Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
According to The Urban Astronomer's Guide by Rod Mollise, I should be able to see every Messier object from my Urban site - including the so-called difficult ones. M33 is one of those difficult ones. Can folks give me some tips to try and snag this?
I have a Z10 - 10" Mirror, 1250mm FL, f/4.92 with the eyepieces listed below. I also have filters but I don't think they'll apply here. I'm a little confused about the size of this object. My Astromist software for example, has a little circle within a much larger circle. I know I should know better by now and speak in terms of minutes and arc-seconds but I'd appreciate any help here. What eyepiece would it best fit inside of? By "best" I guess I mean where I would get the best mag for contrast against it's surroundings??
It's new moon soon, and my CSC looks OK so I might pull a couple of all nighters. This will be done from my backyard however - which is a white-zone/borderline Red-zone area. Any suggestions beyond telling me to get to a dark site? Thanks -Jeff
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Make sure you starhop to the right place, and then make sure you know exactly where you are. This isn't a galaxy that you can swing to easily in a light polluted environment. Then look for a slight brightening of the background.
It might be easier than that, but probably won't be. And really, this is one of those galaxies where aperture is no saving grace. Also use your lowest power.
Dark adapt to a ridiculous degree as well, and don't use any red light beyond barely visible.
Also might be worth taking a shot at NGC 604 instead of M33. I've heard reports that some people see it with less effort than the galaxy it's housed in, although I haven't had a chance to see if that applies for me as well.
As for size, it ain't no slouch. It's not M31, but it's pretty damn huge. That being said, with light pollution, it's one of those galaxies that might be pretty much reduced to a small core. And M33 doesn't have much of a core.
--------------------
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely make sure to be as much dark adapted as possible.
My 24pan gives me ~60x - is that enough in my light polluted skies?
How much (%) of the eyepiece FOV will the galaxy take up in my 17T4 (84.6x) .97 True field for example?
Will it fit in the FOV of a 13mm eyepiece (110x) .70 true field? Or will I not notice it in the 13mm because it'll be bigger than the FOV?
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14724
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely make sure to be as much dark adapted as possible.
My 24pan gives me ~60x - is that enough in my light polluted skies?
How much (%) of the eyepiece FOV will the galaxy take up in my 17T4 (84.6x) .97 True field for example?
Will it fit in the FOV of a 13mm eyepiece (110x) .70 true field? Or will I not notice it in the 13mm because it'll be bigger than the FOV?
If you had an eyepiece that would do it, I'd tell you to go DOWN to 20x or 30x. I observe M33 in 10x50 binoculars. I saw it just this morning in 22x85 binoculars with 3° fov. It probably filled 1/3 of the fov. You may be having a problem, 1) because of bright skies and/or 2) because your fov is not large enough.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely make sure to be as much dark adapted as possible.
My 24pan gives me ~60x - is that enough in my light polluted skies?
How much (%) of the eyepiece FOV will the galaxy take up in my 17T4 (84.6x) .97 True field for example?
Will it fit in the FOV of a 13mm eyepiece (110x) .70 true field? Or will I not notice it in the 13mm because it'll be bigger than the FOV?
Theoretically it'll take up all your .97 deg FOV. Pratcially, however, it probably won't. That being said, you probably don't want to magnify this object, as it'll spread out what little light there is. Of course, it's worth a try to go through all your mags. NGC 604, as well as the very core might be helped by pumping mag.
--------------------
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Wow - 1/3 of a 3° fov? This thing is huge. Does that mean it covers the entire fov in the 24PAN for me (~1.1° TFOV) or am I not calculating correctly? I'll never see it from this location if I have to use a 24mm eyepiece - what was Rod Mollise talking about? RATS! I will still try tonight but I think this is impossible.
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Just saw your post Hrundi - thank you. I don't know. I'll see what I can observe tonight and tomorrow. I've been pushing the limits on other objects from my site and have been getting a lot of satisafaction out of capturing them - but this guy might just elude me.
Entire Messier list from NYC a pipe dream? To be continued...
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
Edited by YankeeJeff (09/18/09 11:48 AM)
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
It might not be impossible. I know there's been sightings of M101 from urban skies, and that, in my opinion, is a far more difficult nut to crack than M33.
--------------------
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
According to The Urban Astronomer's Guide by Rod Mollise, I should be able to see every Messier object from my Urban site - including the so-called difficult ones. M33 is one of those difficult ones. Can folks give me some tips to try and snag this?
It's certainly *not* the case that every Messier object is visible from *every* urban site. I've seen them all from here in Cambridge, MA, and I know people who have seen them all from upper Manhattan. But depending exactly where in Brooklyn you live (it's kinda big!), your skies may be significantly brighter than those in upper Manhattan. I doubt that all the Messier objects could be seen from Midtown, for instance.
As for the size of M33 -- yes, it is indeed huge. But you won't see all of that in a city -- not even close. All you're likely to see is the bright central core, less than 10' across. (See my description here.)
Curiously, in suburban conditions, many people find M33 easier to see in binoculars than in telescopes. I've known people to find it completely invisible at any power through a 10-inch scope, but to be able to see it easily through 10x50 binoculars. Two eyes are definitely better than one when it comes to viewing faint nebulosity!
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Thanks Tony. I'm originally from the Bronx, and have travelled into upper Manhattan many times. I'm almost certain my site is comparable if not better for observing. Do you recall if the folks who saw all the Messier objects from upper Manahattan were using a 10" scope or larger? It does give me hope that people have been able to do this here. I'll also take out the 15X70 Binos tonight on the chance it can happen that way. Thanks for the input.
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Tony. I'm originally from the Bronx, and have travelled into upper Manhattan many times. I'm almost certain my site is comparable if not better for observing. Do you recall if the folks who saw all the Messier objects from upper Manahattan were using a 10" scope or larger?
I recall two people doing it with 4-inch refractors -- though I can't recall the details. And if you can do it with a 4-incher, you *certainly* can do it with a 10-incher.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
coutleef
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 1708
Loc: Montréal and Saint-Donat, Québ...
|
|
I am using a 8". From a dark site, i tried to see it and just could not at first. I stared and stared and stared and suddenly, it became visible. I had seen several other galaxies before looking at M33, including NGC 7331 just before trying M33, and was expecting it to be like M51. I could not figure out why i was seeing so easily a NGC galaxies but could not nail down a Messier galaxy that is supposed to be seen from a dark site with naked eyes.
M33 will not look like the other galaxies. It is very faint and very spread out (quite big). When i realized i was looking at it, i was surprised i had missed it initially, since it was so obvious now.
If you do not see it but you are sure you are at the right place, keep looking even if the area looks empty. Surprisingly, it will pop out. And once you have seen it once, it will be easier the other times. I found it to be challenging because it is so different from the other galaxies we usually try to see.
-------------------- François
Scopes: Nexstar 8 SE with Ron's rail and Denk S1 Powerswitch. EPs list is on my Bio.
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
M33 is definitely an incredibly odd galaxy. One time at a dark site I panned over to it, and it looked like a mini M32. Bright core, huge halo, dimming towards the edges. Actually reminded me a bit of some elliptical galaxies. Weather didn't permit me to stick around and check for arms though.
--------------------
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 10447
Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth
|
|
Quote:
It might not be impossible. I know there's been sightings of M101 from urban skies, and that, in my opinion, is a far more difficult nut to crack than M33.
I agree. M101 is at least a bit more difficult than M33. Both of these galaxies have been easy binocular (8x42 and 15x70) and small refractor (80 and 101mmm) targets from Cherry Springs this week.
Dave Mitsky
-------------------- Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
wfj
sage
   
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
I was looking at it the night before in a 12.5" in the orange zone at 50x. Some suggestion of arms, and didn't have much trouble with 4 of the HII regions, and all kinds of trouble with the fainter HII regions. Did better with the HII's at 250x.
I spend a while on the HII regions, and could make out with AV the boundary with the "nucleus". Biggest issue was the LP leaves you with "shades of grey", where you can perceive it in outline as the lightest of gradation.
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
This is encouraging folks, thanks. I'm going to keep trying the next few nights.
I'm basically going to make sure my eyes are cat-like dark adapted and try everything starting w/ the Binos, 24Pan, and 17T4. Hopefully I'll make out some fuzz in the area.
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
M33 will not look like the other galaxies. It is very faint and very spread out (quite big).
Well, these things are all relative. I consider M33 to be just about average. Most of the Messier galaxies have surface brightness well above average -- that's why Messier could see them. Then there's a whole spectrum of galaxies with surface brightness ranging from fainter than M33 to *much* fainter than M33.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Tim L
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 562
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Hi Jeff,
I tried all last winter without success to catch M33. Last month, I went to a dark site and was able to view it. Now, back in my own (red zone) backyard, and knowing exactly where to look, I can faintly glimpse it.
I would suggest using Stellarium or some other program and learning some of the dim star asterisms next to it. I recognize a squareish shape next to it, and the galaxy itself is within another square. If you can pick these out (or others of your making) in your eyepiece, it might help you to focus on that spot where you KNOW it has to be.
Good luck--if you get it, you deserve to feel proud!
-------------------- Tim
Zhumell Z10 dob
Meade 60mm refractor
Zhumell 1.25" eyepiece and filter kit
Zhumell sky-glow, UHC, and OIII filters
|
Alpha Orionis
super member
Reged: 06/04/09
Posts: 101
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
ive "seen" it with binoculars 10x50 from my red zone light polluted backyard. granted it didnt look like anything, and the galaxy was so "subtle" that i had to pan the binos around to make sure i was seeing what i thought i was seeing..
-------------------- Astronomical Observation Equipment:
Zhumell Z12 Deluxe
Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ
10x50 Bushnell Binos
A good Pair of eyes
Home Observation site:
Salt Lake City
|
rocco13
Got Milk?
Reged: 07/29/06
Posts: 2643
Loc: Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
Yeah, slowly moving the scope helps detecting (and confirming) both M33 and M101, at least for me when at home in the suburbs.
At dark sky sites, they're both readily visible, but unfortunately, 98% of my observing is NOT done under dark skies. <sigh>
-------------------- Rocco
Zhumell Z12
Super C8 (1984 vintage)
Celestron 102 f/5
and a cheap pair of binoculars
|
Rat
super member
Reged: 10/13/06
Posts: 145
Loc: USA
|
|
After reading this thread, I tried viewing M33 through my 4" refractor this morning from my "urban" site. I've seen it many times with my larger cats, but today it was simply invisible. Powers used were 33x and 45x. I even tried using a LPR filter. Guess I can't join the ranks of others who viewed this galaxy with a 4" scope.
|
wfj
sage
   
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Last night pulled out my 10" as well in the San Jose light dome, 1/3 the way up from the tip of Triangulum in the direction of Mirach at 44x with a 60 degree AFOV EP.
You notice some bright foreground stars, then a light haze behind them - that's M33, then some more defined small angular bits not stars - those are the HII regions way out from the nucleus, beyond some of the arms (not visible in the 10"). Only clearly saw two of them tonite.
M33 is located kind of at the flip side of Andromeda from M31. When LP is really, really high, to not see it Mirach's ghost has to go away for me, and M110 gets hard. Tonight was a little better, with NGC891 popping in/out of view (no details - just a gray dash).
Yes M101 is harder - can be looking right at it for 10 minutes, know its there, and not see it.
Keep trying and I'm sure you'll get it. CS
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
33 is not aperture dependent at all in terms of detecting its presence and size. You can see it in a one inch scope if your magnification is correct and there in lays the angle.
Its all about magnification. Get it right and you can see it anything. Naked eye, if you have dark skys.
I have seen it plainly in my 70mm refractor in 6v skys as well as my 8" reflector. Figure on about 35x for your 4" and you ought to be in the ballpark.
If you are looking right at the right spot and it just isnt there, id check the skys. If you cant see 6v perhaps you ought to go where it is or better.
You ought to be able to see that dandy HII region in the 4".
Anyway, your scope is all that and up to the task... i question your skys.
Pete
--------------------
|
o1d_dude
o1der than dirt
   
Reged: 10/03/07
Posts: 2115
Loc: The TV/SV Wolfpack
|
|
Last night at 5200 feet of altitude at the Blue Canyon dark sky observing site, I thought I was able to just barely make out M33 naked eye. When I brought the binocs up to my eye, there it was. Imagination? Coincidence? Truly visible? I'm not sure but that's how it worked out last night for me. It was also clearly visible in my 4" refractor.
M31 was naked eye visible and I pointed it out to several visitors with the statement that they can now say their vision is good enough to see an object 2.5 million light years distant. I was again amazed at how large M31 actually is in sky.
Dark sky observing ruins me for viewing from my red/white zone backyard. I have no shot at seeing the Veil even though it's directly overhead. Up at the dark sky site, it's acceptably visible in the 4" with the O-III filter.
-------------------- Kit
'Don’t worry about what telescope you own, or its quality. Just get out under the night sky, and enjoy God’s wondrous universe.' - Thomas M Back
|
glava2005
member
Reged: 04/12/09
Posts: 86
|
|
i had no luck seeing M33 yet from my back yard and even on best nights in suburban area (
-------------------- Sky-Watcher ED80
TS Astro5 mount
|
lymorkiew45
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 735
Loc: In the dark, and way out there...
|
|
This galaxy will be invisible in light polluted skies, regardless of aperture, you need dark skies for this object, it's a prerequisite. Another very difficult galaxy is NGC 300, which is even more difficult, and hampered by bright stars superimposed on it's surface, making it very elusive...clear skies...
-------------------- Jorgen
Starfinder 16 dob: Zambuto Optics!
DS-10
Orion XT12i: The optics are special!
Z12
All the Lanthanum superwides!
Orion ultrablock filter
9mm Nagler type 6
15mm, 25mm, 35mm Ultrascopics
Orion Shorty Plus barlow
Orion Lazer Collimator
40" Webster: Under Construction
http://cleardarksky.com/c/SanJoseCAkey.html?1
20 years in Southern Dragon Kung Fu, or dragon style embellished in magical arms.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8275
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Last night at 5200 feet of altitude at the Blue Canyon dark sky observing site, I thought I was able to just barely make out M33 naked eye. When I brought the binocs up to my eye, there it was. Imagination? Coincidence? Truly visible? I'm not sure but that's how it worked out last night for me. It was also clearly visible in my 4" refractor.
M31 was naked eye visible and I pointed it out to several visitors with the statement that they can now say their vision is good enough to see an object 2.5 million light years distant. I was again amazed at how large M31 actually is in sky.
Dark sky observing ruins me for viewing from my red/white zone backyard. I have no shot at seeing the Veil even though it's directly overhead. Up at the dark sky site, it's acceptably visible in the 4" with the O-III filter.
M33 is often visible at a dark sky site with the unaided eye and averted vision. It is quite easy to me in 10x50 binoculars on a dark moonless night, although it is mainly just a dim oval smudge of light rather than something with detail. With any light pollution, it tends to vanish in the skyglow, so you do need a site that is at least modestly dark. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Lard Greystoke
sage
Reged: 07/27/08
Posts: 377
Loc: Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Another very difficult galaxy is NGC 300, which is even more difficult, and hampered by bright stars superimposed on it's surface, making it very elusive...clear skies...
Very true. They are both loose, face-on spirals with light unevenly distributed in clumps, except that NGC 300 is quite a bit further away, and for northern hemisphere observers a lot closer to the horizon. M33 is easily visible under green skies with any optical aid, whereas 300 is not easy in a 10".
-------------------- Lard Greystoke
10" Odyssey Compact
"With Tantor, the elephant, he made friends. How? Ask me not."
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Report: M33 Nabbed! His buddy, the ‘Phantom’ Menace – M74, also nabbed!
I wanted to thank the many folks of this thread that gave me advice and motivation. Earlier in the day on Friday I got a CSC alert that the seeing would be good for observing, combined w/ new moon I figured the weekend would be great for trying to spot this galaxy. Turns out my best SQM reading was 18.41 for the night – I haven’t seen it much better than that since I’ve moved to this area of Brooklyn where the houses are low, there are no buildings, and the its close to the beach.
First – My prep work included a stop at Staples for some black poster board and magnet strips. I wanted to make an upper light baffle for across the focuser that I could easily remove and roll up when done. It turns out this worked great. I also bought an eyepatch, and came out with a dark mini towel to drape over the end of my baseball cap and over the eyepiece. Lastly, I put black electrical tape neatly over the corners of my laptop, and Palm TX to make sure there was as little glow as possible from my electronic resources. Also I used my black barbecue cover to drape over an area that was allowing light seepage to the E-NE. All of this contributed to my eyes being as dark adapted as I can remember since taking up the hobby.
Second - I scanned the skies w/ my 15x70 Celestron binos up from A Tri. I quickly saw something hazy -the only hazy thing in the general vicinity; it may have been a little too evident to actually be M33. I couldn’t be sure it was M33 because I couldn’t hold the big binos steady enough to really study the exact area I was in ( I have misplaced my tripod). However, just the fact that this might have been M33 gave me even more motivation to go on trying to nab this object.
Second - Popped in the 24Panoptic (60x) in my scope. Ode to the 24 – I had forgotten how nice this eyepiece is. I again started at A Tri, and moved up a bit until I saw a small group of 4 stars sticking out to the left, pointing to HIP7906. It matched exactly what I was seeing in the Astromist program at 10 degree fov. A little more than halfway between HIP7906 and a trio of stars lined horizontally above it lies HIP7123, I placed my RACI finder under and to the left of it as the program displayed. When I looked into the eyepiece, I saw a prominent box/square formation with a V shaped pattern to the upper right of the box. Between the upper left star of the box formation and a foreground star about ~45 degrees the left of it, I saw a very slight haze. A smile on my face, I tapped the scope and sure enough, the hazy area bounced. The program was telling me this was the place, and my eyes were seeing something.
Third – I stayed in the area for a good half an hour (from 1230 Am to 130AM). The more I looked around the area the more the haze grew in all directions and became more apparent. The sky was getting darker so this likely contributed to the improved view. I was also able to see a couple of twinkles in the area where the patch appeared most dense – I’m guessing the core area. This area was closer to the corner star of the box formation than the opposite star. I checked the area again around 3AM and was able to make out the patch of haze again without much effort.
I’m convinced I saw this object and saw it as well as I’m ever going to see it from my backyard. It is much like what I was told to expect on this thread so my thanks to all who helped.
I’d like to mention that I was also able to see M74 that night in much the same way. I didn’t even know I was going for M74 that night. I had loaded an observing plan from AstroPlanner, and the Astromist program used the name “Phantom Galaxy”, instead of the ID of 'M74'. I figured I was up for anything “difficult” that night, so when I ran across "The Phantom Galaxy" in the program at 3:45am, I went for it. I used the very easy to spot ‘triple pairing’ of stars as a guidepost to concentrate on a particular area right above them. Bingo - another patch that eventually grew over the time spent starring at it. There were no twinkles in the area this time however. When I got back into the house, Saturday morning I was ecstatic to learn it was M74 – one that Rod Mollise had termed one of the “so-called difficult ones’. My apologies to Rod for doubting.
Anyway, that’s how it went down - a great night. Maybe I’ll post a second ‘White Zone Report (NYC)’ because there were other cool items to see. It was a treat to see some open clusters in the 24pan for example. Thanks again for the help.
-Jeff
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Second - I scanned the skies w/ my 15x70 Celestron binos up from A Tri. I quickly saw something hazy -the only hazy thing in the general vicinity; it may have been a little too evident to actually be M33.
No, I'm quite sure that was M33. Honest, two eyes make it *much* easier to see this galaxy.
Congrats on bagging M74. That's one tough little sucker!
On another note, your SQM reading of 18.4 in Brooklyn is an extremely useful data point for me. That's significantly darker than I've ever experienced here in Cambridge, MA. Not surprising -- as I said, Brooklyn is *huge* -- but interesting.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
YankeeJeff
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/11/06
Posts: 537
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
Thanks Tony. Yeah, the last three nights the SQM readings have been over 18 which is great. Last night it was at 18.11 at about 10:30PM when I measured, it may have gotten higher than that but I had to pack it up by 11PM. I've also been lucky enough to have two straight months of new moon and clear skies fall on weekends so I could get away with a couple of all-nighters.
Without New Moon my SQM readings can drop to anywhere from the 17.20's to 17.60s as far as I can recall. Also, I know there are parts (maybe most) of Brooklyn that come nowhere close to the 18's no matter the clear skies or moon phases. On that note, I'm curious if anyone knows which SQM ranges match to corresponding Bortle Scale numbers/colors. I'm assuming that some nights I'm in a 'white zone', and others I may be borderline 'red'.
-------------------- Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
24Pan, 17T4, 13T6, 11T6, 9BTMB, 8TVpl, 7T6, 5T6, 3.5T6, 5/6BTMBs
Z10"Dob, Paracorr, 2xBrlw, Telrad, RACI,°Circles, )Spider
FBF, Brooklyn:
|
Patricko
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 01/30/07
Posts: 1532
Loc: SE New Mexico USA
|
|
Great catch!
Got this galaxy myself last night around ~10PM LT with an Orion 90mm Starmax. The narrow FOV of the Mak plus being in an orange zone made this big galaxy harder to detect than usual. That said the core was seen with direct vision using 32mm symmetrical (39x), 26mm symmeterical (48x), and 19mm Erfle (65x). The 32mm and 26mm show vignetting of course in the small Mak, but not the 19mm that I could see.
