horsehead nebula
Del Johnson
dark patch through averted vision, but really a good look at the distinctive
shape. My wife, who only goes observing on rare occasion, also saw it and
was able to describe the details to me.
We were using a 12.5" f/5 Newtonian with a 27mm Panoptic and the Orion
Ultrablock filter. The location was at our club site about on hour out of
San Diego, California.
The conditions were very good, and also the extra-smooth surface of my
Zambuto mirror allowed for some very high contrast views of deep sky
objects. The finer details of the dark lanes in the Orion nebula were also
quite striking.
Del Johnson
reply to: delnmer at adnc dot com
TWFORTE
>I had my first good look at the Horsehead nebula last night.>
I had my first "good" look at the horsehead last fall through Kent Blackwells
16". This object had elluded me on several other attempts even with this same
scope on nights when it seemed like just about everyone else could see it. Now
I can percieve it readily in a 10", but still can't get it with my 8, although
Kent can see it in my 8. I find it absolutely incredible that this dark nebula
was discovered without the use of the H-beta filter by an observer that didn't
know it was there. I'm sooo jealous. My wife thinks I'm nuts for getting
excited over being able to see subtle shades of black on a sleep deprived
October morning while standing in a cold damp field. But it just doesn't get
any better than that. Congratulations.
Ted Forte
Capella
My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
from our remote evolving ancestors?
take care,
Capella
> Ted Forte
Hoekstra
Capella wrote in message ...
Or could it be our God given desire to explore and discover and have
dominion
over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from anything
and
our ancestors were essentially just like us.
Capella
>
> Capella wrote in message ...
> >>
> >
> >My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
> >"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
> >from our remote evolving ancestors?
> >
>
> Or could it be our God given desire to explore and discover and have
> dominion
> over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from anything
> and
> our ancestors were essentially just like us.
>
I didn't intend to start a discussion with a creationist or someone
who imagines a god and I won't respond to that here. If you do want
to discuss it I will take it to email or to another ng.
Otherwise if your belief makes you happy that's fine. Let's concentrate
on what we have in common in this ng, alright? :^)
Take care,
Capella
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> "hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
> from our remote evolving ancestors?
seems to suggest that early humans and their immediate hominid ancestors
did more scavenging and gathering than hunting, so maybe the thrill of
locating faint celestial objects is related to the joy of turning over a
rock and finding something yummy underneath. :-)
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Ratboy99
>excited over being able to see subtle shades >of black on a sleep deprived
>October morning while standing in a cold >damp field. But it just doesn't get
>any better than that.
>Ted Forte
Outstanding writing, Ted.
rat
~( );>
Del Johnson
moved.
Del johnson
Ultima2K
Thank you for your restraint (sp?). I aggree with your response.
To Hoekstra:
As a believer myself, I'm am personally embarrassed by the small percentage of
Christians who feel the need to inject their beliefs at every opportunity. It
convinces NO ONE of your point and annoys the hell (pun intended) of many in the
newsgroup. I'm assuming that you are a new Christian and don't have much
experience in "witnessing". In order for conversion the heart must be
"searching" and then it will seek. I would be happy to continue this discussion
by email if you choose to respond, but THIS newsgroup is not the place to do it.
Peace
Tom
Capella wrote:
> Hoekstra wrote:
> >
> > Capella wrote in message ...
>
> > >>
> > >
> > >My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
> > >"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
> > >from our remote evolving ancestors?
> > >
> >
> > Or could it be our God given desire to explore and discover and have
> > dominion
> > over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from anything
> > and
> > our ancestors were essentially just like us.
> >
>
> I didn't intend to start a discussion with a creationist or someone
> who imagines a god and I won't respond to that here. If you do want
> to discuss it I will take it to email or to another ng.
>
> Otherwise if your belief makes you happy that's fine. Let's concentrate
> on what we have in common in this ng, alright? :^)
>
> Take care,
> Capella
--
Clear Skies and Transparency to All
Tom Stamm
http://members.aol.com/Ultima2K
Remove "NOSPAM" from the reply address to reply directly.
Wayne Howell
Capella wrote:
>
> My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
> "hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
> from our remote evolving ancestors?
Interesting concept....what makes us do it?
I've noticed that there are several different types of observers .....some spend
hours on the same object, analyzing it, drawing it, comparing it to the last time
they saw it, examining it for the most minute details, etc. Me--I'm more the
"collector" type...I observe to add to my "list"...it doesn't matter what the "list"
is--the "M" list, the "H" list, all globs, all deep sky objects in a certain
constellation, etc., whatever.
I get great pleasure in planning my observing sessions, deciding what to "collect",
figuring out the star hops to get to my target (the more obscure and difficult, the
better), and then "getting" it. I suppose that is the hunter motivation--but then,
once I've "collected" it, unless it is something spectacular, or unless I'm wanting
to show it to someone else, I seldom go back to it---after all, I've already "done
it".
I wonder what psychological quirk this shows in me! <g>
--
.....Wayne Howell.....
...Port Townsend, WA..
who...@gensearch.com
Lumpy_Darkness
: We were using a 12.5" f/5 Newtonian with a 27mm Panoptic and the Orion
: Ultrablock filter. The location was at our club site about on hour out of
: San Diego, California.
Imagine if you had an H-Beta instead of the Ultrablock!
--
Lumpy_Darkness@r*esource-intl.com (remove the * to reply by mail)
--------------------------------------------------------
Capella
>
> > My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
> > "hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
> > from our remote evolving ancestors?
>
> seems to suggest that early humans and their immediate hominid ancestors
> did more scavenging and gathering than hunting, so maybe the thrill of
> locating faint celestial objects is related to the joy of turning over a
> rock and finding something yummy underneath. :-)
>
Agreed, let me rephrase my suggestion to say a "scanvenger" nature.
Something is pursued and pleasure is derived in the pursuit and the
achievement of the goal. The pleasure however is not as much related
to the achievement as the the whole process itself IMHO. :^)
Take care,
Capella
Capella
>
> Capella wrote:
> I've noticed that there are several different types of observers .....some spend
> hours on the same object, analyzing it, drawing it, comparing it to the last time
> they saw it, examining it for the most minute details, etc. Me--I'm more the
> "collector" type...I observe to add to my "list"...it doesn't matter what the "list"
> is--the "M" list, the "H" list, all globs, all deep sky objects in a certain
> constellation, etc., whatever.
>
> I get great pleasure in planning my observing sessions, deciding what to "collect",
> figuring out the star hops to get to my target (the more obscure and difficult, the
> better), and then "getting" it. I suppose that is the hunter motivation--but then,
> once I've "collected" it, unless it is something spectacular, or unless I'm wanting
> to show it to someone else, I seldom go back to it---after all, I've already "done
> it".
>
> I wonder what psychological quirk this shows in me! <g>
>
I know what you mean about "the more obscure and difficult, the better."
I love locating a "faint smudge" that it at the limit of my scope and
in a remote area of the sky. :^)
Capella
Peter Besenbruch
>>"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
>>from our remote evolving ancestors?
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:30:02 -0600, "Hoekstra"
<hoek...@no-spam.ticnet.com> wrote:
>Or could it be our God given desire to explore and discover and have dominion
>over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from anything
>and our ancestors were essentially just like us.
ROFL
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
Hoekstra
Capella wrote in message
<5EF0D36D7C8FE2C7.6BD88392...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>Hoekstra wrote:
>>
>> Capella wrote in message ...
>
>> >>
>> >
>> >My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
>> >"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
>> >from our remote evolving ancestors?
>> >
>>
>> dominion
>> over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from
anything
>> and
>> our ancestors were essentially just like us.
>>
>
>who imagines a god and I won't respond to that here. If you do want
>to discuss it I will take it to email or to another ng.
Then you should be more careful posting to a public ng; you never
know what kind of crazies you'll meet out here. If you wanted to keep
the topic of creation from popping up, then you shouldn't be posting
about evolution.
I was merely posting an alternative view as to why we spend the
time and money hunting down these objects for our visual observing
pleasure.
>
>Otherwise if your belief makes you happy that's fine. Let's concentrate
>on what we have in common in this ng, alright? :^)
>
Absolutely! We are in this ng because we have amateur astronomy in
common. I'd be glad to concentrate on the common aspects of this,
but I can't leave part of myself out when I come in here. A big
part of amateur astronomy for me is experiencing the majesty of
God's creation through my telescope eyepiece. If you are not so
inclined, that's fine, but don't expect to post your beliefs and not
have others post theirs in response.
Hoekstra
Ultima2K wrote in message <36A38E3C...@NOSPAMaol.com>...
>To Capella:
>
>Thank you for your restraint (sp?). I aggree with your response.
>
>To Hoekstra:
>
>As a believer myself, I'm am personally embarrassed by the small percentage
of
>Christians who feel the need to inject their beliefs at every opportunity.
It
>convinces NO ONE of your point and annoys the hell (pun intended) of many
in the
>newsgroup. I'm assuming that you are a new Christian and don't have much
>experience in "witnessing". In order for conversion the heart must be
>"searching" and then it will seek. I would be happy to continue this
discussion
>by email if you choose to respond, but THIS newsgroup is not the place to
do it.
>
>Peace
>Tom
>
Excuse me, but why is it okay for Capella to post his opinion about why we
do this astronomy thing and wrong for me to post my opposing opinion?
This is a public ng and I assumed open to discussion of all points of view
relative to amateur astronomy (and in this thread why we do it). I wasn't
"witnessing", but merely living and expressing myself relative to the topic
at hand.
Capella
Agreed.
> >
> >Otherwise if your belief makes you happy that's fine. Let's concentrate
> >on what we have in common in this ng, alright? :^)
> >
>
> Absolutely! We are in this ng because we have amateur astronomy in
> common. I'd be glad to concentrate on the common aspects of this,
> but I can't leave part of myself out when I come in here. A big
> part of amateur astronomy for me is experiencing the majesty of
> God's creation through my telescope eyepiece. If you are not so
> inclined, that's fine, but don't expect to post your beliefs and not
> have others post theirs in response.
Agreed. :^) Sorry I didn't think that one through.
Take care,
Capella
>
> RandyH
> http://www.ticnet.com/rhoekstra
Ultima2K
>
>
> Excuse me, but why is it okay for Capella to post his opinion about
> why we
> do this astronomy thing and wrong for me to post my opposing opinion?
> This is a public ng and I assumed open to discussion of all points of
> view
> relative to amateur astronomy (and in this thread why we do it). I
> wasn't
> "witnessing", but merely living and expressing myself relative to the
> topic
> at hand.
>
> RandyH
> http://www.ticnet.com/rhoekstra
Randy,
Perhaps because I interpetted (perhaps wrongly) that you were attempting
to draw Capella into one of those long tedious flame wars which we all
have grown to loath. Remember Kepler's Prayer and Star of Bethlahem
threads?
Re-read your your response -- the tone that came across is absolute --
-- "since we didn't actually evolve from anything and our ancestors were
essentially just like us." -- Am I wrong? Were you not trying to draw
Capella into a debate?
If I totally misinterpretted the tone of your message I hereby publicly
apologize. However if your trying to start another long debate -- please
spare us. Debating never convinced anyone in spiritual matters. And it
would be a disservice to those who read this news group to constantly
inflicting this type of debate.
If you would like to continue this discussion please email me.
Peace
Tom
--
Good Seeing and Transparency to all
Tom Stamm
http://members.aol.com/Ultima2K
Remove "NOSPAM" from reply address to reply directly
Hoekstra
Ultima2K wrote in message <36A3E643...@NOSPAMaol.com>...
>
>Randy,
>
>Perhaps because I interpetted (perhaps wrongly) that you were attempting
>to draw Capella into one of those long tedious flame wars which we all
>have grown to loath. Remember Kepler's Prayer and Star of Bethlahem
>threads?
>
>Re-read your your response -- the tone that came across is absolute --
>
>-- "since we didn't actually evolve from anything and our ancestors were
>essentially just like us." -- Am I wrong? Were you not trying to draw
>Capella into a debate?
Not necessarily into a public debate in this newsgroup, but I'm always
open to debate the subject wherever I can.
Yes it was worded a bit strongly, but no worse than the matter-of-fact
evolution diatribe that is so often associated with this hobby/science.
Perhaps I am just sick of the way so many state what has been
theorized to have happened millions of years ago like it is known
beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is what happened. Why won't
people wake up and realize how much assumption and speculation
go into those theories and how much faith is involved in believing
them.
Oh well, I suppose I'm crossing the line of what is politically
correct to post here again.
>
>If I totally misinterpretted the tone of your message I hereby publicly
>apologize. However if your trying to start another long debate -- please
>spare us. Debating never convinced anyone in spiritual matters. And it
>would be a disservice to those who read this news group to constantly
>inflicting this type of debate.
>
IMHO, it would be a disservice not to constantly remind people that
there is more to this thing than meets the eye. I'm interested in greater
understanding through discussion, in whatever form that may take.
RandyH
Capella
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:25:54 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds
> Freeman) wrote:
>
> >As a wry counternotion, most present evidence
> >seems to suggest that early humans and their immediate hominid ancestors
> >did more scavenging and gathering than hunting, so maybe the thrill of
> >locating faint celestial objects is related to the joy of turning over a
> >rock and finding something yummy underneath. :-)
>
> the faintness of an object and the gooeyness of the something
> "underneath."
I guess you are ultimately laughing at me and that's fine. :^)
However I don't think that speculating the psychological basis of
human actions is something to be dismissed out of hand and who
knows, something could be learned.
I do think that humans have instincts leftover from our ancestors
that find their release in civilization. Shopping seems to be a
release for our scavenging instincts.
Many people love to shop just for the shopping experience.
(Just watch me at a Texas Star Party :^) ).
I don't think it is such as far leap to compare that to people
who find pleasure in hunting down a faint fuzzie just for the
pleasure of locating it.
I just ask why is that pleasurable? There must be some reason
it appeals to us.
Just my speculation. :^)
Take care,
Capella
Peter Besenbruch
Freeman) wrote:
>As a wry counternotion, most present evidence
>seems to suggest that early humans and their immediate hominid ancestors
>did more scavenging and gathering than hunting, so maybe the thrill of
>locating faint celestial objects is related to the joy of turning over a
>rock and finding something yummy underneath. :-)
I love it. Perhaps one can argue that there is a correlation between
the faintness of an object and the gooeyness of the something
"underneath."
On a more serious note, when I observe, I divide my time showing
others the sky, and staring for extended periods at other objects.
These tend to be the familiar ones, like M42, or just naked eye
staring at the Milky Way. It's hard to describe the effect, but it is
similar to how people feel when they meditate. I won't even begin to
pigeonhole where that fits in an evolutionary schema.
I went viewing last Saturday, btw, and did "bag" a half dozen new open
clusters, and a nebula. I especially liked NGCs 2359 (Thor's Helmet)
and 2360. I have overlooked them too long, but I will return.
Paul Below
<hoek...@no-spam.ticnet.com> wrote:
Please take this debate (and that is what you are trying to start
based on the huge chip you have on your shoulder) to alt.talk.origins
where it belongs.
>Not necessarily into a public debate in this newsgroup, but I'm always
>open to debate the subject wherever I can.
>
>Yes it was worded a bit strongly, but no worse than the matter-of-fact
>evolution diatribe that is so often associated with this hobby/science.
>Perhaps I am just sick of the way so many state what has been
>theorized to have happened millions of years ago like it is known
>beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is what happened. Why won't
>people wake up and realize how much assumption and speculation
>go into those theories and how much faith is involved in believing
>them.
>
>Oh well, I suppose I'm crossing the line of what is politically
>correct to post here again.
Note that followups are set.
Paul Below
Battle Point Astronomical Association
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
http://www.bicomnet.com/ritchieobs/
Paul Below
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:39:51 -0600, "Hoekstra"
<hoek...@no-spam.ticnet.com> wrote:
>Not necessarily into a public debate in this newsgroup, but I'm always
>open to debate the subject wherever I can.
>
>Yes it was worded a bit strongly, but no worse than the matter-of-fact
>evolution diatribe that is so often associated with this hobby/science.
>Perhaps I am just sick of the way so many state what has been
>theorized to have happened millions of years ago like it is known
>beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is what happened. Why won't
>people wake up and realize how much assumption and speculation
>go into those theories and how much faith is involved in believing
>them.
Paul Below
Peter Besenbruch
wrote:
>I guess you are ultimately laughing at me and that's fine. :^)
No, I was laughing at the situation. I saw two possible things
happening. One is the other person saw you proselytizing and tried to
correct you. If he was, then I think he was probably being a tad
hypercritical. I figured you were speaking metaphorically. I might not
have used such a metaphor, but it's yours and you are entitled to it.
Here I was finally cutting you some slack, only to have some other guy
jump all over you.
The second possibility is that the other guy was not really a
creationist, but said what he did, because he knew he would get a rise
out of you. Either way, it was "here we go again."
Then you both worked it out. And you (Capella) did it by agreeing that
the other guy had a point. Way to go!
As for the rest of your post, I snipped it because I agreed with it.
Dieter Kreuer
> I find it absolutely incredible that this dark nebula
> was discovered without the use of the H-beta filter by an observer that didn't
> know it was there. I'm sooo jealous.
Was it really discovered visually? It is rather obvious on photo-
graphs, even if they cover all of Orion. I could imagine it was
first photographed, and then detected visually. Does anybody know,
whether this is true?
--
Dieter Kreuer eeddik<at>eed.ericsson.se
**** Do not use automatic reply to send e-mail! Use above address ****
**** replacing <at> with @! ****
TWFORTE
>graphs, even if they cover all of Orion. I could imagine it was
>first photographed, and then detected visually. Does anybody know,
>whether this is true?
You are right. Burnham's says it was probably first seen in photographs in
1898 (I think). I guess I had always just assumed it was discovered visually.
Now I have to find a new hero.
Ted Forte
TWFORTE
>moved.
Yes. The movement helped me too. But what relly helped me was a schetch of
the field that defined the scale of the object. When I first detected it, I
was surprised at how large it appeared, I was looking for something much
smaller.
Ted Forte
Capella
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:02:53 -0600, Capella <cap...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess you are ultimately laughing at me and that's fine. :^)
>
> No, I was laughing at the situation. I saw two possible things
> happening. One is the other person saw you proselytizing and tried to
> correct you. If he was, then I think he was probably being a tad
> hypercritical. I figured you were speaking metaphorically. I might not
> have used such a metaphor, but it's yours and you are entitled to it.
> Here I was finally cutting you some slack, only to have some other guy
> jump all over you.
>
> The second possibility is that the other guy was not really a
> creationist, but said what he did, because he knew he would get a rise
> out of you. Either way, it was "here we go again."
>
> Then you both worked it out. And you (Capella) did it by agreeing that
> the other guy had a point. Way to go!
>
> As for the rest of your post, I snipped it because I agreed with it.
Well gosh thanks. :^)
Take care,
Capella
Ultima2K
see the horsehead nebula!!!
:))
Tom
TWFORTE wrote:
--
Clear Skies and Transparency to All
Tom Stamm
http://members.aol.com/Ultima2K
Remove "NOSPAM" from the reply address to reply directly.
Del Johnson
Del Johnson
TWFORTE wrote in message <19990119084942...@ng156.aol.com>...
Ratboy99
>I had the same reaction. It was very large!
>
>Del Johnson
>
Can I pull it in in my 8" SCT?
rat
~( );>
Del Johnson
(dark background) optics. It is large enough to be visible in just about
any telescope.
Del Johnson
Ratboy99 wrote in message <19990119123615...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Wayne Howell
TWFORTE wrote:
> When I first detected it, I was surprised at how large it appeared, I was
> looking for something much smaller.
>
> Ted Forte
That was my problem also.....for several different observing sessions, others
would find the 'head, but I would search in vain. Finally, one of the other
guys said for me to look in his scope.....I did, and still didn't see it. I
traced all around the edge of the dark area but never did see it--finally he
drew it in the field of view, and I suddenly realized that I had been tracing
clear _around_ the head--all the while looking for it to extend off the edge of
the dark field. In reality, it was so large I had been "overlooking" it.
Ratboy99
>(dark background) optics. It is large enough to be visible in just about
>any telescope.
>
>Del Johnson
I have two lumicon filters, a UHC and a Deep Sky. Which would you reccomend
that I try?
rat
~( );>
R.D. Elliott
<6E41756C19DDFF70.F9421A3F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, "Hoekstra" <hoek...@no-spam.ticnet.com> wrote:
- Capella wrote in message ...
[snip]
- >My wife thinks I'm nuts too. Why do we do this? I wonder if it is the
- >"hunter" nature in us that is pleased when we trap our "prey", leftover
- >from our remote evolving ancestors?
- >
-
-
- Or could it be our God given desire to explore and discover and have
- dominion
- over the world created for us, since we didn't actually evolve from anything
- and
- our ancestors were essentially just like us.
Amazing. Unicellular life forms are now posting on the Internet... You
can't stop progress, I guess.
R.D. Elliott
Del Johnson
Del Johnson
Ratboy99 wrote in message <19990119175015...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Bruce Sidell
reccomend
> that I try?
You're only allowed to try one?
--
Bruce Sidell
Moonrise Software
http://www.iserv.net/~bsidell/moonrise.htm
Gordo
>>
>>I had the same reaction. It was very large!
>>
>>Del Johnson
>>
>
>Can I pull it in in my 8" SCT?
>
>
>rat
>~( );>
I just spent the evening hunting for the Horsehead for the first time in my
8" SCT. Conditions were clear and steady, and the temperature was a
relatively warm 36F (warm for a January evening in Colorado, that is).
Naked eye limiting mag here is somewhere between 5 and 6. I first found NGC
2024, then hopped to NGC 2023, then centered the eyepiece where my charts
told me the Horsehead should be. I used some information at
http://www.skyhound.com as well as printed charts from SkyTools to help.
The Horsehead is a faint object. With the 8" SCT and my somewhat dark
skies, I couldn't see it straight on. Eventually, I believe I caught a
glimpse of it using averted vision while jiggling the DEC knob. There are
several mag 12.5 and 12.9 stars that surround the dust lane, and I could see
them clearly, but the light and dark nebulas that define the Horsehead were
not directly visible. So I score this as a "probably saw it" and I will try
again another night at a darker site a little farther from town.
---
Alan Bland
gordo[at]pcisys.net
http://www.pcisys.net/~gordo
N40.027 W105.318 Elev 6100'
BillFerris
>>Can I pull it in in my 8" SCT?<<
The Horsehead is a very challenging object. Observers using 16-inch and larger
telescopes have found it elusive. Others have detected this dark nebula with
apertures as small as 5-inches. The successful pursuit of Barnard 33, the
Horsehead nebula, demands good optics, dark and steady skies, and a few tricks
of the trade.
The Horsehead resides 40' south of Alnitak, the easternmost belt star of Orion.
Immediately to the east of Alnitak, is the bright emission nebula, NGC 2024.
NGC 2024 features a large boot-shaped dark channel that is often mistaken for
the Horsehead by novices.
Due south of Alnitak about 25', is an 8th magnitude star surrounded by a
delicate reflection nebula, NGC 2023. NGC 2023 sits 10' due east of Barnard
33. This should be your starting point in the hunt for the Horsehead. A word
of caution, unless NGC 2024 is plainly visible and NGC 2023 is detectable,
don't even bother trying for the Horsehead.
The Horsehead is a dark nebula and, therfore, has no magnitude. Barnard 33 is
only visible because it stands in silhouette against IC 434. A bright nebula
by classification, IC 434 hardly deserves the title. IC 434 is, itself, among
the most difficult visual observing challenges around.
Contrast is the key to most deep-sky observing and the Horsehead is no
exception. This explains why some small aperture instruments are capable of
presenting this object while some moderate to large aperture 'scopes are not.
Unless the conditions and the telescope combine to produce contrasty, sharp
images, the Horsehead will remain elusive.
Alnitak's proximity necessitates the use of moderate to high magnifications.
Only by limiting the field of view to 1.00 degree or less, will you be able to
exile Alnitak well outside the field of view. Even so, unless your telescope
properly manages stray light, the Horsehead will almost certainly escape
detection.
Filtering can also help increase the contrast between B 33 and IC 434. Unlike
many emission nebula which respond well to a UHC or OIII filter, IC 434
requires an H-Beta filter to achieve the best results. If you don't have an
H-Beta, the UHC is your next best option.
I have detected the Horsehead without filtration in my 10-inch, f/4.5
Newtonian. The observation was made during one of those bitter Wisconsin
winter nights. Conditions were excellent. The temperture was near zero but
winds were calm. At such cold temperatures, the air has difficulty holding any
moisture so, the transparency was excellent. A high pressure system had been
settled over the region for a few days which meant the air was fairly steady,
too.
The mirror had been recently cleaned, the telescope collimated. Its images
were as contrasty as they ever would be. Everything combined to create an
opportunity to detect Barnard 33.
I spent nearly 45 minutes observing and sketching the field where the Horsehead
resides. Later, a comparison of my drawing with photographs confirmed that I
had not use averted imagination to make the detection.
It appeared as a small, 4'x5' notch in IC 434. I used a Meade 13.8 mm SWA
eyepiece providing 82x across a 0.80 degree field. Later that same evening, I
turned to the Eskimo nebula (NGC 23920) which clearly showed an outer ring
surrounding a bright central region.
Observing the Horsehead is something in which one can take genuine pride.
Barnard 33 is a true challenge of your skills as an observer.
Bill Ferris
Flagstaff, AZ
Ratboy99
I shall persist in trying to detect it (no matter how much aperture I may one
day end up with to do it) ;-).
and so on..
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
>--
>Bruce Sidell
>Moonrise Software
>http://www.iserv.net/~bsidell/moonrise.htm
>
Of course not Bruce, but judging from the fact that the object is supposed to
be difficult to detect, I thought that perhaps someone with more experience
could indicate which one would be more likely to be successful.
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
Alan Bland wrote:
>I just spent the evening hunting for the Horsehead for the first time in my
>8" SCT. Conditions were clear and steady, and the temperature was a
>relatively warm 36F (warm for a January evening in Colorado, that is).
>Naked eye limiting mag here is somewhere between 5 and 6. I first found NGC
>2024, then hopped to NGC 2023, then centered the eyepiece where my charts
>told me the Horsehead should be. I used some information at
>http://www.skyhound.com as well as printed charts from SkyTools to help.
>
>The Horsehead is a faint object. With the 8" SCT and my somewhat dark
>skies, I couldn't see it straight on. Eventually, I believe I caught a
>glimpse of it using averted vision while jiggling the DEC knob. There are
>several mag 12.5 and 12.9 stars that surround the dust lane, and I could see
>them clearly, but the light and dark nebulas that define the Horsehead were
>not directly visible. So I score this as a "probably saw it" and I will try
>again another night at a darker site a little farther from town.
>
>---
>Alan Bland
>gordo[at]pcisys.net
>http://www.pcisys.net/~gordo
>N40.027 W105.318 Elev 6100'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
rat
~( );>
TWFORTE
> In reality, it was so large I had been "overlooking" it.
Exactly!
Ted Forte
TWFORTE
The morning I first achieved the horsehead I saw it in an f/6.2 16". After
seeing it, I was able to discern it in an adjacent f/4.5 10" Newt. But I was
unable to get it in my 8" sct. I used the OIII and ultrablock filters and
various powers and knew exactly where it was. But no joy. Another observer,
however, reported no trouble seeing it in my scope that morning. The scope is
willing, but the eyes are weak?
Good luck and let me know if you get it with yours.
Ted Forte
hey.friend
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/dsc_2.gif
gives me a fairly good idea of what to look for. do you folks think this is an
accurate depiction?
Del Johnson
your actual field of view so that you can size it.
Del Johnson
hey.friend wrote in message <36A61F3F...@usa.net>...
TWFORTE
>accurate depiction?
It's close. I don't have a sketch of what I saw, only my recollection. As I
remember it, the dark notch is a little larger than depicted in this drawing
and the north edge is not nearly so well defined in the eyepiece. The
orientation of the object is correct and the star field matches my memory of
the view quite well.
Ted Forte
TWFORTE
Duh!. Of course, I was using the H-beta filter on the horsehead. I was out
late last night chasing planetaries and had these filters on the mind.
Ted Forte
HAAKE Philippe
There a good article about Horsehead nebula at:
www.skyhound.com/sh/challenge.html
I take the opportunity to tell you how much I like the Software
Skytools at the same address: www.skyhound.com
You can make charts for YOUR eyepieces, and YOUR scope....... so you
know what you are going to see......Or what you Should see........
LOL..
If someone want me I send him an example, just tell it me.....
Have a nice day..... Best greetings from Switzerland....
Best Greetings From SWITZERLAND
Phil
ICQ 3128404
beru...@NOSSPAMwebshuttle.ch
!!!!!!REMOVE NOSSPAM FROM MY E-MAIL!!!!!!
Spammers, here are some email addresses for your spambots:
itu...@itu.int fcc...@fcc.gov in...@crtc.gc.ca pri...@aca.gov.au
p...@private-citizen.com p...@privacyrights.org p...@privacy.org
in...@epic.org comm...@cauce.org
Peter Besenbruch
wrote:
>Amazing. Unicellular life forms are now posting on the Internet...
There are mornings after a long observing session when I feel like one
of those.
Capella
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:55 -0600, SrP...@ican.net (R.D. Elliott)
> wrote:
>
> >Amazing. Unicellular life forms are now posting on the Internet...
>
> There are mornings after a long observing session when I feel like one
> of those.
Don't encourage him Peter. I think he may be getting excited about
his chances of mating with one. :^)
Capella
R.D. Elliott
There are nights like tonight (where the sun set just before the clouds
socked in after having been clear all day and in any event I worked so late
the closest thing to observing I had the energy for was reading s.a.a.)
where I kind of _wish_ I was a unicellular life form :).
In article <36a74ec5...@news.lava.net>, p...@nobulk.lava.net wrote:
- On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:55 -0600, SrP...@ican.net (R.D. Elliott)
- wrote:
-
- >Amazing. Unicellular life forms are now posting on the Internet...
-
- There are mornings after a long observing session when I feel like one
- of those.
- ___________________________________________________
-
- Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
- HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
- Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
R.D. Elliott
Alson Wong
photographs made in 1889, and the dark Horsehead itself shows clearly on a
plate in 1900 and published in the Astrophysical Journal in1903. The
significance of the object was not immediately recognized and the early
descriptions refer to it as a "bay" or gap in the nebulosity. E. Barnard
seems to have been the first to recognized it as a great obscuring mass of
some sort, seen against a bright region of nebulosity."
--
Alson Wong
Riverside Astronomical Society
http://www.pe.net/~wpl/ras.html
Dieter Kreuer wrote in message <36A438...@eed.ericsson.CUT_THIS.se>...
>Was it really discovered visually? It is rather obvious on photo-
>graphs, even if they cover all of Orion. I could imagine it was
>first photographed, and then detected visually. Does anybody know,
>whether this is true?
rwbraddy
refractor can see the Horsehead fron Houston,Texas where the humidity
averages 90%+ most of the year.
Les6767 wrote in message <19990125213401...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>An 8 in is at the edge minimal requirements for the horsehead? this is
what a
>recent seller has for seeing through his 4 in Tak:
>
>Takahashi FS102 (4") Flourite OTA Pristine condition. $1700. inclu. shipp.
Used
>6 times, age: 2 months. Moving up to 5". Incredible performance: stars to
14th
>mag (Arizona).; Horsehead , Witchhead, Blackeye in M64 easily visible; arms
in
>M81, discrete ring in Ghost of Jupiter; to Dawes even in mediocre seeing.
Les6767
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > An 8 in is at the edge minimal requirements for the horsehead? this is
> > what a recent seller has for seeing through his 4 in Tak:
> > > Takahashi FS102 (4") Flourite OTA Pristine
> > > condition. $1700. inclu. shipp. Used 6 times, age: 2 months. Moving
> > > up to 5". Incredible performance: stars to14th mag (Arizona).;
> > > Horsehead ...
> I don't have a telescope for sell so I probably won't claim that a
> 4" refractor can see the Horsehead fron Houston,Texas where the
> humidity averages 90%+ most of the year.
I have never observed from Houston, and I missed that ad, but it
looks as if the observer is talking about observing conditions in
Arizona. In any case, I can certainly confirm the Horsehead in
apertures smaller than eight inches -- I have seen it in four and five
inch refractors, at 40x and 36x respectively, without special filters,
and in several different kinds of six-inch telescopes.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Del Johnson
aperture. High contrast optics and clear, dark skies are more important.
Aperture is more beneficial for smaller objects that require higher
magnification.
There was a fellow on this newsgroup who liked to tease us by saying that
larger telescopes don't make extended object brighter, only bigger. This is
only a half truth as objects get dimmer, not smaller, when I cover up half
of my mirror! A better way of relating aperture to extended object
brightness is to say that larger apertures make extended objects brighter
when viewed at higher magnifications (and maintaining sufficiently small
exit pupils).
Since the Horsehead can be seen at low magnifications, large apertures are
not required.
Del Johnson
Chris Marriott
Del Johnson wrote in message <78kpot$mdh$1...@hops.adnc.com>...
>There was a fellow on this newsgroup who liked to tease us by saying that
>larger telescopes don't make extended object brighter, only bigger.
That would be me, I guess. This came up during the "can you be blinded by
looking at the Moon through a large telescope" debate a few months back (to
which the answer is "no").
>This is
>only a half truth as objects get dimmer, not smaller, when I cover up half
>of my mirror! A better way of relating aperture to extended object
>brightness is to say that larger apertures make extended objects brighter
>when viewed at higher magnifications (and maintaining sufficiently small
>exit pupils).
Obviously the object gets dimmer if you cover up half your mirror, because
only half the amount of light is reaching your eye. The apparent size of an
object is related solely to magnification.
You misrepresent what I said. What I actually said is that a telescope can
never make the brightness PER UNIT AREA - ie the "surface brightness" - of
an extended object any greater than it is with the naked eye. A telescope
will make it look bigger, so you'll see a lot more light from it in total,
but the "surface brightess" can't increase.
Regards,
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com)
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
Del Johnson
>never make the brightness PER UNIT AREA - ie the "surface brightness" - of
>an extended object any greater than it is with the naked eye. A telescope
>will make it look bigger, so you'll see a lot more light from it in total,
>but the "surface brightess" can't increase.
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris
I was actually thinking of someone else, but am reluctant to drop names in
the spirit of positive conversations. It is true that the unaided eye will
produce the same surface brightness of extended objects as the Keck
observatories, but such a claim must be qualified by the fact that the vast
majority of interesting objects require some magnification. You can't see
much with the unaided eye because most objects are too small at 1x.
When using sufficient magnification to maintain an apparent size that is
interesting to view, then most objects will be dimmer in smaller telescopes
(but not brighter in larger telescope) than it would appear to the unaided
eye. The exception is for objects that are relatively large in apparent
size. I don't think that it conveys practical realities to state brightness
in terms of unit area without considering apparent size as well.
Del Johnson
LABourdillon
sketch was included) that we're actually looking at the *other* end of the
referenced animal? :-) :-)
....larry
Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote in message ...
rwbraddy
I guess my point originally was that it is not trivial to find the HH and
see it in a small (or big) scope. Conditions are important and knowing how
and where to look. I was born in Houston and spent my first 21 years there
so I am most familiar with the conditions. Most of my observing has been in
the West where you can find dark, dry conditions. There are objects I feel
(my opinion) that are harder than the Dumbell but easier than the HH under
most conditions (and perhaps more rewarding). M33 I mentioned and NGC 253.
These are only experiences and opinions which I thought the writer asked
for. At any rate I wish him luck with whatever he goes after.
Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote in message ...
>
>> > An 8 in is at the edge minimal requirements for the horsehead? this is
>> > what a recent seller has for seeing through his 4 in Tak:
>
>> > > Takahashi FS102 (4") Flourite OTA Pristine
>> > > condition. $1700. inclu. shipp. Used 6 times, age: 2 months. Moving
>> > > up to 5". Incredible performance: stars to14th mag (Arizona).;
>> > > Horsehead ...
>
>> I don't have a telescope for sell so I probably won't claim that a
>> 4" refractor can see the Horsehead fron Houston,Texas where the
>> humidity averages 90%+ most of the year.
>
> I have never observed from Houston, and I missed that ad, but it
>looks as if the observer is talking about observing conditions in
>Arizona. In any case, I can certainly confirm the Horsehead in
>apertures smaller than eight inches -- I have seen it in four and five
>inch refractors, at 40x and 36x respectively, without special filters,
>and in several different kinds of six-inch telescopes.
>
Chris Marriott
Del Johnson wrote in message <78l3lf$r7s$1...@hops.adnc.com>...
>I was actually thinking of someone else, but am reluctant to drop names in
>the spirit of positive conversations. It is true that the unaided eye will
>produce the same surface brightness of extended objects as the Keck
>observatories, but such a claim must be qualified by the fact that the vast
>majority of interesting objects require some magnification. You can't see
>much with the unaided eye because most objects are too small at 1x.
Very true. That, of course, is why we use telescopes!
>When using sufficient magnification to maintain an apparent size that is
>interesting to view, then most objects will be dimmer in smaller telescopes
>(but not brighter in larger telescope) than it would appear to the unaided
>eye.
True. It depends on the size of the exit pupil. The optimum brightness (ie
virtually equal to that of the naked eye) will occur when the exit pupil is
the same size as your eye's pupil - typically 5-7mm. A smaller exit pupil -
ie a higher magnification or a smaller aperture scope - will result in a
dimmer object.
Larger scope = larger exit pupil at a given magnification, therefore a
brighter image.
>The exception is for objects that are relatively large in apparent
>size. I don't think that it conveys practical realities to state
brightness
>in terms of unit area without considering apparent size as well.
Very true.
meier
>
> Large extended objects, such as the Horsehead, do not require large
> aperture. High contrast optics and clear, dark skies are more important.
> Aperture is more beneficial for smaller objects that require higher
> magnification.
I don't think this is true for the Horsehead which is relatively small.
You need medium to high power to discern it, and it helps to have the
glare from Zeta Orionis out of the field. I find it much easier to see
at higher power. I've seen the streamer in a 4.25-inch at low power
from the Grand Canyon, but not the Horsehead itself; this requires more
power and preferably more aperture. 100x to 150x is good for the
Horsehead and as you say dark skies are most important and a UHC helps.
-Rolf
Del Johnson
You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up my field of
view at about 50x.
Del Johnson
Del Johnson
Del Johnson
LABourdillon wrote in message <78lo6l$i...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
BillFerris
>The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion Nebula.
>You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up my field of
>view at about 50x.
The Orion nebula (M42) is roughly 85'x60' in size. The Horsehead nebula (B33)
is 4'x5' in size, 0.004 times the area of M42.
Bill Ferris
Flagstaff, AZ
Clive Gibbons
>The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion Nebula.
>You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up my field of
>view at about 50x.
>
Whoa, there Del! ;)
If the "Horsehead Nebula" (that is, the dark nebula) filled up your FOV at
50x, you most certainly weren't looking at what you thought.
The bright nebula (forget the IC #), which the horsehead juts into, is
quite large, but that object is not considered to be the "horsehead".
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons * *
Technician, McMaster University, * "Good, Fast, Cheap... *
School of Geography and Geology. * ...pick any two." *
David W. Knisely
> The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion
> Nebula. You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up
> my field of view at about 50x.
The Horsehead Nebula (Barnard 33) itself is a somewhat small (less than
6 arc minutes from top to base) dark nebula intruding into the eastern
side of the much larger faint emission nebula IC 434, so I don't think
it would even come close to filling the field of a 50x eyepiece. It
does require a little power to show up well, depending on the aperture
used. I find it seems to show up best at between 60x and 94x on my ten
inch, although it is sometimes visible at 47x. IC 434 is quite long,
but is not all that bright, and many people fail to even notice that it
is there as they sweep across it. It is barely brighter than some
background skyglow, which makes a few new people sweeping for the
Horsehead run into NGC 2024 and occasionally mistake it for the
Horsehead. This object may just be one of the more controversial DSO's
in amateur circles today. Clear skies to you.
--
David Knisely KA0CZC dk8...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.4w.com/pac
Hyde Memorial Observatory, http://www.blackstarpress.com/arin/hyde
************************************************
* Attend the 6th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* August 7-14th, 1999 http://www.4w.com/nsp *
************************************************
meier
>
> The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion Nebula.
> You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up my field of
> view at about 50x.
Based on the above, I would say that you have not seen the Horsehead.
It is a small dark patch. In really, really, really good skies you can
make out the shape.
-Rolf
Chris Marriott
Del Johnson wrote in message <78n859$1ah$1...@hops.adnc.com>...
>The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion Nebula.
>You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up my field of
>view at about 50x.
This is completely untrue. Are you sure you're not confusing the HH with
IC434 - the bright nebula which the HH is a "notch" in? The HH itself
(Barnard 33) is only some 6 arc minutes in size, compared with the 60 arc
minutes of the Orion nebula.
Del Johnson
To clarify: the effect of the Horsehead nebula was large in my field of
view. This includes the background nebula as you can't see the dark figure
directly; you have to see the nebula around to appreciate the dark area. If
you look at a photo of Orion that shows both the Horsehead and the Orion
nebula, such as on page 1303 of Burnhams Volume 2, you will see that the
Horsehead nebula as a whole is similar in size (OK maybe half the size) of
the Orion nebula. It is not small like the Ring nebula is small.
To be precise, I was using 59x which agrees well with David's estimate of
60x being a reasonable power for viewing. Please excuse the approximation.
I disputed the need for high magnification as was previously suggested.
And yes, I did see it. The shape is unmistakable.
Del Johnson
David W. Knisely wrote in message <36AF49...@navix.net>...
>Hi there. You said:
>> The Horsehead Nebula was surprisingly large, similar to the Orion
>> Nebula. You definitely do not require high magnification. It filled up
>> my field of view at about 50x.
>
Wayne Howell
LABourdillon wrote:
> Didn't someone post several months back a rather convincing argument (a
> sketch was included) that we're actually looking at the *other* end of the
> referenced animal? :-) :-)
>
> ....larry
Only if you are using an eyepiece that gives a "reversed" image............<g>
--
.....Wayne Howell.....
...Port Townsend, WA..
who...@gensearch.com