38 replies to this topic

[rcooley]

Topic tag says it all. Just wondering if there is any documentaion regarding whether or not there were any other naked eye visible galaxies (other than Andromeda of course) before the Industrial Revolution?

[astrojaiphotography]

I'm not sure, but I know that M31, M33 are readily naked eye visible, while M81 and the Sculptor Galaxy have been seen naked-eye as well. Perhaps those in antiquity noticed them.

[Diego]

I can't confirm if they were documented...most likely yes, but here from the southern hemisphere both the large and small Magellanic clouds are naked eye galaxies in a NELM sky of about 4 or 5, they are quite easy to see.

I've read reports of M33 also being naked eye, but I've never been able to see it....

Edited by Diego, 11 November 2024 - 04:56 PM.

[ShaulaB]

M33 is still visible naked eye to some very lucky observers under Moonless dark skies. Or so some folks here claim.

 

Maybe M81 Bode's Galaxy. It is 26 arc minutes across, so big in area. Magnitude is almost 7, so someone who looked at the "Ears of the Bear" a lot may have detected it.

[Astrojensen]

Never heard of any. Amateur astronomers back then usually had very poor knowledge of how to observe deep sky objects. Very few developed any real skill in observing faint objects. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[ButterFly]

The Magellanic clouds.  Whether Omega Cen is a galaxy is still an open question.

[woldsstargazer]

Before the telescope, very few: M31, LMC, SMC and the Milky Way itself. As for before industrialisation, it depends whether or not you regard Messier and Mechain as pre or post industrial observers. Before Messier and Mechain, Le Gentil found M32 and La Caille M83. Astonishingly, that could be it barring revisionist research. All other pre-Messier observations appear to be clusters or other types of nebula.  Messier and Mechain added 37 new galaxies - an extraordinary achievement. 

Edited by woldsstargazer, 11 November 2024 - 05:45 PM.

[MisterDan]

Documented?  Sort'a.  Nobody knew they were extra-galactic, back then.  Lord Rosse documented M51's spiral structure, but it was not known to be an object beyond our Milky Way.

 

Galaxies naked-eye visible centuries ago are still naked-eye visible in 2024.

 

Beyond our Milky Way and Andromeda, there the Large and Small Magellanic clouds.  They are plainly visible in decent conditions... if you're far enough south.

 

The following are visible in favorable conditions (dark skies with excellent transparency) by folks with good scotopic vision and experience/skill:

 

M33 (Triangulum Galaxy)

Centaurus A (NGC 5128)

M81 (Bode's Galaxy)

---------------------------------------

(these are dimmer but still manageable, given sufficient skill/vision and excellent conditions)

NGC 253 (Sculptor Galaxy)

M83 (Southern Pinwheel)

M101 (Pinwheel Galaxy)

M104 (Sombrero Galaxy)

 

Skilled observers with scotopic vision that's extraordinary may be able to detect M51 and/or M82.  If I recall correctly (and I may not be), Stephen O'Meara has managed one or both of them.

 

My own list is short:  Milky Way, Andromeda, and M33.

 

Best wishes.

Dan

Edited by MisterDan, 11 November 2024 - 05:56 PM.

[havasman]

My list - Milky Way, M31, M33, M81/2, LMC, SMC, NGC5128

 

LMC and SMC were observed from the middle of a large parking lot in a central city entertainment district in Newcastle, NSW when my host pointed them out along with southern cross and a couple of other large scale features on our way to dinner my 1st night in Oz. It was completely unexpected and I was shocked. It's not so much that they are visible but impossible to miss if you just look.

 

Before Hubble (the man) it was not known that many of the nebulae that had been discovered were galaxies. So, depending on how you frame it, it could be said that no galaxies had been discovered before that knowledge.

Edited by havasman, 11 November 2024 - 06:23 PM.

[BrentKnight]

The authority on this subject currently is a little book called The Search for the Nebulae by Kenneth Glyn Jones.

 

Ptolemy in his Almagest listed 7 objects and 3 of those were asterisms.  The 4 genuine DSO's were the Double Cluster, M44, M7 (Ptolemy's cluster) and Coma Berenices.  No galaxies were recorded until Al-Sufi noted M31 in his Book of the Fixed Stars in AD 954.  M31 was then lost until Simon Mayer found it again with a telescope in 1612.

 

The Magellanic Clouds were noticed in the southern hemisphere probably for as long as the Milky Way has been noticed.

 

I don't believe there were any other galaxies discovered naked-eye.  Of course, folks who have clear dark skies and good eyes can see a number of them now - when they know where they are...

[ButterFly]

Omega Cen was a star in the Almagest, then also got a Bayer designation.

 

M31 was never "lost".

[rcooley]

The authority on this subject currently is a little book called The Search for the Nebulae by Kenneth Glyn Jones.

 

Ptolemy in his Almagest listed 7 objects and 3 of those were asterisms.  The 4 genuine DSO's were the Double Cluster, M44, M7 (Ptolemy's cluster) and Coma Berenices.  No galaxies were recorded until Al-Sufi noted M31 in his Book of the Fixed Stars in AD 954.  M31 was then lost until Simon Mayer found it again with a telescope in 1612.

 

The Magellanic Clouds were noticed in the southern hemisphere probably for as long as the Milky Way has been noticed.

 

I don't believe there were any other galaxies discovered naked-eye.  Of course, folks who have clear dark skies and good eyes can see a number of them now - when they know where they are...

Thanks for this reference, just what I was looking for. With light pollution being what it is, and with the advise for most smaller scopes being, “the darker the skies, the better”, it got me wondering about pre-industrial times (and pre-historical times for that matter) and whether or not early (or earlier) man saw deep sky things naked eye that we no longer have the possibility of ever seeing again. Cheers…

[Redbetter]

Per Steve Gottlieb's site:

• Persian astronomer Abd-al-Rahman Al-Sûfi listed the Andromeda Galaxy as the "Little Cloud" in his publication of 964 A.D. 
• M33's first recorded observation was by Gioivanni Hodierna in a 1654 publication (I assume this was a telescopic observation.)

 

M33 is nearly always an averted vision object (rarely direct vision for some in pristine conditions), so it was unlikely to be seen and recorded before the telescope.  Under very dark skies I can generally guide other observers to seeing it naked eye, but not everyone can see it this way.  

 

M81 is much more difficult, although I have detected it naked eye a few times in excellent conditions.  It has been a few years since I last detected it this way.  The first time I did so was during a star/galaxy hop to it.  I didn't really think it would be possible for me see it naked eye at that time, so I was surprised getting glimpses of it.  I centered the Telrad where I thought I was seeing something (sort of dead reckoning, since I couldn't see it through the Telrad glass), then I looked in the 20" eyepiece and there it was in the center of the field.  

[BrentKnight]

Thanks for this reference, just what I was looking for. With light pollution being what it is, and with the advise for most smaller scopes being, “the darker the skies, the better”, it got me wondering about pre-industrial times (and pre-historical times for that matter) and whether or not early (or earlier) man saw deep sky things naked eye that we no longer have the possibility of ever seeing again. Cheers…

It amazes me what some excellent observers where able to see.  William Herschel cataloged 2500 DSO's with a metal mirror.  Many of those objects are difficult for folks today with modern instruments and charts pointing out exactly where they are.  I've been studying NGC1499 lately.  That very large nebula was discovered visually with a 6" telescope by EE Barnard (without the aid of an H-beta filter).  Amazing!

[BrentKnight]

Omega Cen was a star in the Almagest, then also got a Bayer designation.

 

M31 was never "lost".

Omega Cen was not recognized as nebulous in the Almagest.

 

There is no record of M31 being observed after Al-Sufi, and definitely no record of a naked-eye observation of it.  Simon Mayer recorded his observation in 1612, and then no other observation until Boulliau (Ishmael Boulliau) published his observation in 1664.  There was actual speculation that since Tycho Brahe and Bayer had not seen it, that it might actually be variable in brightness and had faded to invisibility at times...

[Amazed]

I spent may summer nights in 1960's, in the country. Most nights from sunset to 3 am on a small lake bass fishing. I would row a boat around and cast surface plugs that imitate frogs swimming.
Believe me the sky was fantastic then. It's location, location, location that counts.

[Astrojensen]

There is no record of M31 being observed after Al-Sufi, and definitely no record of a naked-eye observation of it.  Simon Mayer recorded his observation in 1612, and then no other observation until Boulliau (Ishmael Boulliau) published his observation in 1664.  There was actual speculation that since Tycho Brahe and Bayer had not seen it, that it might actually be variable in brightness and had faded to invisibility at times...

Presumably, M31 was simply considered an outlying part of the Milky Way, which, under really dark skies, it actually lies very close to. It was simply ignored, just like so many other nebulous spots in the Milky Way. 

 

Under very dark skies, it's a conspicuous naked-eye object. Both the central bulge and the large, faint disk can be seen. It arguably shows more details to the naked eye than many NGC galaxies do in a 10", and there is no way anyone who has meticulously studied and measured the stars in the constellation Andromeda have overlooked it, since it's considerably brighter than many labeled, naked-eye stars, so my best guess is that they considered it a small, unimportant part of the Milky Way and just ignored it. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Tony Flanders]

Thanks for this reference, just what I was looking for. With light pollution being what it is, and with the advise for most smaller scopes being, “the darker the skies, the better”, it got me wondering about pre-industrial times (and pre-historical times for that matter) and whether or not early (or earlier) man saw deep sky things naked eye that we no longer have the possibility of ever seeing again. Cheers…

There are plenty of places in the world that are every bit as dark today as they were before the industrial revolution. Your signature says New Mexico, so you can easily travel to locations that are very dark indeed.

 

We actually see far more with our unaided eyes than we did before the industrial revolution, because the invention of the telescope made it clear that the numerous faint smudges that are readily visible all across the sky are actually interesting in their own right. Nobody recorded M31 before Al-Sufi, but today I can see it easily from a typical suburban site.

 

There are a huge number of important discoveries that could have been made with people's unaided eyes, but weren't. For instance, Uranus is quite easy to see without optical aid from any modestly dark location. Ptolemy cataloged numerous stars much fainter than Uranus. But since nobody expected there to be another planet besides the classical ones, nobody every noticed that that particular "star" kept changing its location.

 

Likewise, there's no record of anybody noticing variable stars before the invention of the telescope, despite the fact that Algol's variability is quite dramatic.

[Redbetter]

Thomas, that is the way I have considered M31 as well. 

 

It is important to keep the historical context in mind before stars/galaxies/nebulae/clusters were understood past the most basic visual impressions.  The concept of a galaxy did not yet exist. And before the widespread availability of telescopes, even the stars observed & recorded for atlases were more of a consensus level (lowest common denominator observer) of sure observations, rather than pushing one's averted vision limits to any degree.   

 

Once telescopes and such became available, folks had a way to confirm that something suspected visually was real (or not) without relying on consensus of others whose eyes might not be very good.

 

It amazes me what some excellent observers where able to see.  William Herschel cataloged 2500 DSO's with a metal mirror.  Many of those objects are difficult for folks today with modern instruments and charts pointing out exactly where they are.  I've been studying NGC1499 lately.  That very large nebula was discovered visually with a 6" telescope by EE Barnard (without the aid of an H-beta filter).  Amazing!

Honestly, using similar aperture to what Herschel used for the 2500, and in brighter skies than he had, I am surprised by how many bright galaxies he missed (when observing the same fields he swept.)  I use essentially the same magnification for initial finding as his scope provided, but my TFOV is wider.  In the galaxy groupings, on the first pass I often see galaxies lacking NGC/IC designations, leading me to wonder which is which and what the "extras" designations are.

 

Barnard had a sharp eye, but a small or medium aperture scope is exactly what will reveal large, modest surface brightness objects like the California Nebula.  At the time, folks too often missed the forest for the trees using larger aperture/smaller TFOV/smaller exit pupil.  There is a very good reason that so many of the largest objects are not in the NGC catalog.  This has a lot to do with the normal fields of view and exit pupils that they employed as a result of the gear they had.  

[woldsstargazer]

Per Steve Gottlieb's site:

• Persian astronomer Abd-al-Rahman Al-Sûfi listed the Andromeda Galaxy as the "Little Cloud" in his publication of 964 A.D. 
• M33's first recorded observation was by Gioivanni Hodierna in a 1654 publication (I assume this was a telescopic observation.)

 

M33 is nearly always an averted vision object (rarely direct vision for some in pristine conditions), so it was unlikely to be seen and recorded before the telescope.  Under very dark skies I can generally guide other observers to seeing it naked eye, but not everyone can see it this way.  

 

M81 is much more difficult, although I have detected it naked eye a few times in excellent conditions.  It has been a few years since I last detected it this way.  The first time I did so was during a star/galaxy hop to it.  I didn't really think it would be possible for me see it naked eye at that time, so I was surprised getting glimpses of it.  I centered the Telrad where I thought I was seeing something (sort of dead reckoning, since I couldn't see it through the Telrad glass), then I looked in the 20" eyepiece and there it was in the center of the field.  

I’d forgotten that Hodierna probably observed and recorded Triangulum. I’m not entirely sure but believe he described something along the lines of a nebula in the belt of Andromeda. Thanks for the correction!  Never seen either M81 or M33 as naked eye objects. I find M81 can be found far more consistently in binoculars than M33. 

Edited by woldsstargazer, 12 November 2024 - 09:59 AM.

[BrentKnight]

Presumably, M31 was simply considered an outlying part of the Milky Way, which, under really dark skies, it actually lies very close to. It was simply ignored, just like so many other nebulous spots in the Milky Way. 

 

Under very dark skies, it's a conspicuous naked-eye object. Both the central bulge and the large, faint disk can be seen. It arguably shows more details to the naked eye than many NGC galaxies do in a 10", and there is no way anyone who has meticulously studied and measured the stars in the constellation Andromeda have overlooked it, since it's considerably brighter than many labeled, naked-eye stars, so my best guess is that they considered it a small, unimportant part of the Milky Way and just ignored it. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

I suspect you are correct, that M31 was just ignored.  It is still interesting though that it was ignored by some very observant people.  Perhaps it speaks to the general disinterest in these objects at the time.  Observations of the fixed stars had been considered the purpose of astronomy for a very long time.

[BrentKnight]

Thomas, that is the way I have considered M31 as well. 

 

It is important to keep the historical context in mind before stars/galaxies/nebulae/clusters were understood past the most basic visual impressions.  The concept of a galaxy did not yet exist. And before the widespread availability of telescopes, even the stars observed & recorded for atlases were more of a consensus level (lowest common denominator observer) of sure observations, rather than pushing one's averted vision limits to any degree.   

 

Once telescopes and such became available, folks had a way to confirm that something suspected visually was real (or not) without relying on consensus of others whose eyes might not be very good.

 

Honestly, using similar aperture to what Herschel used for the 2500, and in brighter skies than he had, I am surprised by how many bright galaxies he missed (when observing the same fields he swept.)  I use essentially the same magnification for initial finding as his scope provided, but my TFOV is wider.  In the galaxy groupings, on the first pass I often see galaxies lacking NGC/IC designations, leading me to wonder which is which and what the "extras" designations are.

 

Barnard had a sharp eye, but a small or medium aperture scope is exactly what will reveal large, modest surface brightness objects like the California Nebula.  At the time, folks too often missed the forest for the trees using larger aperture/smaller TFOV/smaller exit pupil.  There is a very good reason that so many of the largest objects are not in the NGC catalog.  This has a lot to do with the normal fields of view and exit pupils that they employed as a result of the gear they had.  

We can only wonder what Herschel might have done given your superior telescopes and eyepieces.  I also suspect that one of Herschel's biggest challenges was the mounting that he had to use.  This put a significant limit on how long he could look at any given FoV.

[careysub]

One does not need to go back to "before the Industrial Revolution" to have perfectly dark skies. Light pollution is entirely the fault of electric lighting. If all the light of all the gas lights in all of Britain had been gathered in one place it would have been enough to light up just one football for night time play.

 

Electric lighting in any significant way did not appear until 1876 when a practical arc lamp was invented and "moon towers" started being erected in cities to provide light. This was a full century into the Industrial Revolution.

 

Andrew Ainslie Common made his historic photograph of the Orion Nebula  with a 36" mirror in 1883 7 miles from the center of London.

Edited by careysub, 12 November 2024 - 06:29 PM.

[Redbetter]

We can only wonder what Herschel might have done given your superior telescopes and eyepieces.  I also suspect that one of Herschel's biggest challenges was the mounting that he had to use.  This put a significant limit on how long he could look at any given FoV.

While he had substantial limitations, fewer than 4% of his discoveries reached 14.0 V mag or beyond by my count.  A handful of these reached into the fifteens (and several of those are dubious ID's/sightings.)  Considering how many more galaxies there are in the 14 mag range, he was clearly having completeness issues even at a relatively bright and large 13 mag.  So while he was groundbreaking in systematic searching for and cataloging faint objects (which were primarily galaxies), he was still just scratching the surface, even considering the transmission losses from the speculum mirrors. 14.0 V mag galaxies are mostly bright stuff that show up readily in large aperture.  Unless they are of low surface brightness, they are hard to miss even in skies that are a full magnitude brighter than what Herschel observed under--and that level of contrast loss is a much bigger deal than mirror transmission.

 

The thing about transmission losses is that they don't reduce the contrast as much (and the object sizes haven't changed.)  This lack of contrast loss becomes obvious when looking for reduction in visible stars near the edge of field that suffers heavy vignetting--one would expect the stellar magnitude loss to be apparent when looking for it, but it is not.  In terms of light pollution, Herschel had pristine sky (transparency not so much.)

[NinePlanets]

That's interesting about M81 being visible.

On select nights I can see M33 naked eye. There have been times when I thought I saw M81, but just said, "Nahhhh...", and dismissed it, thinking it was my imagination or the combined light of stars in the vicinity.

 

I'll have to give it a go again some night. Whoda thought?