Quote:

---

M107, Ophiuchus, 6/29/2008, KCMO, 22-inch, 31mmT5, 22T4, 17T4, 22/17 w/2xPM, T:6/S:5 This was a much more challenging object than I had anticipated. I almost gave up on it. I finally spotted it with the 31mm (82.9x). After figuring out precisely where it was, I was able to see it at many magnification levels. It had a grainy appearance in the 31mmT5, and I was able to resolve quite a few stars with the 22T4/2xPM (203x) combo. Maybe as many as two dozen winking in averted. I could not fully resolve the cluster even with the 17T4 & 2xPM (263x). It is a loose GC with minimal central brightening and lots of faint nebulosity. A fine but subtle object.

---

Over the years I haven't logged too many entries for this object. My first observation of it was on June 5, 2000 from a dark site with a G9.25. I described it as quite faint and expressed skepticism regarding Stephen O'Meara's value of 7.8 mag for it.

I found a second observation for the cluster, logged during my first observing session with my C11 on July 21, 2001. I described it as loose with some central brightening and 10-12 stars winking in and out of averted vision in a generally grainy patch of nebulosity. I also noted I could see the object in my 50mm finder in averted vision.

I haven't found any log entries for observations of M107 from my backyard. It seems surprising to me that the June 29 observation is the first time I have looked at it in an urban sky, but perhaps it is. I plan to try it with a few smaller scopes to see if it can be seen at all with less aperture from my backyard.

--------------------

Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I had several enjoyable observing sessions earlier this week with my 22-inch Dob from our midtown Kansas City backyard. One object that surprised me was M107, a globular cluster in Ophiuchus. This is not a difficult object from dark sites, but I had difficulty locating it from my backyard even with 22-inches of aperture ...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Whenever I think I'm going to complain about cloudy skies, I only have to read reports like this to realize how lucky I am to have finally moved from an urban area (Chicago) to wonderfully dark skies in North Georgia.

---

Yeah, but whenever I think about complaining, I hear from someone in Boston, Philly, or the like, who say they would drive 30 minutes to get to a site as good as my backyard!

Quote:

---

I do think that knowing precisely where items are helps a lot when LP intrudes - scanning around approximately where the item ought to be is very different from looking at a FOV and knowing that the object is in the center of the FOV.

---

This is absolutely correct. I just didn't anticipate the problem with this particular object. If I hadn't found it, I would have made a custom chart with MegaStar and hopped to it. I know this is really twisted, but sometimes, for fun, I pinpoint the location of an object I know I can't possibly see from my backyard, and think to myself, Yep, it would be right there if it weren't for all this darn LP!

Regarding dark sky sites, our club owns a fabu site in Butler, Missouri (with built in electrical hookups for RVs, no less!). Plus, I have a good friend with his own DSS observatory and have located a few other observing spots I sometimes visit with other observing buddies. So, I do enjoy going to dark sky sites, but I enjoy urban observing just as much. I have a lot of fun figuring out what can be seen from my own backyard and am constantly amazed by everything that is visible. And, of course, from a convenience point of view, nothing beats it. No travel time, no GAS MILEAGE to worry about, not worries about sky conditions (frustration, of course, but no sweating whether the trip will be worth it), minor hassles if I forgot to bring something -- just another trip into the house, shed, whatever. If something isn't on the meridean until 3:30 am, I can get up at 3:00 to see it. Lot's of advantages. Oh, and dew. Let's not forget that. In Missouri, dew is a horrific problem at dark sky sites. It is almost never a factor in town.

You know what would really be cool? (Strong hint to Tony F. about a possible S&T publication ) An URBAN sky atlas. It could include DSOs observable from urban/surban areas, with stuff like MUCH better coverage of double stars, variable stars, carbon stars, and stars of interest for other reasons (Bernard's star, for example.) Of course, globular clusters, open clusters, some galaxies, some emission nebula, and planetary nebula. Galaxies generally aren't worth the trouble, the challenge is whether or not you can see anything at all. Forget detail for all but the very brightest. Planetaries are surprisingly rewarding thanks to OIII and UHC filters: a much better alternative to galaxies in most cases. Open clusters are nearly as good.

Norton's is the only currently published atlas that addresses double stars AT ALL!!! What an oversight, considering how many amateur astronomers DO observe from their light polluted yards and balconies.

Okay. I'll stop ranting. (For now.)

--------------------

Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You know what would really be cool? (Strong hint to Tony F. about a possible S&T publication ) An URBAN sky atlas. It could include DSOs observable from urban/surban areas, with stuff like MUCH better coverage of double stars, variable stars, carbon stars, and stars of interest for other reasons (Bernard's star, for example.)

---

Post Extras: