29 replies to this topic

[SNH]

This shouldn't really come as a surprise, but I'm a bit biased in my preference for Sky & Telescope. However, I have to give credit where credit is due and, since meeting and having drinks with the Editor in Chief of Astronomy this past summer at the Astronomical League's annual convention, my view of his magazine has softened.

 

In the January 2024 issue, they basically devoted the entire issue to covering in fair detail what their writers call "101 Weirdest Cosmic Objects". It's a subjective list, of course, but those that compiled it (Michael Bakich, Alan Goldstein, Phil Harrington, and Stephen James O'Meara) probably have a combined 200 years of experience in the hobby! Which means that the vast majority of the objects they chose are right up my alley. In fact, I carefully went through their list and noted that I've seen two-thirds of the objects from my backyard.

 

Of the ones I haven't seen, I've now added five of them to my list for next spring (all galaxies, if you couldn't guess). Those are Arp 242 in Com, UGC 3697 in Leo, Arp 104 in UMj, Wild's Triplet in Vir, and Zwicky's Necklace in Vir. And after the February issue becomes available for sale, I plan to buy several copies of the January "special" issue to give away to friends.

 

 

However, while I'm proud of the issue that Astronomy magazine produced (and I told them so myself), I did find some errors and misconceptions:

 

Harrington erred when he claimed that Paolo Maffei had discovered Maffei 1 & 2 (#16) when in truth, Stewart Sharpless discovered and cataloged both of them nearly 15 years before!

 

Bakich erred when he claimed that PuWe 1 (#28) is the second-largest planetary nebula only to the Helix Nebula when in fact the largest planetary hands down is Simeis 288 (Sh 2-216) in Perseus!

 

Bakich overstepped when he claimed the Necklace Nebula (#39) isn't visible "even through the largest amateur telescopes" because I've seen it in my 10-inch SCT without a filter!

 

Bakich erred when he gave the individual identifications to the galaxies that make up Zwicky's Necklace (#43).

 

Goldstein overstepped when he claimed that the brightness of the Gum Nebula (#73) is such that it's "too faint for visual observations" because I've seen it's two brightest regions in my 6-inch with a H-Beta filter.

 

 

That being said, I hope more people check it out and get inspired because they did as good a job as one could hope for and is now what I consider to be their BEST ISSUE EVER!

 

Scott H.

[edwincjones]

I agree that this is a very impressive issue of Astronomy.

I have always enjoyed astro lists as this allows me to find

new, different, and unknown DSOs (at least to me).

 

edj

[BrentKnight]

In any list of objects folks are going to wonder why their favorite is missing.  In that spirit I'd have to ask why The Flying Bat and the Squid (Sh2-129 and OU4) didn't make the list.  That is definitely a strange target...

[yuzameh]

Harrington erred when he claimed that Paolo Maffei had discovered Maffei 1 & 2 (#16) when in truth, Stewart Sharpless discovered and cataloged both of them nearly 15 years before!

 

That being said, I hope more people check it out and get inspired because they did as good a job as one could hope for and is now what I consider to be their BEST ISSUE EVER!

 

Scott H.

A bit suprising really that you laud it because the errors you note are very basic ones that should have not been made in such an article, especially one or two of them (eg the Zwicky necklace).  Maybe there are more errors for things you are not as familiar with or for which you have no adequate sources at present?

 

For the Maffei ones I could personally excuse it as sloppy writing.  I believe Maffei showed them to be galaxies with his IR measure, I remember when they were first "discovered" as they were in those days thought to be outliers within the Local Group, a viewpoint that has been voided over time.

 

I'm heavily surprised Maffei 1 is a Sharpless object, it's apparently an elliptical, shouldn't be much if any HII around.

 

Also, it seems Sharpless listed it9 years earlier, not 15, I'll leave you to figure out why for yourself ; )

[Oregon-raybender]

I agree, it was a interesting set of objects. Many require a large size

telescope, dark site and great set of eyes (and skill) in observing. But it is

a goal setting for the many who want to improve their observing

or imaging skills. I am well pass the age ( poor eyesight) and no longer in dark

sky to look for them and of course a scope (at least a 20 to 30 inch) to

really get a view of the objects. I would say go for it!

 

Starry Nights

[sgottlieb]

A bit suprising really that you laud it because the errors you note are very basic ones that should have not been made in such an article, especially one or two of them (eg the Zwicky necklace).  Maybe there are more errors for things you are not as familiar with or for which you have no adequate sources at present?

 

For the Maffei ones I could personally excuse it as sloppy writing.  I believe Maffei showed them to be galaxies with his IR measure, I remember when they were first "discovered" as they were in those days thought to be outliers within the Local Group, a viewpoint that has been voided over time.

 

I'm heavily surprised Maffei 1 is a Sharpless object, it's apparently an elliptical, shouldn't be much if any HII around.

 

Also, it seems Sharpless listed it9 years earlier, not 15, I'll leave you to figure out why for yourself ; )

Paolo Maffei's 1968 discovery announcement for Maffei I and II only mentioned they were bright infrared objects.  But three years later, a study by Spinrad and others concluded it was a galaxy (Maffei 1: a New Massive Member of the Local Group?).

 

I believe Scott mentioned 15 years, as Maffei I and II both appeared in Stewart Sharpless' first list of HII object in 1953.

 

But I'm also curious where the HII emission comes from in Maffei I?  Maffei II is a barred spiral (https://www.spitzer....e-hidden-galaxy) with two prominent arms, but Maffei I is a giant elliptical. Interestingly, they're situated very near the large, star-forming HII complex IC 1805!  

Edited by sgottlieb, 11 December 2023 - 10:37 PM.

[mich_al]

I had just the opposite reaction to that issue of Astronomy.  I like reading about subjects involving Astronomy in the monthlies.  An entire issue containing nothing but descriptions of objects just doesn't do it for me.  I thumbed thru it, read a couple, looked at a couple of images and threw the issue in the 'already read' pile likely to never open again.  Disappointed.

[Horologium1959]

I've let my Astronomy subscription lapse. for now, it has lately been kind of Meh.

Sky and Telescope seems to be improving. I still get S&T. 

The editors of Astronomy should revisit Stephen A Walther's original vision for the magazine, i.e. to be "the World's Most beautiful Astronomy Magazine"

I have acquired old issues from the 1970s---and while even then there were a couple of clinkers, it was a wekk designed, yes even beautiful publication.

 

Still, I will eventually renew my subscription----and the Astronomy website is nice also.

 

But there ARE too many top ten type articles. 

 

Of course, print in the 21st Century is a different proposition.     

Edited by Horologium1959, 12 December 2023 - 12:07 PM.

[yuzameh]

Paolo Maffei's 1968 discovery announcement for Maffei I and II only mentioned they were bright infrared objects.  But three years later, a study by Spinrad and others concluded it was a galaxy (Maffei 1: a New Massive Member of the Local Group?).

 

I believe Scott mentioned 15 years, as Maffei I and II both appeared in Stewart Sharpless' first list of HII object in 1953.

 

But I'm also curious where the HII emission comes from in Maffei I?  Maffei II is a barred spiral (https://www.spitzer....e-hidden-galaxy) with two prominent arms, but Maffei I is a giant elliptical. Interestingly, they're situated very near the large, star-forming HII complex IC 1805!  

Ah, thanks for that on the Maffei thing, I probably remember the Spinrad thing then, I thought '68 was a bit early for me even at my advanced decripitude.

 

NOW, gotta tell you you are wrong on the sharpless point.  I went and looked up the Sharpless paper on adsabs and it only has about 143 objects (using memory), as it clearly states in it that it is restricted to a range of Galactic longitudes (roughly half a hemisphere's worth).

 

The others came in a later publication which memory is telling me was 1959.

 

Anyway, search on year 1953 in adsabs and sharpless, it's an Astrophysical Journal one, then the other is an Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series one.  From memory.

 

I back engineered the references from the CDS Strasbourg holdings, I always look in their ftp source of text files (still exists, unlike most ftp, and is still public), it's VII/20, and went from there.  Apparently the inherited it from the old ADC at Goddard, I remember ordering their (GSFC) data CDs long ago when the 'net wasn't so prevalent.

 

Gotta watch that sort of stuff, it's not the only case, often catalogues aren't 1 and 2.  Maybe that's why it's called Sh2 HII, because the table in the second list did include the prior objects if memory doesn't fail.

 

I dug deeper because Guide, my first point of call in info search (I've bunged tons of sundry catalogues into it over the years), uses something called the "Nebula Databank" for the Sharpless objects and I wanted to see if the notes in that (eg Sh2 191 had some comment about likely not being an emission object) came from the databank or the source paper.  Well, it wasn't mentioned in the notes in the paper, albeit some objects did have notes/comments.

Edited by yuzameh, 12 December 2023 - 02:26 PM.

[yuzameh]

As for the HII question, Sharpless says in his papers that he used POSS as taken by the 48" Schmidt, and compared red and blue plates to try not to get reflection nebulae in the list, so not all of them are assured to be HII just because they are more prominent on red and infrared Palomar plates (the E and I emulsion plates).  Apparently the original POSS went on until 1958 so that may explain the circumstances here, that is in 1953 they hadn't photoed all the sky then!

 

Or so I thought...

 

I see they were in the 1953 catalogue as Sharpless 137 and 139 but were renamed in Sharpless II to 191 and 197, IF I've read table 4 of the second paper correctly.

 

So you got that spot on.

 

I can't see any mention of anything but POSS E plates being used by Sharpless himself, except O plates when he wanted to ensure it wasn't a reflection nebula.  Some of the prior sources he used for cross identification in the second paper are Halpha surveys, but not as far as I can see anything he used.

 

EDIT : In other words, red doesn't mean Halpha necessarily, but normally you'd expect something near the Galactic Plane that's very red to be nebulosity rather than a background galay without hint of spirality.  I surmise Maffei I, the elliptical, isn't so much red as reddened (although ostensibly elliptical galaxies are redder than spirals I haven't actually checked what sort of elliptical it is, it could be a dwarf one.

Edited by yuzameh, 12 December 2023 - 02:34 PM.

[obrazell]

I believe that Maffei 1 is the nearest giant elliptical and the light from it is heavily reddened.

[CarolinaBanker]

It’s a hard task and I think generalist hobby magazines have to cater to a wide audience. For instance a beginner will likely benefit from an article about how to avoid department store scopes, but for everyone with experience it’s probably not very useful. I always have liked the following: observing lists (particularly seasonal and focused by constellation/object type/catalog), gear reviews, technique. I’d love to have something with 3-4 features, a sky tour, upcoming monthly astronomical events, a review of a few different pieces of equipment, a column on small scope/binocular observing, sketching.

[Chucke]

I may disagree about how weird some of the objects are but it was one of the most interesting issues in quite a while.  Kudos for Astronomy.

[Bob Campbell]

This shouldn't really come as a surprise, but I'm a bit biased in my preference for Sky & Telescope. However, I have to give credit where credit is due and, since meeting and having drinks with the Editor in Chief of Astronomy this past summer at the Astronomical League's annual convention, my view of his magazine has softened.

 

In the January 2024 issue, they basically devoted the entire issue to covering in fair detail what their writers call "101 Weirdest Cosmic Objects". It's a subjective list, of course, but those that compiled it (Michael Bakich, Alan Goldstein, Phil Harrington, and Stephen James O'Meara) probably have a combined 200 years of experience in the hobby! Which means that the vast majority of the objects they chose are right up my alley. In fact, I carefully went through their list and noted that I've seen two-thirds of the objects from my backyard.

 

Of the ones I haven't seen, I've now added five of them to my list for next spring (all galaxies, if you couldn't guess). Those are Arp 242 in Com, UGC 3697 in Leo, Arp 104 in UMj, Wild's Triplet in Vir, and Zwicky's Necklace in Vir. And after the February issue becomes available for sale, I plan to buy several copies of the January "special" issue to give away to friends.

 

 

However, while I'm proud of the issue that Astronomy magazine produced (and I told them so myself), I did find some errors and misconceptions:

 

Harrington erred when he claimed that Paolo Maffei had discovered Maffei 1 & 2 (#16) when in truth, Stewart Sharpless discovered and cataloged both of them nearly 15 years before!

 

Bakich erred when he claimed that PuWe 1 (#28) is the second-largest planetary nebula only to the Helix Nebula when in fact the largest planetary hands down is Simeis 288 (Sh 2-216) in Perseus!

 

Bakich overstepped when he claimed the Necklace Nebula (#39) isn't visible "even through the largest amateur telescopes" because I've seen it in my 10-inch SCT without a filter!

 

Bakich erred when he gave the individual identifications to the galaxies that make up Zwicky's Necklace (#43).

 

Goldstein overstepped when he claimed that the brightness of the Gum Nebula (#73) is such that it's "too faint for visual observations" because I've seen it's two brightest regions in my 6-inch with a H-Beta filter.

 

 

That being said, I hope more people check it out and get inspired because they did as good a job as one could hope for and is now what I consider to be their BEST ISSUE EVER!

 

Scott H.

I find both S&T and Astronomy magazines extremely boring. I use them to fall asleep in bed.

 

What is wrong with me? What is the appeal? There are so many resources online  that are up to the minute current and very compelling why are they even relevant?

 

The advertisers just seem so desperate to be selling something, and the equipment reviews are boring and the equipment (at least to me) uninteresting and either trivial or very overpriced.

 

Maybe they are good for a beginner, but anyone with some experience they seem a bit underwhelming.

 

I look through (online versions) of old (ie 20-40 years old) issues, and they seem much more engaging.

 

To those reading this who say 'just don't subscribe', I will be doing so when my Astronomy subscription expires in May. I've already unsubscribed from S&T some time ago.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 17 December 2023 - 12:54 AM.

[firemachine69]

I agree, it was a interesting set of objects. Many require a large size

telescope, dark site and great set of eyes (and skill) in observing. But it is

a goal setting for the many who want to improve their observing

or imaging skills. I am well pass the age ( poor eyesight) and no longer in dark

sky to look for them and of course a scope (at least a 20 to 30 inch) to

really get a view of the objects. I would say go for it!

 

Starry Nights

 

 

Nothing a bit of night vision can't fix. 

[Bob Campbell]

I agree, it was a interesting set of objects. Many require a large size

telescope, dark site and great set of eyes (and skill) in observing. But it is

a goal setting for the many who want to improve their observing

or imaging skills. I am well pass the age ( poor eyesight) and no longer in dark

sky to look for them and of course a scope (at least a 20 to 30 inch) to

really get a view of the objects. I would say go for it!

 

Starry Nights

You should check out EAA. Great for old eyes, sore back, and bright skies. And BTW, effectively gives you a 4x kick in aperture, plus or minus.

 

Bob

[edwincjones]

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Bob

 

When first starting in Amateur Astronomy I found all astro magazines very interesting, as all was new to me.  With time as my skills and knowledge grew there was less in the magazines of interest or intellectually stimulating.  

 

edj

Edited by edwincjones, 17 December 2023 - 05:04 AM.

[BrentKnight]

Moderator Note:

 

Let's discuss the subject of relevancy in another topic if that's something we want to discuss.  Let's keep the current thread on the current topic.

[KidOrion]

A bit disappointed—by my estimation, I’ve only seen 63 of those 101.

 

Of course, all the Southern Hemisphere stuff is out, and I didn’t count some of the individual stars that were listed (even if I may have actually seen them on accident). 

[Napp]

I agree, Scott.  I admit I am biased toward articles on observing and objects to observe so I do tend to like Sky & Telescope a bit more.  Astronomy’s “101 Weirdest Cosmic Objects” is right up my alley, though.  In looking for the issue I stumbled across the January 2022 issue devoted to “101 Must-See Cosmic Objects”.  These two issues just became members of my observing guides.  

[mich_al]

 

I look through (online versions) of old (ie 20-40 years old) issues, and they seem much more engaging.

 

I have a stack of 20-25 year old S&T's that I go to when current stuff is exhausted.  They're from before the bug hit me so I've not seen them.  I find them an order of magnitude better in all respects except for being near current information.

[BrentKnight]

A magazine is only as good as its contributors. I like many of the current contributors at both magazines...some of them even post here.

[sgottlieb]

-----

 

However, while I'm proud of the issue that Astronomy magazine produced (and I told them so myself), I did find some errors and misconceptions:

 

Harrington erred when he claimed that Paolo Maffei had discovered Maffei 1 & 2 (#16) when in truth, Stewart Sharpless discovered and cataloged both of them nearly 15 years before!

 

 

Scott H.

Scott, if you're keeping a tally on errors, Geoffrey Burbidge didn't discover the Integral Sign Galaxy (UGC 3697) in 1967.  It first appeared in Volume 1 of the MCG in 1962 as MCG +12-07-028.  Just a year after Burbidge's paper, the de Vaucouleurs' published some additional notes on the galaxy and corrected this error by noting the earlier discovery.   

 

Vorontsov-Velyaminov (primary author of the MCG) was apparently quite irritated and wrote a note in 1974 titled "Morphological Catalogue of Galaxies Discriminated Against" complaining Burbidge didn't recognize his earlier catalogue entry and renamed the galaxy GB 1 after himself!

 

So here we are 50 years later, and guess what...SIMBAD still lists the primary name as GB 1!

Edited by sgottlieb, 21 December 2023 - 12:38 PM.

[Horologium1959]

Nothing a bit of night vision can't fix. 

Night vision? Haven't been able to dark adapt in 3 years---limiting magnitude where I reside is about 1.   

[Horologium1959]

I find both S&T and Astronomy magazines extremely boring. I use them to fall asleep in bed.

 

What is wrong with me? What is the appeal? There are so many resources online  that are up to the minute current and very compelling why are they even relevant?

 

The advertisers just seem so desperate to be selling something, and the equipment reviews are boring and the equipment (at least to me) uninteresting and either trivial or very overpriced.

 

Maybe they are good for a beginner, but anyone with some experience they seem a bit underwhelming.

 

I look through (online versions) of old (ie 20-40 years old) issues, and they seem much more engaging.

 

To those reading this who say 'just don't subscribe', I will be doing so when my Astronomy subscription expires in May. I've already unsubscribed from S&T some time ago.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Bob

The printed mags DO need to up their game in presentation of material---and they probably COULD stop printing the tabular repeating data---(Positions of Jovian Satellites, minima pf Algol and the like) which can easily be found online. (But IMHO they should continue to present their monthly star charts).

But---at the same time   they should increase the originality of their articles, S&T HAS been doing this since they were acquired by the AAS. But there IS still room for improvements.

AS I have said before---BOTH of the major mags need to look at their heritage and return to their roots. In the case of Astronomy this would entail getting back to the vision of Stephen A. Walther. I.E. to aspire to publish "The World's Most Beautiful Astronomy Magazine".  In my opinion, for the most part this was achieved in the issues published in the 1970s with very few exceptions. (My PERSONAL favorite is the January 1977 issue with the special "Bicentennial" July 1976 issue a very close runner up --- July 1976 is a great primer on the history of Astronomy in the USA from colonial times upt to 1976.  There is even a short discussion of Native American sky lore and knowledge. The issues from the 197os were well written and well-illustrated. 

                       For S&T they could return to more in-depth coverage of the latest observations and findings by amateurs and professional, better coverage of space craft results (from manned and unmanned missions), articleds about particular observatories and about telescope making----and return to their old practice of reviewing several books about astronomy and allied topics every issue instead of just featurung just one book per month for review.  To their credit over the last couple of years I think they have taken some positive steps --- I would encourage them to do more---and though I have NEVER made a telescope---bring "Gleanings for ATMs in its original form---PLEASE!

                       Now---of course we can get a lot of information online---including here, but many would like sometimes to do something that doesn't involve bowing down to "The Great Silicone God" with some sort of screen in front of us. Don't get me wrong---I like computers and smart phones and they are, when used well a blessing, I am no Luddite---but sometimes reading about astronomy from a printed item is a great way to pass the time---and, I wish I had the reference for this but I do remember hearing about a study that indicated that reading printed matter as opposed to reading on a screen, enabled the reader to retain circa 20% more of the information presented---but that will need to stay anecdotal since I do not have rthe reference to the actual study.  Be that as it may, the very ubiquity od PCs Tablets and Phones sometimes makes one want to get away from for awhile. So the printed mags, if they play the game right DO have a future---but they need to try harder.