Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Seeing Galaxies

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#51 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,298
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 08 April 2021 - 11:40 PM

Thank you to the Contributiors here. I stayed out on the sidelines and I feel like I actually  learned  something. 

 

Not me. I feel like I am missing something regarding the exit pupil from the discussion above. smile.gif

 

So, I just use my telescope to see galaxies and try different magnifications to see what's best. 

 

Messier 106.png


Edited by Asbytec, 08 April 2021 - 11:48 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs, JOEinCO and radiofm74 like this

#52 radiofm74

radiofm74

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Milano (Italy)

Posted 09 April 2021 - 01:07 AM

Having NOTHING to contribute to the technical fine points discussed, I'll just stop by to:

- thank Tony Flanders for his INVALUABLE Urban/Suburban Messier guide

- point out that to me, his visibility ratings are an excellent approximation of what I can see from my backyard balcony

- suggest to the OP that to see galaxies in an urban sky (or perhaps anywhere) you don't only need a telescope. Save for the most visible ones (M81, M94, M104) you also need painstaking preparation: before you can actually see the galaxy you need to look long and hard at a spot in your eyepiece where initially NOTHING is present. In order to do that, you have to know the star field that you'll be presented with inside out.

 

Big thanks also to sctbrt for the article he linked at post #10: it taught me a lot!


  • bthrel and AlvinPL like this

#53 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 91,817
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 09 April 2021 - 01:49 AM

For what it's worth, that is not how I normally use the word "brightness" when talking (or thinking) about galaxies. When I carelessly use this word without any qualification, I usually mean the galaxy or nebula's total (integrated) brightness. For me, that is a galaxy's most important attribute. Under dark skies, it is by far the best predictor of a galaxy's visibility in any given instrument. (That's not saying that it's a perfect predictor, mind you -- far from it!)
 
However, since I am aware that people use the word both to mean total brightness and surface brightness, I do my best to avoid using the terms "brightness" and "bright" without qualifiers.

 

For beginners in particular, surface brightness is likely to be a better predictor of galaxy visibility under heavily light-polluted skies. However, total brightness is also extremely important in this case.

 

I think in terms of both total integrated brightness and surface brightness.

 

When I write in my notes that a galaxy is bright, it means it has a high surface brightness. It maybe 14th magnitude but it is probably small and compact.  I also include it's visual brightness.

 

M101 is a magnitude 7.8, face on, spiral galaxy, it's nearly the size of the moon at 23 x 24 arc minutes. It has an average surface brightness of 23.3 mpsas. I consider it dim despite the magnitude 7.8 total integrated brightness. I can't see it from my urban backyard..

 

M104, the sombrero galaxy, is an edge on magnitude 8.1 spiral galaxy that's about 8.4 x 4.7 arc-minutes. It has a bright central region,  in this context, brightness means surface brightness.  The average surface brightness is 20.8, it's a bright galaxy and visible from my urban backyard in a 50 mm finder.

 

Surface brightness is a good predictor of visibily in terms of Sky conditions.

 

Jon


  • Jethro7 and radiofm74 like this

#54 radiofm74

radiofm74

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Milano (Italy)

Posted 09 April 2021 - 04:34 AM

Not me. I feel like I am missing something regarding the exit pupil from the discussion above. smile.gif

 

So, I just use my telescope to see galaxies and try different magnifications to see what's best. 

 

attachicon.gifMessier 106.png

You're definitely whetting my appetite for the Surfboard… 



#55 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,298
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:48 AM

You're definitely whetting my appetite for the Surfboard…

It's a nice one, a little difficult. But enjoyable. God speed.smile.gif

Please remember the sketch is embellished to more easily see the galaxy and it's fleeting detail in a static sketch taken over time.

Messier 108.png

Edited by Asbytec, 09 April 2021 - 08:00 AM.

