19/14 11:24 PM

Has anyone noticed whether or not the all sky maps on the inside covers in the latest NSOG's have been marked in now?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #6591877 - 06/20/14 01:14 AM

What do you mean? Which volume each constellation is in? Or something else?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Starman1]
      #6591924 - 06/20/14 02:22 AM

On the latest copies you may recall that the maps inside the covers were blank.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #6592590 - 06/20/14 01:12 PM

I got vol.3 a couple of months ago, and it has maps inside the cover.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: Night Sky Observers Guide new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #6592881 - 06/20/14 04:01 PM

They must be flowing through the blank copies. I just got several copies at the store but I haven't checked them yet.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Geo557, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 5778

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics