10 replies to this topic

[cliff mygatt]

I just purchased (for the second time) a copy of the Millennium star atlas and wondering if anyone has taken the time to create an index of deep sky objects for this great atlas.  Since it has been around over 20 years now, I suspect some industrious observer has put together an index in excel or work or something.  Thanks for the help, my friends.

[izar187]

I use the Uranometria Deep Sky Field Guide.

That I already have.

'Cuz, man have the prices on those gone up!

 

I realize that that is not really what you are looking for.

[cliff mygatt]

I have the Uranometria set and it is my goto for deep sky objects.  However, I just picked up a copy of the MSA and with stars to mag 11, I think it will provide better star fields to help ID those DSOs I like to hunt.

[BillP]

The free download of the Deep Sky Atlas shows DSO down to magnitude 14.0 and stars down to magnitude 10.2.  They have PDF documents of the objects in this atlas:

 

The Atlas Rev 2 (112 pgs) - http://www.deepskywa...-atlas-full.pdf

 

Full List (~7000) - http://www.deepskywa...object-list.pdf

 

Best 700 List (with images) - http://www.deepskywa...-DSO-images.pdf

 

If you want info on any object, here's a good search engine - http://www.docdb.net/object_index.php

 

If you want an excel spreadsheet of almost 14,000 objects then click on the "Revised NGC/IC Data (zipped xls-file)" link under Section 3 on this web page by Wolfgang Steinicke - http://www.klima-luf...cic/ngcic_e.htm

Edited by BillP, 05 February 2021 - 03:10 PM.

[Astrojensen]

Funny that this thread pops up now, as I received a near-mint copy of the MSA just yesterday. 

 

One thing I immediately noted (and knew beforehand, but it's more striking with the atlas in hand) is that the MSA has FAR fewer deep-sky objects than U2000.0. This is quite puzzling, as the MSA should be far better for actually starhopping to those UGC galaxies and obscure planetaries. I also noted that Frosty Leo is missing. 

 

Well, nothing a pencil can't help with, I guess. Can't wait to take it under the skies. For its size, it feels remarkably easy to use. I kick myself for not getting it years ago. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Tony Flanders]

Funny that this thread pops up now, as I received a near-mint copy of the MSA just yesterday. 

 

One thing I immediately noted (and knew beforehand, but it's more striking with the atlas in hand) is that the MSA has FAR fewer deep-sky objects than U2000.0. This is quite puzzling, as the MSA should be far better for actually starhopping to those UGC galaxies and obscure planetaries. I also noted that Frosty Leo is missing. 

 

Well, nothing a pencil can't help with, I guess. Can't wait to take it under the skies. For its size, it feels remarkably easy to use. I kick myself for not getting it years ago. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

To give a little history there, the underlying purpose of the Millennium Star Atlas was to be a graphic representation of what is now known as the Tycho-1 star catalog. It is, in fact, one volume of the multivolume paper results from the Hipparcos/Tycho probject. So the original idea was to have only stars, no deep-sky objects at all.

 

However, Sky & Telescope wanted to publish the atlas independent of ESA, and figured that there wasn't much market for an atlas without deep-sky objects. So many deep-sky objects were added. Unfortunately, the timing was really bad. At the time the project was conceived, the state of deep-sky data was pretty poor; lots of the old catalogs had pretty bad errors in them. So S&T ended up hand-proofing all the charts against the Digitized Sky Survey, a truly monumental job. And even so, lots of errors slipped through.

 

Just a few years later, the state of deep-sky data had improved dramatically, thanks largely to the amazing work done by the NGC/IC Project. So the Millennium Star Atlas would have been a much better product had it been produced just a little later.

[turtle86]

Funny that this thread pops up now, as I received a near-mint copy of the MSA just yesterday. 

 

One thing I immediately noted (and knew beforehand, but it's more striking with the atlas in hand) is that the MSA has FAR fewer deep-sky objects than U2000.0. This is quite puzzling, as the MSA should be far better for actually starhopping to those UGC galaxies and obscure planetaries. I also noted that Frosty Leo is missing. 

 

Well, nothing a pencil can't help with, I guess. Can't wait to take it under the skies. For its size, it feels remarkably easy to use. I kick myself for not getting it years ago. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

 

If I recall correctly, the MSA has something like 10,000 DSO's, and Uranometria has over 30,000.  The MSA could've used more DSO's, but 10,000 is still pretty good.  If I need more DSO's, I have Sky Safari Pro. In any case, I find the MSA a pleasure to use despite its size, and it's definitely the most beautiful and elegant star atlas I've ever seen.

[DavidClemm]

Did you get the six overlays and instructions with your copy of Millennium Star Atlas? I bought a copy that doesn’t have them. Thanks

[rmollise]

To give a little history there, the underlying purpose of the Millennium Star Atlas was to be a graphic representation of what is now known as the Tycho-1 star catalog. It is, in fact, one volume of the multivolume paper results from the Hipparcos/Tycho probject. So the original idea was to have only stars, no deep-sky objects at all.

 

However, Sky & Telescope wanted to publish the atlas independent of ESA, and figured that there wasn't much market for an atlas without deep-sky objects. So many deep-sky objects were added. Unfortunately, the timing was really bad. At the time the project was conceived, the state of deep-sky data was pretty poor; lots of the old catalogs had pretty bad errors in them. So S&T ended up hand-proofing all the charts against the Digitized Sky Survey, a truly monumental job. And even so, lots of errors slipped through.

 

Just a few years later, the state of deep-sky data had improved dramatically, thanks largely to the amazing work done by the NGC/IC Project. So the Millennium Star Atlas would have been a much better product had it been produced just a little later.

 

 

Hi Tony:

 

Despite its shortcomings, it's still an impressive work. That said, because of its problems--and the problems inherent in any print atlas this deep--I never did get a copy. The physics department where I teach still has a copy (I never got around to buying one), and I occasionally pick it up and flip a page or two...and...say to myself, "Well, those were the days." To be honest, Millennium had been obsoleted by computer atlases like Megastar a decade before it hit print.

 

Rod

[cliff mygatt]

Gosh,

 

   I started this thread 2 years ago and still no answer.  I guess no one have an index.  Oh well, It is cool to look through but U2000 is my go to atlas these days.

[aalmanni]

The free download of the Deep Sky Atlas shows DSO down to magnitude 14.0 and stars down to magnitude 10.2.  They have PDF documents of the objects in this atlas:

 

The Atlas Rev 2 (112 pgs) - http://www.deepskywa...-atlas-full.pdf

 

Full List (~7000) - http://www.deepskywa...object-list.pdf

 

Best 700 List (with images) - http://www.deepskywa...-DSO-images.pdf

 

If you want info on any object, here's a good search engine - http://www.docdb.net/object_index.php

 

If you want an excel spreadsheet of almost 14,000 objects then click on the "Revised NGC/IC Data (zipped xls-file)" link under Section 3 on this web page by Wolfgang Steinicke - http://www.klima-luf...cic/ngcic_e.htm

Great free resources