  • Jon Isaacs, Voyager 3, radiofm74 and 1 other like this

#56 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,048
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 09 April 2021 - 07:43 AM

I have an idea to put it here - 

Some things to consider --

I'm assuming the maximum dilated pupil is 7mm 

When we are observing with only our naked eye , it's basically 1× with an exit pupil of 7mm ( if the max dilated pupil is 5mm , the system is operating in 1× at 5mm exit pupil ) . So what the telescope like a 8" F/6 dob does is it lets you operate the system at 28.5× at 7mm exit pupil ( 40× at 5mm exit pupil ) . So you basically get the same light gathering ( type of brightness ) of 7mm exit pupil at a higher mag  . By graphing this you can see the advantage when the exit pupil dims can get larger and larger because simply our eyes can't operate at anything more than 1× with naked eyes . 

 

But the galaxy M81 is incredibly hard to see with naked eyes , that you may not even heard of naked eye sighting. But there is no telescope user with Galaxy level experience that hasn't seen it . Why ? I hypothesize that that our eyes are incredibly low in detection faint objects that are small . So you need resolution AND brightness ( oops!) .

 

So it's better to say that a telescope does both light gathering and increase the resolution in a dual nature to help man see that was once thought beyond imagination . Newton said " If I've seen further , it's by standing on shoulder's of the giants ) .


  • AlvinPL likes this

#57 radiofm74

radiofm74

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Milano (Italy)

Posted 09 April 2021 - 08:00 AM

It's a nice one, a little difficult. But enjoyable. smile.gif

 

Please remember the sketch is embellished to more easily see the galaxy and it's fleeting detail in a static sketch taken over time. 

 

attachicon.gifMessier 108.png

I do appreciate what "fleeting detail" means a lot better since I started observing galaxies from my urban location!

Alongside a joyful "twin cores of M51 clearly observed with averted vision" – what a moment that was – my records for yesterday night report: "M63 (Sunflower galaxy) sighted (?) intermittently with averted vision" … and it's not for want of trying that I did not get any better than this lol.gif



#58 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,298
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 09 April 2021 - 08:08 AM

Newton said " If I've seen further , it's by standing on shoulder's of the giants ).

A related current thread. Some giants came up with this stuff.

https://www.cloudyni...g/?fromsearch=1

Edited by Asbytec, 09 April 2021 - 08:09 AM.


#59 Jethro7

Jethro7

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,846
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: N.W. Florida

Posted 09 April 2021 - 08:17 AM

Hello Cners,

Observing Galaxies with low surface brightness in my light polluted backyard, has caused me to  use alturnative methods to make that possible. It is really neat to view the hot Galaxy cores.... But.... So  I installed a PVS14  photon Warp Drive on my scope.  I had first light with it last Sunday. Oh yeah, it works like a dream. There they are Galaxies everywhere, with structure and detail. I intended to get around and view a lot of  sky that night but I spent the whole session in the area between the Constellations Cancer and Leo.  

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro

 

20210327 182006

Edited by Jethro7, 09 April 2021 - 08:19 AM.

  • Asbytec and AlvinPL like this

#60 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,298
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 09 April 2021 - 08:31 AM

I do appreciate what "fleeting detail" means a lot better since I started observing galaxies from my urban location!
Alongside a joyful "twin cores of M51 clearly observed with averted vision" – what a moment that was – my records for yesterday night report: "M63 (Sunflower galaxy) sighted (?) intermittently with averted vision" … and it's not for want of trying that I did not get any better than this lol.gif

I hear ya. Even in more rural skies, every time I sit down to observe a faint fuzzy about all I can tell is it's in the FOV. A faint patch, or sometimes nothing at all. At first glance, M51 is a paif of joyful twin cores (LOL). It looks like that,
to me, too, at first. So, I always wonder how in the heck I will be able to see anything.

As time progresses, dark adaption improves under the hood, trying different magnifications, and a lot of paying close attention to the slightest hint if something, I end about an hour observing session being "in the zone" with a page full of notes and rough sketches only I can decipher. (I don't even use a red light to sketch with).

It was for a want of trying, actually having to try. Years ago I sold my C11 and stepped down to a smaller aperture. I feared I lost deep sky forever and spent years in lunar, doubles, and planets. Actually, planetary observing in great seeing is great practice for gaining confidence in what we're sure we saw. We begin to believe our lying eyes rather than doubt them. (Trust but verify).

So, I thought I'd try Messier 64 to see what's left to be seen in a smaller aperture. Not too disappointing, actually. Much of the same detail is still visible. It's not as easy, but it's still there. If it's still there, then we haven't lost deep sky. So, I applied my training on Jove (almost ironically being a bright object), and applied a lot of good info from "giants" on CN to good effect. The rest is the sweat of the brow and not urban skies. Not yet. :)

Edited by Asbytec, 09 April 2021 - 08:59 AM.

  • radiofm74 and AlvinPL like this

#61 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 96,339
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 09 April 2021 - 11:29 AM

Even worse, if those measurement are based on photographs, they pick up much more dim light while pushing out the area.  The stuff that our eyes can see can be much smaller in area - an inherently higher surface brightness region than the whole thing.

 

Many of the brighter nebulae can sustain lots of power at dark sites.  There is lots of detail that just can't be picked up by the eye at lower magnifications.  The North America Nebula has lots and lots little strings and knots.  The information is there at lower powers, but I just can't make sense out of it against the background (neighboring parts of the nebula in this case).

Redbetter discusses some of the confounding factors when it comes to trying to produce a metric for visibility in his post at https://www.cloudyni...ing/?p=11002348

 

I once observed M42 at a magnification of over 600x using a 20" classical Cassegrain during good seeing.  The view was very interesting indeed.


  • Asbytec likes this

#62 CBM1970

CBM1970

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Southern Maine

Posted 09 April 2021 - 12:59 PM

This is a very timely topic for me. 

 

I have re-entered this hobby after a very long absence. I have very poor night vision. My limit in somewhere between magnitude 3 and 4 in my skies (suburban but not close to any large cities with large light domes).

 

I had the same problem under similar skies in my youth, but I did not have the patience, access to information, or access to cloudynights that I do now. So,...all of my observing as a kid was lunar/planetary and double stars.  I did very well, al things considered but I just couldn't see well enough to try DSOs and I really didn't know where to begin.

 

Fast forwarding to the present, I have acquired a 6 inch f5 newt. I have seen more stars than ever before thanks to a 5mm exit pupil with the 25mm plossl that came with my scope (twice the exit pupil and a field of view 8 times larger than I had with my C8 back in the day.)

 

I am seeing stars down to magnitude 9 or 10 and I've had good luck with many open clusters, though this varies - e.g., the Beehive is amazing to me (large angular size, and many bright members), whereas M36 (10 members brighter than mag 10), not so much.

 

Here is my question (Not to hijack the thread, but it seems relevant to the topic). I've spent the last couple of observing nights looking for M3 and M13. I am pretty sure my starhopping was sound, and I'm also pretty sure that they both passed through my field of view at least once. 

 

I know that I can see point sources/open cluster members way below the surface magnitudes of both of these clusters. So, do globular clusters "count" as point sources? If they don't, based on the rules about surface area cited herein, I know my eyes can't do the magnitudes 5 and 6 of these objects on their own. Am I shut out of globular cluster world?

 

Btw - transparency was ok, I could see Megrez with my junky eyes on both nights, which is pretty good for me. (Seeing was also good, at least last night ,- I split Castor with 108x).

 

Thank you all for any thoughts on this.


  • Asbytec and radiofm74 like this

#63 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 96,339
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 09 April 2021 - 01:08 PM

I know that I can see point sources/open cluster members way below the surface magnitudes of both of these clusters. So, do globular clusters "count" as point sources? If they don't, based on the rules about surface area cited herein, I know my eyes can't do the magnitudes 5 and 6 of these objects on their own. Am I shut out of globular cluster world?

I suppose it would be fair to consider globular clusters as collections of point sources.
 

What magnification are you using as you're star-hopping?  



#64 CBM1970

CBM1970

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Southern Maine

Posted 09 April 2021 - 01:57 PM

I suppose it would be fair to consider globular clusters as collections of point sources.
 

What magnification are you using as you're star-hopping?  

Thanks for the response, Dave!

 

I am at 30x with a 25mm plossl.



#65 ButterFly

ButterFly

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,004
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2018

Posted 09 April 2021 - 02:30 PM

So  I installed a PVS14  photon Warp Drive on my scope.  I had first light with it last Sunday. Oh yeah, it works like a dream. There they are Galaxies everywhere, with structure and detail.

 

 

For most galaxies, it's decidedly worse than bare eyepiece.  Where NV excels with galaxies is where there is dust - sharp contrast features.  Compare M81 with M82, then spend some time with the Needle galaxy.  The differences with respect to the bare eyepiece view is stark in both cases.  Face on spirals do the worst.

 

Bookmark this page somewhere then come back to it in a few months.  Remember that the background also gets intensified.  Use the gain knob: it lets you adjust brightness (any and all) without adjusting image scale.  Explore that effect - don't be afraid of very low gain and H-alpha.


Edited by ButterFly, 09 April 2021 - 02:41 PM.


#66 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 96,339
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:30 PM

Thanks for the response, Dave!

 

I am at 30x with a 25mm plossl.

M3 and M13 should definitely appear non-stellar at 30x.  My guess is that you're simply not looking at exactly the right locations.


  • CBM1970 and radiofm74 like this

#67 KBHornblower

KBHornblower

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Falls Church, VA (Washington DC suburb)

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:35 PM

In good transparency I can see the Keystone of Hercules with the naked eye, and I have star-hopped to M13 without great difficulty, despite the severe light pollution here in greater Washington.  It is a faint fuzzy in the 6" scope and a glittering mass of stardust in the 17.5".  Of course the views are vastly superior in darker skies about 40 miles to the west.


  • CBM1970 likes this

#68 Rollo

Rollo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:53 PM

I have seen many galaxies in my 72mm refractor at a dark sky site.   You don't need a large telescope to see galaxies,,, just dark skies.   Of course,, it's helps having a larger scope when viewing them.   If you want to see any faint object,,, galaxies, nebula,, etc...   dark skies are a must.   



#69 Jethro7

Jethro7

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,846
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: N.W. Florida

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:58 PM

For most galaxies, it's decidedly worse than bare eyepiece.  Where NV excels with galaxies is where there is dust - sharp contrast features.  Compare M81 with M82, then spend some time with the Needle galaxy.  The differences with respect to the bare eyepiece view is stark in both cases.  Face on spirals do the worst.

 

Bookmark this page somewhere then come back to it in a few months.  Remember that the background also gets intensified.  Use the gain knob: it lets you adjust brightness (any and all) without adjusting image scale.  Explore that effect - don't be afraid of very low gain and H-alpha.

Hello ButterFly,

I totally agree with you, that turning the gain down has a positive effect on seeing a bit more Galactic details. Just as learning that viewing with lower magnification in many cases brings out better resolution of details of planets and bright Nebulae.The signal to noise ratio is so much higher on my new device than my first one that I have the capability of turning  the Gain way down until there is no scintillation and the views are just like viewing through a conventional eyepiece. This is a whole new world for me now, being able to get the dark sky effects in a light polluted environment. I just received a couple of new toys to try out on my next viewing session. A Televue 67mm conversion lens for the TV 55 plossl. We will see how a longer focal length eyepiece will or will not improve the experience as well as a 685nm IR Longpass filter. I have been using a 642nm IR Longpass filter. I am not afraid to experiment with this and that, especially when you can do no harm to your gear. It either works or it does not work. This is part of the fun of this hobby and I have been quite happily surprised on occasion with the outcome.  (I have this Topic bookmarked and will come back)

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro


Edited by Jethro7, 09 April 2021 - 07:08 PM.


#70 CBM1970

CBM1970

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Southern Maine

Posted 09 April 2021 - 07:14 PM

M3 and M13 should definitely appear non-stellar at 30x.  My guess is that you're simply not looking at exactly the right locations.

It is possible. I think I may have another crack at it tonight if the weather holds.

 

I have refined my star hop, and we shall see.

 

I honestly hope you're right. Looking in the wrong place is fixable!

 

-Clear skies.


  • radiofm74 likes this

#71 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,298
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 09 April 2021 - 07:45 PM

 

I had the same problem under similar skies in my youth, but I did not have the patience, access to information, or access to cloudynights that I do now. 

Yes, absolutely. Sharing information with others in our community is a big deal. For me, learning from others made a huge difference. Standing on the shoulders of giants, most of them on CN. I was always afraid to magnify galaxies for fear of losing it, I always assumed the galaxy image had to be bright to see it. I didn't realize the problem is they are also too small. 


  • CBM1970 and radiofm74 like this

#72 CBM1970

CBM1970

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Southern Maine

Posted 10 April 2021 - 12:51 AM

For anyone following my little subtopic about M13, I did get out tonight to have another go at it.

 

My eyes being what they are, I had trouble locating Zeta Herculi, which I'd used in my star hop on the previous night. However, Alphecca in Corona Borealis was easily visible, so I started there with the following star hop plan (with help from Stellarium): 

 

Alphecca > Gamma Coronae Borealis > Delta Coronae Borealis > Epsilon Corona Borealis. Then a perfectly straight line (for my location and time of night) to Nu1 and Nu2 Corona Borealis. These 2 stars are unmistakable once found. From there, about 2 deg "down" to HD 148995 and 31 Herculis. Then, a final 5 degrees north to M13. Everything around here was very faint to me, and I kept getting lost and unable to get back to Nu 1 and Nu 2. So, I just started the star hop all over again from Alphecca. After a few times, I could do this whole process really quickly and easily.

 

Now, the bad news. I definitely located the two 7th mag stars (HD 150679 and HD 150998) that sit on either side on M13. With direct vision, I saw between them, nothing but coal black space.

 

I used averted vision as best I could and moved the scope around a bit. I DID catch fleeting glimpses of M13 this way! It was as though it would "flash" into existence for an instant, and then disappear. It looked much like the drawing of M13 in a dob from Turn Left at Orion. 

 

Crazy though! A renowned, bright, and dazzling showpiece of Northern hemisphere skies is, to my eyes, all but invisible!

 

There may be some ameliorating factors. M13 was at about 45 deg in my skies at 11pm-midnight. It will get higher in the coming weeks. Also, there may have been some transparency issues and/or problems with the Portland light dome tonight (though I could see Megrez overhead easily, which is my benchmark for a good night for my eyes). Most important of all, dew was forming inside my ota at the time. Bright stars were very clear, but 7th mag stars seemed fainter than they should have been in my experience.

 

Of course, I will try this again on another night with better conditions, but I wanted to put this information out there. (Also, I gotta admit, I'm kinda proud of my star hop, and I wanted to share it.)

 

I won't lie - this is kinda disappointing. Still, if nothing else, I can find M13 and show it to keen eyed friends! 


  • brentknight and AlvinPL like this

#73 radiofm74

radiofm74

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Milano (Italy)

Posted 10 April 2021 - 01:52 AM

For anyone following my little subtopic about M13, I did get out tonight to have another go at it.

 

My eyes being what they are, I had trouble locating Zeta Herculi, which I'd used in my star hop on the previous night. However, Alphecca in Corona Borealis was easily visible, so I started there with the following star hop plan (with help from Stellarium): 

 

Alphecca > Gamma Coronae Borealis > Delta Coronae Borealis > Epsilon Corona Borealis. Then a perfectly straight line (for my location and time of night) to Nu1 and Nu2 Corona Borealis. These 2 stars are unmistakable once found. From there, about 2 deg "down" to HD 148995 and 31 Herculis. Then, a final 5 degrees north to M13. Everything around here was very faint to me, and I kept getting lost and unable to get back to Nu 1 and Nu 2. So, I just started the star hop all over again from Alphecca. After a few times, I could do this whole process really quickly and easily.

 

Now, the bad news. I definitely located the two 7th mag stars (HD 150679 and HD 150998) that sit on either side on M13. With direct vision, I saw between them, nothing but coal black space.

 

I used averted vision as best I could and moved the scope around a bit. I DID catch fleeting glimpses of M13 this way! It was as though it would "flash" into existence for an instant, and then disappear. It looked much like the drawing of M13 in a dob from Turn Left at Orion. 

 

Crazy though! A renowned, bright, and dazzling showpiece of Northern hemisphere skies is, to my eyes, all but invisible!

 

There may be some ameliorating factors. M13 was at about 45 deg in my skies at 11pm-midnight. It will get higher in the coming weeks. Also, there may have been some transparency issues and/or problems with the Portland light dome tonight (though I could see Megrez overhead easily, which is my benchmark for a good night for my eyes). Most important of all, dew was forming inside my ota at the time. Bright stars were very clear, but 7th mag stars seemed fainter than they should have been in my experience.

 

Of course, I will try this again on another night with better conditions, but I wanted to put this information out there. (Also, I gotta admit, I'm kinda proud of my star hop, and I wanted to share it.)

 

I won't lie - this is kinda disappointing. Still, if nothing else, I can find M13 and show it to keen eyed friends! 

Don't be too hard on your eyes and too quick in accepting limitations that may not be as stark as you think. IME you have to learn to see DSOs, type by type. I can now see M42 naked eye but in my first attempts I could not even see it through a telescope. Once I saw I, I can always see it. Same with globulars: I have not tried M13 yet but M3 is ideally placed and also one of the brightest… still for the first nights I had the greatest trouble finding it and seeing it. Now it feels like an old friend and I even see it in the finderscope. No trouble finding fainter ones either. M53 nearby is an easy ride. 

 

So: I suggest spending a good evening with M3.  

 

1. Finding it is relatively easy from Beta Com, readily recognizable by the dimmer (but still telescopically bright) star to its W. To be sure, finding Beta may not be immediately obvious. On excellent nights, it's a naked eye star in my urban sky. If not, I know it's a little to the right and approximately midway on the line between Arcturus' naked eye companion Muphrid and Cor Caroli. I point there and grope around with my finder. Once I have Beta, I just use the slo-mo RA knob to the E and keep my eyes in the finder – a straight line following the direction indicated by Beta and its companion. Turn Left says it's one finderscope FoV away. This threw me off… my finder is 8x50 and I have a much smaller FoV so it's several finders away. But never mind. I keep going and as soon as a distinctly bright star – mag 6 – falls in the finder, a little to the S of the line, I know have it. As said I now can see M3 right beside that star in my finder, but if you don't, don't despair. Switch to main scope with a low power EP.

2. To the E of the 6 mag star, you have a neat triangle of fainter stars, which may or may not visible in your finder (≈mag 8-10) but generally show up without problems in your main scope's eyepiece. M3 is neatly framed by them. If you don't see it at first, stay at the eyepiece using averted vision until you start seeing it, at least intermittently. It may take several minutes or even a good half an hour. Keep at it and I'm pretty sure you'll have it. If you still don't have it, try higher power: M3 is bright enough to bear relatively high mag. 

3. Once you've spotted M3, stay there: the quality of your view will improve the more you keep looking. On my first night all I could see was a cotton ball of light, first intermittently, then permanently. Then I could distinguish core and halo with averted vision. Now I can do that with direct vision and start resolving stars with averted vision. 

 

It's a learning process and I feel that M3 might be your best training object given its placement. Once you have that, challenge yourself with M53 (also in Turn Left) and prepare to savor M13 in all its glory come early summer ;D

 

Keep us posted!


Edited by radiofm74, 10 April 2021 - 01:59 AM.

  • CBM1970 likes this

#74 CBM1970

CBM1970

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Southern Maine

Posted 10 April 2021 - 09:17 AM

Don't be too hard on your eyes and too quick in accepting limitations that may not be as stark as you think. IME you have to learn to see DSOs, type by type. I can now see M42 naked eye but in my first attempts I could not even see it through a telescope. Once I saw I, I can always see it. Same with globulars: I have not tried M13 yet but M3 is ideally placed and also one of the brightest… still for the first nights I had the greatest trouble finding it and seeing it. Now it feels like an old friend and I even see it in the finderscope. No trouble finding fainter ones either. M53 nearby is an easy ride. 

 

So: I suggest spending a good evening with M3.  

 

1. Finding it is relatively easy from Beta Com, readily recognizable by the dimmer (but still telescopically bright) star to its W. To be sure, finding Beta may not be immediately obvious. On excellent nights, it's a naked eye star in my urban sky. If not, I know it's a little to the right and approximately midway on the line between Arcturus' naked eye companion Muphrid and Cor Caroli. I point there and grope around with my finder. Once I have Beta, I just use the slo-mo RA knob to the E and keep my eyes in the finder – a straight line following the direction indicated by Beta and its companion. Turn Left says it's one finderscope FoV away. This threw me off… my finder is 8x50 and I have a much smaller FoV so it's several finders away. But never mind. I keep going and as soon as a distinctly bright star – mag 6 – falls in the finder, a little to the S of the line, I know have it. As said I now can see M3 right beside that star in my finder, but if you don't, don't despair. Switch to main scope with a low power EP.

2. To the E of the 6 mag star, you have a neat triangle of fainter stars, which may or may not visible in your finder (≈mag 8-10) but generally show up without problems in your main scope's eyepiece. M3 is neatly framed by them. If you don't see it at first, stay at the eyepiece using averted vision until you start seeing it, at least intermittently. It may take several minutes or even a good half an hour. Keep at it and I'm pretty sure you'll have it. If you still don't have it, try higher power: M3 is bright enough to bear relatively high mag. 

3. Once you've spotted M3, stay there: the quality of your view will improve the more you keep looking. On my first night all I could see was a cotton ball of light, first intermittently, then permanently. Then I could distinguish core and halo with averted vision. Now I can do that with direct vision and start resolving stars with averted vision. 

 

It's a learning process and I feel that M3 might be your best training object given its placement. Once you have that, challenge yourself with M53 (also in Turn Left) and prepare to savor M13 in all its glory come early summer ;D

 

Keep us posted!

Thanks for your thoughts on this, radiofm74. A learning curve for DSOs, type by type makes sense. 

 

I did better with M42 over time. Although I could at least make out a hazy greenish blob the first time I saw it in a telescope, and I was thrilled about it.

 

I have looked at several sketches of M13 online this morning, and some of them look a lot like what I glimpsed with averted vision last night. This is promising, because I haven't really looked at sketches of globular clusters much before, and it bolsters my confidence that my fleeting views were not just a hopeful invention of my brain.

 

Thank for the directions to M3 as well. I will give it another try as well, I expect. 

 

My expectations are diminished, but I am not giving up.


Edited by CBM1970, 10 April 2021 - 10:47 AM.

  • radiofm74 and AlvinPL like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics