105 replies to this topic

[Tim Hager]

The AAVSO 9th magnitude atlas came out in 1980. It was 178 flat sheets in a box. In 1990 a second edition came out. The charts are identical. In the 2nd edition the charts were shrunk and put in a binder. Also the charts are printed on both sides making it more compact.That's the second edition on right. The picture shows Chart 48 of both editions showing Lyra left of center.

I have the first edition and I prefer the printing on one side because I used it by shining my red light through the back of the chart.  It's difficult to use it that way when the charts are printed on both sides.  That being said, the large boxed charts were unwieldy to use and many times I just made a reduced copy of the area of sky that I was working. 

 

I thought another shortcoming of the AAVSO atlas was very little if any difference in star sizes at the fainter magnitudes.  

[Alvan Clark]

Castor,

 

Thanks, I have some older atlases too but there is a certain sameness to a lot of those older 6th magnitude charts.

I actually have a AAVSO second edition still in the shrinkwrap.The Herald-Bobroff is one of my favorites. Got it sent to me from Australia before they stopped printing it.

 

For those not familiar it included a 6th magnitude whole sky atlas. Then a 9th magnitude whole sky Atlas. Then it included selected closeup areas. These were usually crowded fields where the magnitude range went from 11th to 14th magnitude. One of the closeups was the bowl of the dipper to 11th manitude which compares to the 9th magnitude image above.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Alvan Clark]

I thought another shortcoming of the AAVSO atlas was very little if any difference in star sizes at the fainter magnitudes.  

I think the other complaint was not enough deep sky objects. Uranometria remedied that.

 

EDIT: Even Sky Atlas 2000 has more deep sky objects.

Edited by Alvan Clark, Today, 09:12 AM.

[Tim Hager]

I think the other complaint was not enough deep sky objects. Uranometria remedied that.

 

EDIT: Even Sky Atlas 2000 has more deep sky objects.

Yes, I forgot about that.  I was using it as intended - for finding and observing variable stars so I didn't notice that aspect much.  I also appreciated having some of the star magnitudes printed for making magnitude estimates of bright variables, new novae and comets.

 

It was good for what it was intended for at the time but it left something to be desired as a general use atlas. 

[yuzameh]

I think the other complaint was not enough deep sky objects. Uranometria remedied that.

 

EDIT: Even Sky Atlas 2000 has more deep sky objects.

Well, the clue is in the name, AAVSO.  Basically the AAVSO took advantage of the generation of the SAO to do something that fitted with variable star work, you could combine their comparison star charts with your atlas instead of having to jump from something like a naked eye and just below atlas to a comparison chart going down to 13th mag, at least with a 9th mag atlas you had a chance of the comparison charts having one star in common with the atlas for sky hopping.

 

Now, SAO, some of this will be inaccurate as I am using the old memory box rather than the pedia of the wiki.  In USA they decided to go to the Moon.  Trouble was the best astrometric reference catalogue was Boss's 5th edition of 192something or similar, a compilation atlas from literature and reference sources, all in old equinox and not going all that faint.

 

Well the surveyors, orbiters, rangers etc would all need star trackers for orientation and basically checking where they were.  The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory solved this, I think they took plate images than negatives of those but printed the positives onto some two colour litho thing or something (not sure how they did it really but I do remember having to do something similar a few time for drafting work reduction with truly black and white, as in black or white and nothing else, film as part of some really, really horrible job I had when I was young, thus I forget what it was called).

 

I think it was epoch 1960s sometime too, to fit properly.

 

Those with better memories will correct if interested.

[yuzameh]

Yes, I forgot about that.  I was using it as intended - for finding and observing variable stars so I didn't notice that aspect much.  I also appreciated having some of the star magnitudes printed for making magnitude estimates of bright variables, new novae and comets.

 

It was good for what it was intended for at the time but it left something to be desired as a general use atlas. 

Ah, what he said!  My post was a bit redundant then, soz.