wojo
super member
Reged: 09/28/07
Posts: 148
|
|
Having completed Messier's list twice, once with a 8" and then a 12.5" IM looking to find a book ,something like JAMES O'MEARA'S Messier Objects. That gives a good discription of the object to be viewed, short history , general data .Mostly for the northern sky. Any suggestions?? THANKS
|
Dave Chadsey
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/27/04
Posts: 503
Loc: Southern California
|
|
O'Meara also wrote a book called "The Caldwell Objects". The Caldwell's are a bit more challenging than the Messiers and some are only visible from the southern hemisphere but most can be seen from the north.
Dave
--------------------
...and deliver us from ego.
66mm Stellarvue ED
4" achro
8" Nexstar
10" Orion Dob
16" Meade Dob (split tube)
Many binos
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Regarding the so-called Caldwell Catalogue...
http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/lingmoor.htm
You may want to consider O'Meara's Hidden Treasures.
http://astore.amazon.com/backyardast00-20/detail/0521837049
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
SaberScorpX
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 4121
Loc: illinois, usa
|
|
re: Caldwell link
Sounds personal.
It's a fine list that's been endorsed by the Astronomical League and our major publications. As humble ambassadors to the sky we may not all agree, but openly scoffing the established list to those interested gives a bad impression and undermines the positive outreach mission of amateur astronomy.
To the OP:
The Sky Atlas 2000.0 Companion by Robert Strong is another excellent DSO reference.
SJS
|
Fireball
sage
Reged: 03/24/06
Posts: 270
|
|
I highly recommend the "Night Sky Observer's Guide" from George Robert Kepple and Glen Sanner. Keeps you busy for quite a while 
--------------------
20x90 Bino
12" Lightbridge
Meade UWAs, TV Ethoi, Pentax XW, Hyperion, AT Titan.
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Quote:
re: Caldwell link
Sounds personal.
It's a fine list that's been endorsed by the Astronomical League and our major publications. As humble ambassadors to the sky we may not all agree, but openly scoffing the established list to those interested gives a bad impression and undermines the positive outreach mission of amateur astronomy.
To the OP:
The Sky Atlas 2000.0 Companion by Robert Strong is another excellent DSO reference.
SJS
What you call is scoffing is an honest critique, in my opinion. A great many experienced deep sky observers, including some here on CN, are less than impressed with the Caldwell list. It seems to me that the reason, other than the obvious cache of the originator's name, that the list is "established" is due primarily to the fact that Sky & Telescope was able to cash in on its publication.
Dave Mitsky
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Quote:
I highly recommend the "Night Sky Observer's Guide" from George Robert Kepple and Glen Sanner. Keeps you busy for quite a while
I'll certainly second that.
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2096
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Having completed Messier's list twice, once with a 8" and then a 12.5" IM looking to find a book ,something like JAMES O'MEARA'S Messier Objects.
I think that some (not all) of the criticisms of the Caldwell list are quite legitimate. However, few people dispute that O'Meara's Caldwell book is a masterpiece. And since O'Meara included "Twenty Spectacular Non-Caldwell Objects" as well, it's fair to consider this book to be O'Meara's "110 best non-Messiers" list. Just throw out your 20 least favorite Caldwell objects and substitute O'Meara's instead.
If all you want is a list rather than a book, and if you live north of latitude 38N or thereabouts, I strongly recommend Alan Dyer's 110 best non-Messiers, published by the RASC. Or if you live farther south, the Saguaro Astronomy Club's list.
Truth be told, for all the controversy, all of these "best 110" lists include a lot of objects in common.
I wouldn't recommend tackling the Herschel 400 right off the bat unless you're sure you want a pretty serious challenge. It's not so much that the objects are hard to see -- in fact, most of them are fairly easy. But 400 is a mighty big number.
Kepple & Sanner belongs on the bookshelf of any serious deep-sky observer, but it's not the same kind of book as O'Meara's guides. I view it more as a reference work than anything else. Though I'm sure it would serve perfectly well as a to-do list if 400 is too small a number for you.
You might also consider working your way through Sue French's Celestial Sampler. She's one of the few authors that I like even better than O'Meara. (And no, I don't think that's just because I'm professionally associated with her.)
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
Edited by Tony Flanders (06/05/08 08:06 AM)
|
SaberScorpX
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 4121
Loc: illinois, usa
|
|
re: [many] are less than impressed with the Caldwell list.
As I said, that's fine.
Why bring up the negativity to the wide-eyed and curious?
To what end? It's an overall great list of objects by any name.
While a bino bible, I'll add Harrington's Touring the Universe through Binoculars
as an excellent reference to the brightest DSOs.
SJS
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Here are links to a number of worthwhile DSO lists:
http://www.eastvalleyastronomy.org/ngcfinest.html
http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/BEST-OF-DEEP-SKY-OBJECTS-NOT-IN-THE-NGC.htm
http://www.taas.org/taas200/index.html
http://www.astronomyboy.com/saa/saa100.html
http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/herschel/h400lstn.html
http://homepage.mac.com/vicmenard/telescopes/TheList.pdf
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/raycash/dmcon.htm
http://www.subdomainname.yurisnight.net/messier/xtra/similar/m1000.txt
http://www.1000plus.com/2000plus/
Those looking for a challenge might want to try some of these lists:
http://www.delphes.net/messier/xtra/similar/rasc-dsc.html
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/offpath.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/pnfirsts.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/palglob.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/gcextra.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/gcm31.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/hickcatalog.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/agctable.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/chains.htm
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/ultimate.htm
Sue's book is excellent and comes highly recommended.
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
wojo
super member
Reged: 09/28/07
Posts: 148
|
|
THANKS ALL, for your replies..... I thoroughly enjoyed O'MEARAS writing style. and helpful comments and was hoping to find a simular writing . Went through SUE FRENCH'S book also, and enjoyed it very much. Looking more towards this helpful, informative,guide style rather than just a list. Im at 42° .
Clear Skies WOJO
|
MikeRatcliff
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/12/04
Posts: 1107
Loc: Redlands, CA
|
|
One caution on the after Messier lists, there are a few challenging objects where I had to refine my techniques and emotionally get over some initial disappointments.
In particular, the Bubble Nebula, was a personal nemesis. This nebula is on almost everyone's list. But I had a tough time with it, and still do.
Up to then, I was content with my usual technique: 1) get close with the Telrad, 2) in the scope, look around for something bright and obvious, 3) self congratulations - "hehe, this is like shooting fish in a barrel."
I had good dark N. California skies and a decent 6" dob at the time. (Found NGC 5053 the first time as an example, more of a tribute to the clean dark skies at my site than skill).
I was merrily going down the RASC 110 list, and even though there are warnings, I was surprised by the difficulty of the Bubble.
First of all, it is close to a star, but exactly which one? I couldn't tell with my rudimentary charts. I had the wrong star for a long time. And then there was NOTHING and I mean nothing visible anywhere around. Meade nebula filter was no help. Eventually I found some better charts and "success" was a very small faint smudge. "Is that all?"
Honestly, it put a damper on things for a while.
The biggest single criticism of the Caldwell for me is that there are a few of these challenges that are worse than the Bubble. Seems totally inappropriate for a next 110 list.
Like Tony said, steer around those nearly impossible ones for a while at least, and be prepared for some challenges. Most of them are great, but some will stretch you.
Good luck!
Mike
--------------------
16" f/4.9 dob
Tele Vue Plossls 32,25,20,15,11
13 Nagler T6
10.5 Pentax XL
Brandon 32, 16
12.5 UO ortho, 9 Circle T ortho
2x TV Barlow
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6778
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
re: Caldwell link
Sounds personal.
It's a fine list that's been endorsed by the Astronomical League and our major publications. As humble ambassadors to the sky we may not all agree, but openly scoffing the established list to those interested gives a bad impression and undermines the positive outreach mission of amateur astronomy.
To the OP:
The Sky Atlas 2000.0 Companion by Robert Strong is another excellent DSO reference.
SJS
While Alister Ling's article might be a bit on the harsh side, the problem with the Caldwell list (other than the inclusion of a few non-starters) isn't necessarily the list, but the way some people (and entities) use it. A few may say "Caldwell 13" instead of NGC 457, the well-known and spectacular "E.T. Cluster". The Caldwells are *not* officially-accepted identification numbers. There are certain standard catalogs used both by professionals and amateurs, but the "list" Patrick "Caldwell" Moore put together is not one of them. For the above example, the E.T. cluster has some of these "official" catalog designations:
NGC 457
Collinder 12 (Cr 12)
Mellotte 7 (Mel 7)
Herschel 42-7 (H-42-7)
All these are standard scientific catalogs that resulted either from a systematic scientific search for objects (Messiers, Herschels, etc.), or from a group of objects which were part of a scientific study. The most common standard reference tends to be the New General Catalog number (NGC 457), although the others are used from time to time. Moore basically just cobbled together a group of objects for Sky and Telescope to create a list of objects as a follow-on to the Messier catalog. It is unclear whether he even observed these objects (the inclusion of ones like the "Cave" Nebula and IC 1613 make me really wonder about this). He did not discover or do science on them, so there is really not much validity in calling the list a "catalog" or referring to "The Caldwell Objects" in the same way as the Messier Objects are referred to. I have a very nice list of about 350 of my favorite deep-sky objects (which includes all the Messiers and the best of the Herschels), but I would not have the hubris to say that the E.T. Cluster is "Knisely 132"! The New General Catalog (NGC) however *is* a standard catalog, so that generally should be the way such objects are identified. If someone comes up to me and says, "I have Caldwell 13 in the scope right now.", I would say "Huh??". In this hobby, one does have to use standard terminology if one wants to be universally understood. I have no objection if people observe the objects in the Caldwell list or participate in the League's OBSERVE program for the list, as there are a number of real jewels among them, but please don't refer to one as "Caldwell (such-in-such)". It might result in a little confusion and perhaps give Moore just a little more credit that he may deserve. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Dave Chadsey
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/27/04
Posts: 503
Loc: Southern California
|
|
The Caldwell objects are fun and challenging. I have logged numbers 1-83 and 85 from Central California with a 10" scope. Yes it was tricky and I needed very dark sites, but that's the challenge.
As far as naming confusion goes, that's always been there. For instance, when you refer to Messier 51 do you mean NGC 5194 (also known as PGC 47404, Lord Rosse's Galaxy, and MCG-08-25-012) or do you mean the smaller galaxy known as NGC 5195, PGC 47413, etc.?
I sometimes feel the prejudice against the Caldwells is just that, prejudice.
Also, the book is great.
Just get out there, 
Dave
Edited by Dave Chadsey (06/05/08 02:52 PM)
|
Southerner
sage
Reged: 08/15/07
Posts: 235
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
interesting thread here, having only tried the Messier and Herschel list I had no idea there was a controversy involved with this one. I think David makes some good points, and personally I wish using the NGC designation was more common for Messier items because since I started with those I have remembered them as M41 instead of its NGC designation. This isn't a big deal most of the time but now that I have started the globular cluster observing program (which does use NGC designators) is hard for me to tell if I have already observed an item or not. Anyway, interesting thread.
--------------------
http://theskywasbruised.blogspot.com/
Canon Rebel dslr
Celestron c80 ED
Orion 8 inch xt
Orion 12 inch xt
Atlas Mount
One Half Breed Hound Dog
Phillips SPC900 WebCam
|
skypilgrim
sage
Reged: 12/25/06
Posts: 412
Loc: Under a cloud
|
|
Deep-Sky Wonders by Walter Scott Houston.
Hundreds of DSO's with interesting descriptions of how amateur's have perceived them over the years. A "must-have" for any Deep sky observer, IMO. 
Sam
--------------------
Equipment:
Scope #1: 5" f/8 refractor.
Scope #2: 3" f/6 refractor.
Daughters scope: XT6 dobsonian.
Area of interest: Ethnoastronomy
My Blog: http://fathersky.wordpress.com/
|
wojo
super member
Reged: 09/28/07
Posts: 148
|
|
Well IT looks like I stirred up the mud a little , when my only question was to find writing style like O'MEARAS. good reading , learn a little. and good targets. Sue's French's and O'Meara's books are tops in my opinion, was just looking to continue down that road
GOOD THING my name isn't CALDWELL Peace WOJO
|
MikeRatcliff
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/12/04
Posts: 1107
Loc: Redlands, CA
|
|
The deep sky forum is usually a peaceful place. The mods typically fall asleep here. The Caldwell catalog is one of a few topics that has some controversy.
Thanks for the thread though. I may buy one of O'Meara's books. I like Sue French's book too.
Mike
--------------------
16" f/4.9 dob
Tele Vue Plossls 32,25,20,15,11
13 Nagler T6
10.5 Pentax XL
Brandon 32, 16
12.5 UO ortho, 9 Circle T ortho
2x TV Barlow
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6778
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Dave Chadsey wrote:
Quote:
As far as naming confusion goes, that's always been there. For instance, when you refer to Messier 51 do you mean NGC 5194 (also known as PGC 47404, Lord Rosse's Galaxy, and MCG-08-25-012) or do you mean the smaller galaxy known as NGC 5195, PGC 47413, etc.?
M51A is NGC 5194 and M51B is NGC 5195. However, these are catalog numbers with some official "sanction" if you will. The Caldwell numbers have no more validity than my "Knisely" numbers would. The Caldwell list contains quite a number of interesting and challenging targets for the deep-sky enthusiast and most are well worth pursuing as a follow-on to the Messier list. However, it would be best if the objects themselves were referred to using standard catalog numbers (this isn't prejudice; it is just standard scientific convention). Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Quote:
Dave Chadsey wrote:
Quote:
As far as naming confusion goes, that's always been there. For instance, when you refer to Messier 51 do you mean NGC 5194 (also known as PGC 47404, Lord Rosse's Galaxy, and MCG-08-25-012) or do you mean the smaller galaxy known as NGC 5195, PGC 47413, etc.?
M51A is NGC 5194 and M51B is NGC 5195. However, these are catalog numbers with some official "sanction" if you will. The Caldwell numbers have no more validity than my "Knisely" numbers would. The Caldwell list contains quite a number of interesting and challenging targets for the deep-sky enthusiast and most are well worth pursuing as a follow-on to the Messier list. However, it would be best if the objects themselves were referred to using standard catalog numbers (this isn't prejudice; it is just standard scientific convention). Clear skies to you.
Exactly so.
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
SaberScorpX
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 4121
Loc: illinois, usa
|
|
A polite suggestion to use the more conventional ID to avoid confusion is fine.
I look forward to the day when it stops at that.
SJS
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6778
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
interesting thread here, having only tried the Messier and Herschel list I had no idea there was a controversy involved with this one. I think David makes some good points, and personally I wish using the NGC designation was more common for Messier items because since I started with those I have remembered them as M41 instead of its NGC designation. This isn't a big deal most of the time but now that I have started the globular cluster observing program (which does use NGC designators) is hard for me to tell if I have already observed an item or not. Anyway, interesting thread.
Actually, the Messier Catalog pre-dates the New General Catalog (NGC) by around a century (and there aren't as many objects to remember in the Messier catalog than in the NGC), so the Messier number tends to be the one which is used for an object first, although this is not always the case. Then, there is the case of one of the "missing" Messier Objects, M102. It eventually became clear from studies of the writings of Messier and Mechain that M102 was probably just a duplicate observation of M101. However, around 1917, a suggestion was made by Camille Flammarion that M102 had actually been the galaxy NGC 5866. I still find a few software catalogs for telescope control that link M102 to M101 and ignore NGC 5866 as a Messier object, even though today, that galaxy has sort of been "adopted" into the Messier Catalog and assigned the number M102. Thus, this is one case where the NGC number appears to be dominant over the "Messier" number. For those interested, a nice summary of the M102 controversy can be found here:
http://www.maa.clell.de/Messier/E/m102d.html
Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Quote:
A polite suggestion to use the more conventional ID to avoid confusion is fine.
I look forward to the day when it stops at that.
SJS
I suppose that I could look forward to the day when the misleading term catalog is replaced by the word list but things being what they are I don't expect that to happen.
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
Brian W
member
Reged: 01/24/08
Posts: 41
Loc: Negros Oriental
|
|
hi, because I live near the equator most of the on line lists do not show all of my skies so I have gone another route. I am exploring the skies by constellations. It is not a problem using on line resource's to compile a list of objects that fit into both my scopes and my skies limitations. I certainly won't be getting a certificate for my wall but it is a lot of fun.
Brian
--------------------
Orion 4.5" short tube reflector EQ mount
Meade 8" LightBridge
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6272
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Brian,
Here's a list of southern objects, which, rather ironically, was compiled by a man named Caldwell.
http://www.seds.org/Messier/xtra/similar/JCaldw.html
There's also the Astronomical League's Southern Sky Telescope Club list.
Do you have a copy of the excellent, but very expensive, Hartung's Astronomical Objects for Southern Telescopes: A Handbook for Amateur Observers?
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
Brian W
member
Reged: 01/24/08
Posts: 41
Loc: Negros Oriental
|
|
Thanks for the lists Dave. Never hurts to have more datum. One of the problems I have found with 'lists' is that if I set up a data base for 1 list I often neglect to put it in another list so I am beginning to loose what I have found. Trying to solve this problem by using the SAC data base found in AstroByte.
Brian
--------------------
Orion 4.5" short tube reflector EQ mount
Meade 8" LightBridge
|
stevecoe
Reged: 04/24/04
Posts: 2129
Loc: Arizona, USA
|
|
Brian;
You can have the raw SAC data here:
www.saguaroastro.org
I put it together in a zip file that has Excel, comma delimited and text file formats.
Hope that helps;
Steve Coe
--------------------
150mm 6" f/8 Celestron Refractor on Sirius Mount
80mmED 3" f/7.5 Orion Refractor
Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer-Verlag
Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer
New Canon Xt astrocamera with Hutech modification
|
Paul_R
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/05/05
Posts: 1648
|
|
One of the finest Messier guidebooks is Kenneth Glyn Jones, Messier's Nebulae and Star Clusters. It includes brief excerpts from the old observational reports, decent finder charts and sketches, good discussions of the objects, and even some commentary about what's in the neighborhood of each object.
In addition, it has an excellent biography of Messier, a great essay on the scopes he used, tips on observing deep sky objects, the story of the missing Messiers and the detective work around them, etc. It's really a classic.
Jones is also the person who edited the Webb Society's Deep-Sky Observer's Handbook series which is also good in its own right, though without the rich descriptions and flowing prose you're seeking.
A query for folks-- does anyone know if the much newer 2nd edition of the Jones Messier book contains all the features, write-ups, gems from the 1st edition? I'm browsing amazon.com right now to find out, but maybe someone who knows can chime in, too!
Cambridge University Press put out the hardback of it in 1991, but a paperback was just released this January! The original hardback has the wonderful feature of being able to lie flat on an observing table. I doubt the paperback version can do that, but of more importance is the content!
Edited by Paul_R (06/10/08 05:27 PM)
|
Paul_R
Carpal Tunnel
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: