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

Your favorite paper atlas?

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#51 jcj380

jcj380

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,312
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Out in the night, in the whispering breezes

Posted 15 May 2024 - 11:02 AM

$621 lol

 

Some of these Astronomy publications are fast becoming lucrative investments. 

https://www.alibris....08822?matches=1

 

But you get free shipping, so that's a bargain.  smirk.gif


Edited by jcj380, 15 May 2024 - 11:04 AM.

  • Daniel Mounsey and izar187 like this

#52 pugliano

pugliano

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 15 May 2024 - 02:31 PM

$621 lol

 

Some of these Astronomy publications are fast becoming lucrative investments. 

At the link I posted, it's $375, not $621.

 

1.jpg

 

Outrageous? Absolutely. But if it means enough to someone to pay that much to get it and it's extremely hard to find any copy of it al all, then for that person it might be worth it. I never judge what's best for someone else.

 

You said, "But of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy..."

 

Well, I found you a copy, and in "like new" condition. You never said anything about needing it to be a certain price.

 

Next time, I won't try to help you.


Edited by pugliano, 15 May 2024 - 02:48 PM.


#53 BrentKnight

BrentKnight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,452
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 15 May 2024 - 02:58 PM

I think we were talking about the Millennium Star Atlas (MSA).  If it's legit, I did find a reasonable copy on Amazon.

 

Uranometria 2000.0 is still available through Shop @ Sky, so it's not usually hard to find.

 

That SA 2000 Companion was an insane price though...



#54 pugliano

pugliano

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 15 May 2024 - 03:04 PM

I'd like to try Uranometria 2000.0 all sky edition for its DSO count, sometimes the lack of DSOs in MSA is frustrating.  But ofcourse, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy...

Seemed to me that he was looking for a copy of Uranometria 2000.0 All Sky Edition, because he said he'd like to try it, but "of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy."

 

And he didn't say my link was not the book he was looking for, just laughed at the price.

 

I could be wrong.


Edited by pugliano, 15 May 2024 - 03:06 PM.


#55 HellsKitchen

HellsKitchen

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,466
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Renmark, Australia

Posted 15 May 2024 - 03:38 PM

At the link I posted, it's $375, not $621.

 

attachicon.gif 1.jpg

 

Outrageous? Absolutely. But if it means enough to someone to pay that much to get it and it's extremely hard to find any copy of it al all, then for that person it might be worth it. I never judge what's best for someone else.

 

You said, "But of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy..."

 

Well, I found you a copy, and in "like new" condition. You never said anything about needing it to be a certain price.

 

Next time, I won't try to help you.

 

Jesus, no need to get so upset ohmy.gif  While I appreciate you finding one, obviously I am not going to pay that kind of insane money for a book just because it is out of production. Some of these sellers must be flat out high.I can live without it, I have other atlases. I'd only like one as a matter of convenience of a single book compared to the big and heavy MSA.



#56 HellsKitchen

HellsKitchen

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,466
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Renmark, Australia

Posted 15 May 2024 - 04:16 PM

 

 

Uranometria 2000.0 is still available through Shop @ Sky, so it's not usually hard to find.

 

 

Out of stock


Edited by HellsKitchen, 15 May 2024 - 04:16 PM.


#57 dbreit

dbreit

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2015

Posted 21 May 2024 - 06:40 PM

If "you" want a Harold Bobroff Astroatlas (nearly mint Lymax version), make me an offer..

:-))

Derek

Oroville, CA



#58 yuzameh

yuzameh

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2022

Posted 21 May 2024 - 07:37 PM

The annotated photographic negatives in Donald Menzel's original field guide to the stars and planets.  Although he used ADS numbers for doubles which was a bit of a pain in pre-internet days.

 

As with Lunar atlases drawn charts ain't much cop at the scope.

 

Having said that I did tend to print out paper sheets for faint DSOs in sparse fields for jumping off to when the nearest finderscope star was a field of view or few away.  However, before that for comets I'd to go down the reference section of the library, photocopy a chart and get me pencil out.  Strangely I can't remember where I got the ephemerides from though before I had a computer based planetarium/star chart thingy...



#59 BrentKnight

BrentKnight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,452
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 21 May 2024 - 08:10 PM

Out of stock

Unfortunate.  Hopefully they will reprint it...



#60 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 25 May 2024 - 05:18 PM

Could you give some examples?

 

Obviously the Pocket Sky Atlas shows a limited number of objects, due to the limited amount of real estate available. The same can be said for any paper atlas, in fact. But that's a matter of choice, not a matter of oversight.

 

Reasonably enough, Roger Sinnott selected objects that have well-defined and well-known magnitudes according to a magnitude cut-off -- and then hand-added a few objects that fail to meet that cutoff, such as the remaining Herschel 400.

 

With bright nebulae, which generally don't have well-known magnitudes, there was much more choice involved. And even more with respect to dark nebulae, which don't have any magnitude at all.

 

I'm sure that if I looked in detail I could find a case of an object that I would have chosen but Roger didn't. But that's inevitable; different people have different tastes. On the whole, I think the Pocket Sky Altas arguably makes better use of its (necessarily very limited) real estate better than any other atlas in print.

 

The number of objects visible through a 100-mm refractor under dark skies far exceeds what could possibly be shown in the Pocket Sky Atlas -- or in Sky Atlas 2000.0, for that matter.

 

It's a matter of choice to have M13 and M31. There's no shortage of atlases with these objects in fact if I made an atlas myself, it would contain nothing but interesting, overlooked objects. I would literally omit M13 and M31 altogether along with many other objects that are already too well known. 

 

Think about this for a moment. The whole purpose of a compact atlas is to travel lightly, which most likely means an observer will be using a compact scope of small aperture in most cases. Yes there are some observers with larger scopes who use the Pocket atlas, but let's be practical here. The whole idea is to travel light.

 

Here's a few examples. They left out the HD106112 Group. You can see it plain as day in the pocket atlas, yet, there's no designation. Look at Collinder 70 which looks like a beautiful, delicate, braided necklace in small scopes, no designation, yet they included IC434 which is practically impossible to even see in a small telescope. This is just poor oversight as far as I'm concerned.

 

They didn't even bother to highlight the beautiful Fairy Ring in Cygnus. They also missed the cheshire cat in Auriga, Mellote 31 in Auriga. All of these are visible in small scopes. They didn't even bother to put Pakan's 3. These are just a few of countless objects I could go on about, yet they still put many objects in the Pocket Atlas that are near impossible to see in small telescopes. 

 

I respect that Burnham's Celestial Handbook didn't highlight these objects either, but Burnham also didn't have access to the information and sources we have today free online. For his efforts he gets an A+ but really, there's no excuse for a modern atlas of this design should be missing these objects, especially since they are visible in small scopes and the limitless access to information available today. I give the Pocket atlas a C. It also doesn't even designate interesting carbon stars. For example T Lyra just says © for carbon star. 

 

How can they ignore these fun and interesting targets, yet you go to a star party and ask ten observers what they're looking at and all they can say is either M13 or M31. If I wanna know where that is, I can just yell out and ask. I'm sure there's all sorts of sad excuses why they omit so many cool things but once again, they had time to designate countless objects we've already seen time and time again.

 

S&T and Astronomy are sick of seeing the same images submitted again and again. It's time to turn the page. 


Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 25 May 2024 - 05:22 PM.

  • Jim in PA likes 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