NGC 604 showed itself with direct vision at times near the 10th mag star and always with slight averted vision using a 14mm Meade 5000 UWA eyepiece at ~90x. Not a bad view at all.
-------------------- Clear skies,
Patrick
INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION
60MM TELESCOPE CLUB!
"You can always have better, but will you ever be happy with what you have?" - Me, myself, and I
Edited by Patricko (09/21/09 11:47 PM)
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Your success encouraged me to try as well. From my moderately red zone, M31 was naked eye averted vision, so I took a shot at it with a pair of 100mm binos. I was actually rather surprised, since I didn't have much dark adaption (city lights glowing to the tower pretty much made sure of that, as well as the computer inside). I panned over from triangulum, and almost immediately noticed a large round splotch of even surface brightness in a triangle of three stars. The atmosphere gods must have been smiling tonight
--------------------
|
Rat
super member
Reged: 10/13/06
Posts: 145
Loc: USA
|
|
After failing to capture M33 last week with my 4" refractor, I decided last night to give it another try from my light polluted home site. This time I dragged out the 14" LX200. Using no filters and my lowest powered eyepiece (40mmUWA-88x), I was barely able to see the central core. I slewed the scope in all directions to make sure I was actually seeing it. I have to agree that M33 is not an east target from an urban site. Next time out, I'll give it a shot with a 6" refractor.
|
Alpha Orionis
super member
Reged: 06/04/09
Posts: 101
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
last night i saw this galaxy under yellow skies with my 12incher when it was pretty high up. saw two spiral arms, and the starforming region ngc604
-------------------- Astronomical Observation Equipment:
Zhumell Z12 Deluxe
Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ
10x50 Bushnell Binos
A good Pair of eyes
Home Observation site:
Salt Lake City
|
joelimite
sage
Reged: 09/01/08
Posts: 234
Loc: Fayetteville, AR
|
|
I saw it last night too, under orange skies with my 8" Dob. It looked like a faint, featureless gray blob. I can't wait to get under darker skies to have another look.
-------------------- Orion XT8 Dob w/ Moonlite 2-speed Crayford focuser, Vixen A80MF w/ GSO 2-speed Crayford and Porta Mount
32mm Televue Plossl, 31mm Hyperion Aspheric, 24mm Meade SWA, 17,13,8mm Hyperions, 6,5,4mm TMB Planetary, 5mm Baader Genuine Ortho
Garrett Optical 20x80 UL Binoculars, Nikon Action Extreme 10x50 Binoculars
|
Ptarmigan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 2351
Loc: Arctic
|
|
Wow! You saw M33 and M74 in New York City? I am really amazed. My area is really light polluted and you got me wanting to see those objects again. M33 and M74 are really hard to see. M33 so easy to see a dark sky location, but near impossible in a light polluted sky. I knew someone here at CN saw the Rosette Nebula with binoculars in a light polluted location. If a strong cool front came by, I think my chance of seeing M33 and M74 might increase.
-------------------- Ptarmigans=Cute and Cuddly
Meade Starfinder 8
Nikon 10x50
Rebel XT
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
   
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12220
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Tony. Yeah, the last three nights the SQM readings have been over 18 which is great. Last night it was at 18.11 at about 10:30PM when I measured, it may have gotten higher than that but I had to pack it up by 11PM. I've also been lucky enough to have two straight months of new moon and clear skies fall on weekends so I could get away with a couple of all-nighters.
Without New Moon my SQM readings can drop to anywhere from the 17.20's to 17.60s as far as I can recall. Also, I know there are parts (maybe most) of Brooklyn that come nowhere close to the 18's no matter the clear skies or moon phases. On that note, I'm curious if anyone knows which SQM ranges match to corresponding Bortle Scale numbers/colors. I'm assuming that some nights I'm in a 'white zone', and others I may be borderline 'red'.
Look at the bottom of this page to see the correspondence between the Bortle scale and SQM readings in mpsas. http://cleardarksky.com/lp/MtPinoslp.html?Mn=focuser The accuracy is a bit plus/minus, but it will illustrate a point.
-------------------- Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Look at the bottom of this page to see the correspondence between the Bortle scale and SQM readings in mpsas. http://cleardarksky.com/lp/MtPinoslp.html?Mn=focuser The accuracy is a bit plus/minus, but it will illustrate a point.
Best leave John Bortle out of this. The table below the Clear Sky Chart shows the theoretical correspondence between sky brightness and the color zones of the Light Pollution Atlas, based on the Atlas's own theoretical model. It's very crudely accurate, but only very crudely -- I've seen some whopping big discrepancies. I've often taken SQM readings 0.5 magnitude darker than this table predicts.
But the column giving the Bortle Class ought to be excised from the table. Bortle's classes are based entirely on subjective judgments, and they do *not* correlate well at all with the color zones. The orange zone ought to be called the orange zone, not Bortle Class 5.
In response to the original question, the Light Pollution Atlas shows all of Brooklyn in the white zone, so you're in the white zone -- by definition. The color zones are their own scale, with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Everybody knows that it's much darker at 3 a.m. than at 10 p.m., but that doesn't mean that you change zones over the course of a night. That's the beauty of the color scales -- they're objectively determined (by the Light Pollution Atlas), and they don't vary from one time to another. In theory, they correlate OK with one's overall observing experience, but certainly not with one's experience at any given moment.
Likewise, SQM readings are *their* own scale, with *their* own advantages and disadvantages. If you want to convey an SQM reading, give the number -- don't try to convert it into color zones or Bortle Class.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
   
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12220
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Tony, You and I are in agreement. I see visible differences in the night sky for every 0.2 magnitudes the sky gets darker from magnitude 21.0 to 22.0 mpsas, yet there are not 6 Bortle classes between those numbers. In general, I prefer the objectivity of the SQM to a "class" designation because visual acuity and light sensitivity play such a major role in what can be seen in the sky. For example, at my usual high altitude site, the sky is fairly dark (21.56 last weekend) but what can be seen in the sky is really a mix of Bortle classes 1 through 3. So which is it? Tough to say. And, among all the people who observe there, what can be seen in the sky with the naked eye varies a lot--from the people who have a very difficult time seeing the Andromeda galaxy to those who sight their Telrads on M15.
-------------------- Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I also agree. I'm not a fan of the bortle scale at all, since none of the descriptions depict reality, at least for me. Usually I find that if I mix the descriptions of 3-4 different classes, I get what I experience, which ends up being a useless metric.
--------------------
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8275
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
I also have problems with the Bortle classes (too many levels, not consistent characteristics for each level, etc.). It can be really tough to give a judgement of the exact level of sky quality. I guess I could divide it into several levels: Severe, Moderate, Mild, Dark Sky, and Pristine.
SEVERE: Severe light pollution might be a situation where (even in the absence of direct lighting), only stars brighter than magnitude 4.0 would be visible to the unaided eye overhead, with considerable skyglow in all parts of the sky. The sky background would be bright (especially nearer the horizon) with perhaps just a slight dimming of the glow overhead. Such conditions may be found in some areas in some of the central portions of major cities like New York or Los Angeles.
MODERATE: Moderate light pollution is rather difficult to quantify, but some limited deep-sky observations are possible in such an environment (double stars, brighter open clusters, brighter planetary nebulae, etc.). I would probably put the moderate light pollution at a limiting magnitude of from 4.0 to 4.9 or so with varying amounts of skyglow in different directions, although no part of the sky would appear very dark. The horizon would still be fairly bright overall, making deep-sky observations lower than about 30 degrees in altitude more difficult.
MILD: A "mild" light pollution level would probably be at the point where a person could see 5.0 to 5.9 or so in some areas of the sky, and where the brighter portions of the Milky Way high above the horizon may be faintly visible at times. Various areas around the horizon would show skyglow, but overhead and perhaps in a few other areas, the sky brightness would appear noticeably darker, although perhaps not exactly fully dark. M31 would be visible to the unaided eye with averted vision when well above the horizon, although it would usually be perceived as just a small faint fuzzy spot. I think that probably all of the Messier Objects would be visible in a good telescope over 4 inches in aperture with mild to moderate light pollution levels, although the detail visible in them might be a bit limited. The number of faint galaxies visible in a 6" or 8" takes a big jump when you get down to the mild light pollution level. Some light pollution filters can help combat the effects of low to moderate light pollution to a degree.
DARK SKY: I would consider a "dark sky" site to be a place where you can see typically see stars 6.0 to 6.8 with averted vision routinely and large parts of the sky appear quite dark, but where there may be a few limited light domes from nearby cities visible. The Milky Way would show up prominently with a sort of granular texture. M31 would appear noticably elongated to the unaided eye, and occasionally, M33 would be glimpsed with the unaided eye as well when well above the horizon. At such sites, detail in faint deep-sky objects becomes a good deal easier to see, and the number of objects visible in the telescope goes up dramatically. My dark sky site routinely gets me to +6.5 naked eye, and occasionally fainter.
PRISTINE: Skies which routinely allow naked-eye sightings of magnitude +6.9 and fainter I would consider "pristine". Usually, these places are located well away from any major cities, and at higher altitudes. Little or no light pollution is visible over the entire sky at such pristine sites, and the Milky Way shows some faint detail which is usually shown only in photographs. For example, the Nebraska Star Party site is deep in the sparsely-populated Sandhills at 3100 feet elevation (the nearest sizable "city", North Platte, Nebr., pop. 24,509, is 100 miles to the south). At that site, I have seen stars as faint as +7.5, and others have gone to 8.0. Similar such feats are possible in many areas, especially in the Rockies, and in the high desert areas of the American southwest.
In summary, the following are the approximate unaided-eye visual magnitude limits (Zenith Limiting Magnitude) and overhead light-pollution ratings for my scale of judging light pollution:
SEVERE: only stars brighter than mag. 4.0 are visible with bright skyglow over most of the sky.
MODERATE: mag. 4.0 to 4.9 stars visible (variable skyglow depending on direction of observation).
MILD: mag. 5.0 to 5.9 stars visible (some notable darker areas visible).
DARK SKY: mag. 6.0 to 6.8 stars visible (dark, sometimes with a few light domes along the horizon).
PRISTINE: mag. 6.9 and fainter stars *consistently* visible (little or no light pollution in any direction).
If you want to get the most out of Deep-Sky with a telescope, get to as dark a site as you reasonably can (even if there is some light pollution), and then work with what you have. You may be surprised as to how well you do, even from a non-optimal location!
David Knisely
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3463
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I also have problems with the Bortle classes (too many levels ...
Don thinks the Bortle system has too few levels, you think there are too many, I think there are about the right number. Who's to say?
The beauty of a rating based on numbers, like the ones you get out of an SQM, is that you can cut it as coarse or fine as you like. When I say my sky is 18.4 at the zenith, I'm stating a fact, not making a judgment.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8275
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I also have problems with the Bortle classes (too many levels ...
Don thinks the Bortle system has too few levels, you think there are too many, I think there are about the right number. Who's to say?
The beauty of a rating based on numbers, like the ones you get out of an SQM, is that you can cut it as coarse or fine as you like. When I say my sky is 18.4 at the zenith, I'm stating a fact, not making a judgment.
I can say. I use the ZLM figures alone when I do my logging because I do not have an SQM (and might not be able to completely justify the $120 for something I might use only once or twice a night). My personal ZLM reading isn't precise, but it does tell me enough of what the night was like in terms of conditions, which is all I really need. The Bortle scale bothers me much more for its inconsistent or inaccurate judging factors than it does the number of scales it has. I don't usually use my 5-level scale because, as Don indicates, it (and the Bortle scale itself) doesn't really describe what the actual observing night is like. However, for rating observing sites, my 5-level scale offers some consistency and simplicity. Hyde Observatory is generally in the "mild" category, as is the front driveway of my home. Rockford Lake, where I do most of my deep-sky observing, is, well 'dark sky' (surprise, surprise), while the south dunes above Merritt Reservoir is definitely in the "Pristine" category. Using the Bortle scale, my driveway might be anywhere from 5 to 6 to 7. Rockford Lake would be a 3 or 4, while Merritt Reservoir would be a 1 or 2, both depending on what characteristics you chose to emphasize. I feel at least one or two of these levels could have been combined to make a more consistent and useful scale, with perhaps no more than seven levels. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
   
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12220
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Well, David, using ZLM is only relevant for YOU at your sites. Because a different individual might have a different result on the ZLM. It is, after all, a subjective assessment. That is why I do not lend any weight to an individual's assessment of the Naked Eye Limiting Magnitude. At Mt. Pinos, when we've conducted tests among individuals with stars near Polaris, we get a range of 5.7 to 6.7 on the same night at the same time.
I do agree that such a rating would have relevance for you because you are you and what you see is what you see. Extrapolating to others might be more problematic.
The Bortle scale, for me, seems to mix classes when it comes to what I see personally. The Dark Horse area of the Milky Way is visible and I see the bulge of the Milky Way all the way to Alpha and Beta Librae and dark nebulae on the N.edge of M24 on a night where I would definitely rate the night sky far from pristine (maybe Bortle Class 3), yet I can also see a ton of Messier objects with the naked eye.
Since I've been keeping track, nights at that site have varied from mpsas 21.15 all the way to 21.89. My vision didn't allow any fainter a naked eye star to be seen on the darker night (the fainter stars are smeared to invisibility by my vision), yet there was a profound difference in the appearance of the night sky and the limiting magnitude of the telescope. Bortle would have said there was a difference in class between those nights, but perhaps only one class.
I'm with Tony. Measure it and look up. That's what XX.X looks like. TO YOU, and not necessarily to someone else.
-------------------- Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1230
Loc: Estonia
|
|
There's also added complications by those wearing glasses. I would estimate I lose quite a bit of light by my scratched and foggy glasses. They're a bit weak as well. Then there's the whole concentration factor. I find that sometimes, if I know how to focus, I can get mag 6.5 stars to be sharp dots, and can see up to mag 7, but other times, stars start to smear into foggy dots at mag 5, which makes apparent NELM lower than it is. And none of these considerations seem to matter at the eyepiece, since the strain is gone mostly, as well as the glasses.
Also, 1000 posts
--------------------
|
rob0260
super member
Reged: 01/31/09
Posts: 115
Loc: Teulon, Mb., Canada
|
|
I was out observing Friday night from my home. I live out in the country with an estimated NELM of about 6.3 at the zenith. M31 and the double cluster are easy naked eye objects. I easily saw M33 with my Meade 8 inch S/N. It reminded me of the core of m31 from the city with binoculars. I tried to see it naked eye but I could not. Next time, I think I'll get out the etx80 and give it a try with it.
-------------------- SN8, LXD75, ETX 80, 4 1/2 inch Newtonian, DSI-C, Meade series 4000 eyepiece set, Antares ub2s barlow, antares 5x barlow, 10x50 binoculars.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8275
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Well, David, using ZLM is only relevant for YOU at your sites. Because a different individual might have a different result on the ZLM. It is, after all, a subjective assessment. That is why I do not lend any weight to an individual's assessment of the Naked Eye Limiting Magnitude. At Mt. Pinos, when we've conducted tests among individuals with stars near Polaris, we get a range of 5.7 to 6.7 on the same night at the same time.
I do agree that such a rating would have relevance for you because you are you and what you see is what you see. Extrapolating to others might be more problematic.
The Bortle scale, for me, seems to mix classes when it comes to what I see personally. The Dark Horse area of the Milky Way is visible and I see the bulge of the Milky Way all the way to Alpha and Beta Librae and dark nebulae on the N.edge of M24 on a night where I would definitely rate the night sky far from pristine (maybe Bortle Class 3), yet I can also see a ton of Messier objects with the naked eye.
Since I've been keeping track, nights at that site have varied from mpsas 21.15 all the way to 21.89. My vision didn't allow any fainter a naked eye star to be seen on the darker night (the fainter stars are smeared to invisibility by my vision), yet there was a profound difference in the appearance of the night sky and the limiting magnitude of the telescope. Bortle would have said there was a difference in class between those nights, but perhaps only one class.
I'm with Tony. Measure it and look up. That's what XX.X looks like. TO YOU, and not necessarily to someone else.
I never claimed the ZLM was strictly applicable to anyone but myself (and I would have been wrong if I had). It should not be given any *absolute* weight, but it would be incorrect just to throw such an observation out altogether. However, when I (and others) see stars in a certain average range of magnitudes, chances are that the observing location in general could fit into a certain "class" of site using a simple 5 to 7 level classification scheme. Such a classification would be useful and possible using a mean stellar ZLM range along with other well-defined characteristics (sky color, light domes, visibility of Milky Way, M31, M33, etc.). This the Bortle scale does not do as well as it should, which was the point I was trying to make. For one example, M33 is visible to me from my dark sky site with my unaided eye, but I have *never* been able to see it with absolutely dead-on direct vision. Oh, if I avert even slightly, it may be visible, but straight on, I just can't do it. With extended tests, I have determined that my faintest direct vision star tends to be in the 4.8 to 5.0 magnitude range (my averted limit, however, *does* range from 6.7 to 7.6 depending on local observing conditions). However, Bortle in his descriptions of his class 2 sky claims M33 can be seen with direct vision and uses this naked-eye direct vision claim to define that class. This I can't duplicate, not even from the truly pristine dark site of the Nebraska Star Party. Not many people I have had contact with over the years have seen M33 even with averted vision, let alone directly. If M33 were to be used in such a classification scheme, it should be used only at the point of being visible at all (and as a secondary characteristic among others), and not exclusively with direct vision. Similarly, references to "color" in things like the Milky Way or the Zodiacal Light are similarly flawed as indicators of sky quality, as many people *never* can see that color no matter how dark the sky is. Classes 1 and 2 should at the very least be merged. The others could be adjusted to assign consistent objective indicators. As such, the Bortle scale is something that I consider less useful than it really should be. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
   
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12220
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
David's comments ring very true. I have found that skies darker than a certain darkness vary a bit in transparency and seeing has a lot of influence on the faintness of naked eye stars seen. The Bortle scale is a subjective scale and mixes the visibility of faint contrasts with color sensitivity and visual acuity. I'm sure Bortle made a scale based on his impressions but, having viewed from a variety of sites where the mpsas ranged from 19.6 to 22.0, I definitely think there could be a subjective scale with a 1-5 rating starting at about magnitude 21.0. How I would go about describing it subjectively so that someone else would be able to tell would take a while for me to define. David's abbreviated scale certainly would be easier.
One thing I can definitely say with certainty. When the seeing conditions are excellent and the night is exceptionally dark (say mpsas 21.7 or darker), it's magic, and those nights are remembered for years. That was the case on that night of magnitude 21.89 for me. There was no air movement all night, near zero humidity, and superb seeing. It only lacked temperature to be totally perfect--it was 9F. But on that night, M33 was naked eye, and noticeable as a gray spot on the blackness of the sky. But, like David, with slightly averted vision. When you can use a Telrad on M33, I think that ranks as a dark night.
-------------------- Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8275
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
David's comments ring very true. I have found that skies darker than a certain darkness vary a bit in transparency and seeing has a lot of influence on the faintness of naked eye stars seen.
The Bortle scale is a subjective scale and mixes the visibility of faint contrasts with color sensitivity and visual acuity. I'm sure Bortle made a scale based on his impressions but, having viewed from a variety of sites where the mpsas ranged from 19.6 to 22.0, I definitely think there could be a subjective scale with a 1-5 rating starting at about magnitude 21.0.
How I would go about describing it subjectively so that someone else would be able to tell would take a while for me to define.
David's abbreviated scale certainly would be easier.
One thing I can definitely say with certainty. When the seeing conditions are excellent and the night is exceptionally dark (say mpsas 21.7 or darker), it's magic, and those nights are remembered for years. That was the case on that night of magnitude 21.89 for me. There was no air movement all night, near zero humidity, and superb seeing. It only lacked temperature to be totally perfect--it was 9F. But on that night, M33 was naked eye, and noticeable as a gray spot on the blackness of the sky. But, like David, with slightly averted vision. When you can use a Telrad on M33, I think that ranks as a dark night.
Yes, M33 in the Telrad is one dark night. At the Nebraska Star Party last year, one of our young club members was fighting with her new 10 inch Dob trying unsuccessfully to find M33. As usual, I could see it pretty easily with averted vision, so I walked over to her scope, moved the center of her Telrad over the tiny faint fuzzy spot of M33, and stood back to let her take a peek in the scope. She looked in the eyepiece, saw the galaxy in all its glory, and turned to me with an incredulous look on her face and said, "How the heck did you *do* that??" I just smiled and said, "Experience", and then kind of under my breath I said, "Gad, I love these skies!" Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 10447
Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth
|
|
M33 was visible with averted vision without optical aid during the 2009 Black Forest Star Party. The elusive zodiacal band was fairly obvious, along with the gegenschein and, of course, the zodiacal light, on the night of Friday, September 18th. An SQM reading of 21.71 was obtained on Saturday morning.
Dave Mitsky
-------------------- Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
wfj
sage
   
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Quote:
... so I walked over to her scope, moved the center of her Telrad over the tiny faint fuzzy spot of M33, and stood back to let her take a peek in the scope. She looked in the eyepiece, saw the galaxy in all its glory, and turned to me with an incredulous look on her face and said, "How the heck did you *do* that??" I just smiled and said, "Experience"...
-or- Omne ignotum pro magnifico
|
|
7 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Olivier Biot
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|