What Star Atlas do you like?
ffk
What star atlas do you use?
I would like to use an atlas that shows deep sky
objects and enough smaller stars to help me find them.
I live in a suburb with a lot of light pollution so even my
finder scope doesn't show a lot of stars. I need to use the main scope
and star hop to my target, but I need an atlas that shows
patterns of stars in a 0.5 degree field of view.
I have the Edmunds Mag 6, which is nice to know what to look for,
but doesn't show enough detail.
The Uranometria 2000 goes to M9.5, but only goes to dec -6 deg
and needs a descriptive volume.
I've heard that there is a Norton 2000, but it's $50 and I don't
know much about it.
Mellinium Star catalog at $250 is too much for me now, I think.
There's Sky Atlas 2000 that seems to be popular.
What about Harold-Bobroff Astroatlas? Seems to cover everything,
large format, but its $80.
Also, what do you prefer in the field, Black stars on white paper
or white stars on black paper?
Thanks,
Fred Klein
f...@nb.net
Stephen Tonkin
I used to swear by Sky Atlas 2000, but...
Following a hint I picked up when I was at COAA recently, in the last
few weeks I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
and Tirion) in the field. It is small enough (80mm x 120mm - 3" x 4.5")
to fit in a shirt pocket with a red torch. It goes down to mag 5.5, it
has an individual map for each constellation, has Messiers and a lot of
NGCs marked, has a list of interesting objects adjacent to each map
(like a mini-Norton), doesn't need a chart table to use it, you don't
get tempted to use your eyepieces as paperweights in breezy weather, it
doesn't have a transparent overlay to get lost in the dark...
I still love my Sky Atlas 2000, and do use it indoors, but it is sheer
bliss to have swallowed my pride and acquired something which is so
thoroughly convenient to take outside.
If I want to obs something for which the Collins Gem is inadequate, I
print out a finder chart from GUIDE when preparing.
Admittedly, it is probably inadequate for an advanced observer, but for
we more average types, it has a lot to recommend it.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Astronomical Unit - Astronomical Presentations for Young People
<http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm>
.......................................................................
UK Amateur Telescope Making - <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
David Johnson
In article <35436D...@nb.net>, ffk <f...@nb.net> writes
>What star atlas do you use?
>
>objects and enough smaller stars to help me find them.
>I live in a suburb with a lot of light pollution so even my
>finder scope doesn't show a lot of stars. I need to use the main scope
>and star hop to my target, but I need an atlas that shows
>patterns of stars in a 0.5 degree field of view.
>
I've long since given up using a conventional atlas. CD-ROM chart
programs are much better as you have deep sky objects to 25th mag and
stars to 16th. You can print your own charts with circles representing
eyepiece views, Telrad 'bulls', the view can be reversed or inverted,
etc. Don't forget to print in black for use at the scope as the red
parts aren't visible by red led light!
There are reviews of several chart programs and paper star charts at my
web site.
Dave
--
David Johnson - remove nojunk to reply
Dave's Astronomy Magazine:
http://www.astromag.demon.co.uk
Matthew and Sally Buynoski
> What star atlas do you use?
>
> I would like to use an atlas that shows deep sky
> objects and enough smaller stars to help me find them.
> I live in a suburb with a lot of light pollution so even my
> finder scope doesn't show a lot of stars. I need to use the main scope
> and star hop to my target, but I need an atlas that shows
> patterns of stars in a 0.5 degree field of view.
>
> I have the Edmunds Mag 6, which is nice to know what to look for,
> but doesn't show enough detail.
(some snipping of Atlas descriptions)
> Also, what do you prefer in the field, Black stars on white paper
> or white stars on black paper?
I have three: Millennium, Sky Atlas 2000, and Herald-Bobroff. I find myself
using the Sky atlas 2000 most, probably because 1) I'm most used to it, and
2) the charts each cover a large chunk of sky, so page flipping and
star-hopping across chart boundaries are both minimized.
You will find that a star atlas choice is a very personal kind of
preference, and what suits me, or Joe, or Jane, will not necessarily work
best for you. I'd look at several, then go with whatever your gut feel
tells you is best.
As to white-on-black, or black-on-white, I prefer the black starson white
backgrounds, but again, this kind of thing is personal preference. The only
'right' answer is the one that you like.
Peter Besenbruch
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:20:21 GMT, med...@NOBULKc2i2.comMERCIAL (Jeff
Medkeff) wrote:
>What is this descriptive volume stuff? I have used U2k
>plenty, and never seen nor used any descriptive material
>whatever.
One of U2000's strengths is a third volume that is a descriptive
catalog arranged by plate number.
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> What star atlas do you use?
>
> and needs a descriptive volume.
There is a second volume of Uranometria which goes from +6 to the
south celestial pole, and there is also a catalog for it.
> Also, what do you prefer in the field, Black stars on white paper
> or white stars on black paper?
With a sufficiently dim red light for illuminating the charts, it
doesn't seem to matter much.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> Following a hint I picked up when I was at COAA recently, in the last
> few weeks I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
> and Tirion) in the field. It is small enough (80mm x 120mm - 3" x 4.5")
> to fit in a shirt pocket with a red torch. It goes down to mag 5.5, it
> has an individual map for each constellation, has Messiers and a lot of
> NGCs marked, has a list of interesting objects adjacent to each map
> (like a mini-Norton), doesn't need a chart table to use it, you don't
> get tempted to use your eyepieces as paperweights in breezy weather, it
> doesn't have a transparent overlay to get lost in the dark...
Hear, hear! But is it in print anywhere? Last I heard, the US
publisher for it (Running Press) did not have it in print and had no
plans to do another run of them. Where did you get yours?
Stephen Tonkin
Jay Reynolds Freeman <freeman-...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
>> and Tirion) in the field.
> Hear, hear! But is it in print anywhere? Last I heard, the US
>publisher for it (Running Press) did not have it in print and had no
>plans to do another run of them. Where did you get yours?
I got mine at The Furlong Bookshop, Ringwood, Hants. It's available all
over Britain. Price is UKP 3.99 -- at that price you don't feel bad
about marking other objects on it....
Jeff Medkeff
Probably ffk <f...@nb.net> said this:
>What star atlas do you use?
Sky Atlas 2000.0 and SkyMap Pro.
>The Uranometria 2000 goes to M9.5, but only goes to dec -6 deg
>and needs a descriptive volume.
Uranometria goes to the south celestial pole in a second
volume. Normally people get both volumes as a set.
What is this descriptive volume stuff? I have used U2k
plenty, and never seen nor used any descriptive material
whatever.
>What about Harold-Bobroff Astroatlas? Seems to cover everything,
>large format, but its $80.
Some like it, some don't. I don't, but I don't really think
this is for any reason other than that SkyMap gives me
rather more than that atlas. I would probably use it from
time to time if I didn't have the computers laying around.
>Also, what do you prefer in the field, Black stars on white paper
>or white stars on black paper?
Flip a coin, take your pick - it really comes down to
personal preference. White stars on black tends to better
preserve dark adaptation, but this advantage can be offset
by its being harder to read for some people.
--
Jeff Medkeff | Check out the s.a.a. photos page at
Rockland Observatory | http://shutter.vet.ohio-state.edu/saa.htm
Sierra Vista, AZ |
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > > I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
> > > and Tirion) in the field.
>
> > Hear, hear! But is it in print anywhere? Last I heard, the US
> > publisher for it (Running Press) did not have it in print and had no
> > plans to do another run of them. Where did you get yours?
>
> I got mine at The Furlong Bookshop, Ringwood, Hants. It's available all
> over Britain. Price is UKP 3.99 -- at that price you don't feel bad
> about marking other objects on it....
Who is publishing it in Britain?
Geoff Mann
In article <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>, Jay Reynolds Freeman
<freeman-...@netcom.com> writes
>> > > I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
>> > > and Tirion) in the field.
>>
>> > Hear, hear! But is it in print anywhere? Last I heard, the US
>> > publisher for it (Running Press) did not have it in print and had no
>> > plans to do another run of them. Where did you get yours?
>>
>> I got mine at The Furlong Bookshop, Ringwood, Hants. It's available all
>> over Britain. Price is UKP 3.99 -- at that price you don't feel bad
>> about marking other objects on it....
>
> Who is publishing it in Britain?
>
Harper Collins Publishers
PO box,
Glagow
G4 0NB
The ISBN is 0-00-458817-7
--
Geoff Mann
Tony Flanders
ffk wrote:
> I live in a suburb with a lot of light pollution so even my
> finder scope doesn't show a lot of stars. I need to use the main scope
> and star hop to my target, but I need an atlas that shows
> patterns of stars in a 0.5 degree field of view.
Yow! I also routinely star-hop through my main scope, but I usually
use 32X, for a 1.5-degree field of view. Star hopping with an 0.5
degree field of view is going to be overwhelmingly painful and
time-consuming, no matter how good your atlas is.
Furthermore, no paper atlas will show anywhere near enough stars
to guarantee that you have "patterns" inside an 0.5-degree FOV.
I normally use Uranometria with my 1.5-degree FOV, but there are
areas of the sky where this is hopelessly inadequate; Uranometria
averages only 1 or 0 stars per 1.5-degree field. To star-hop with
an 0.5-degree FOV, the Millenium Star Atlas would be a barely
acceptable minimum.
If you really need to star-hop with an 0.5-degree FOV, the only
good alternative is to buy a planetarium program which includes
the Hubble Guide Star Catalog, giving you stars down to mag 14
or thereabouts.
But first, you should make every effort to get a wider field of
view. Even if you have an 8-inch SCT, a 32 mm. Plossl should give
you 0.8 degrees, or much better with a reducer-corrector. But if
you have an 8-inch SCT and your light pollution is so bad that you
can't star-hop through your finder, you would probably do much
better to get your setting circles working properly and forget
about star hopping.
> The Uranometria 2000 goes to M9.5, but only goes to dec -6 deg
> and needs a descriptive volume.
Unless you live at the North Pole, you will need both the North
and the South volumes of Uranometria. The descriptive volume is
necessary only if you need detailed information (magnitude, size,
etc.) on each of the plotted objects. For a long time, you can
surely make do with the info in the Mag 6 atlas.
--
Tony Flanders
Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A.
Send E-mail to daf - at - belmont -dot- com
Stephen Tonkin
>> > > and Tirion) in the field.
> Who is publishing it in Britain?
>
Harper Collins (ISBN 0-00-458817-7)
Address is:
PO Box
Glasgow
G4 0NB
Scotland
Mike
Can someone help me put my finger on an atlas with the following
attributes?
1) white stars on black
2) spiral bound
3) lamenated
4) not too particular about depth of mag
I saw an atlas like this several years ago, but can't remember the title
and I have seen no others that fit all the criteria. Descriptions?
Opinions? Thanks in advance--Mike.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > I live in a suburb with a lot of light pollution so even my
> > finder scope doesn't show a lot of stars. I need to use the main scope
> > and star hop to my target, but I need an atlas that shows
> > patterns of stars in a 0.5 degree field of view.
>
> Yow! I also routinely star-hop through my main scope, but I usually
> use 32X, for a 1.5-degree field of view. Star hopping with an 0.5
> degree field of view is going to be overwhelmingly painful and
> time-consuming, no matter how good your atlas is.
I rather agree with the latter comment, but I might offer a little
encouragement: I routinely star-hop using a 15.5 mm Erfle eyepiece in
my Intes 6-inch f/10 Maksutov; this combination yields 97x and a true
field of about 0.7 degree. I use _Uranometria_ as the atlas, and I
observe with an equatorial mount that is properly aligned. (Using the
mount makes it easy to figure out which way is up, er, north, when
looking through the eyepiece.)
I do have larger fields available on the Intes, up to about 1.8
degrees; I star hop with the 15.5 simply because that eyepiece is the
one I have routinely been using for chasing down faint galaxies, and
I find it quicker to leave that eyepiece in and star-hop using it, than
to keep changing eyepieces every time I want to find a new object.
Mark Wagner / Resource International
Jay Reynolds Freeman said. . . :
: I do have larger fields available on the Intes, up to about 1.8
: degrees; I star hop with the 15.5 simply because that eyepiece is the
: one I have routinely been using for chasing down faint galaxies, and
: I find it quicker to leave that eyepiece in and star-hop using it, than
: to keep changing eyepieces every time I want to find a new object.
Using a 14.5" f/5.6 to track down dim fizzies, I use a 19 Panoptic
exclusively. This yields 107X, which is fine for both star hopping and
confirming.
--
Mark Wagner
mgw@r*e*source-intl.com
Resource International (remove the * to reply by e-mail)
r...@telcocom.com
Sky2000 can be gotten from someone laminated. I've seen it at Riverside
for the last several years. There is also a version in a box which
scrolls back and forth! Have Fun and Keep Looking Up. Bob May
Chris Marriott
Jeff Medkeff wrote in message <354722be...@news.goodnet.com>...
>What is this descriptive volume stuff? I have used U2k
>plenty, and never seen nor used any descriptive material
>whatever.
The Uranometria "Field Guide" (if I recall its name correctly) has a page
for each chart in the atlas, and lists data in a tabular format for all the
deep sky objects on that chart.
I bought it when it first came out a few years ago, but donated it to my
local AS, because I found it of very limited use.
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.
sft@nospam.demon.co.uk (Stephen Tonkin)
Jay Reynolds Freeman <freeman-...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>I have taken to using the Collins Gem _Night Sky_ (by Ridpath
>>> and Tirion) in the field.
>> Hear, hear! But is it in print anywhere? Last I heard, the US
>>publisher for it (Running Press) did not have it in print and had no
>>plans to do another run of them. Where did you get yours?
I got mine at The Furlong Bookshop, Ringwood, Hants. It's available all
over Britain. Price is UKP 3.99 -- at that price you don't feel bad
about marking other objects on it....
>>
--
medkeff@NOBULKc2i2.comMERCIAL (Jeff Medkeff)
Probably ffk <f...@nb.net> said this:
>>What star atlas do you use?
Sky Atlas 2000.0 and SkyMap Pro.
>>The Uranometria 2000 goes to M9.5, but only goes to dec -6 deg
>>and needs a descriptive volume.
Uranometria goes to the south celestial pole in a second
volume. Normally people get both volumes as a set.
What is this descriptive volume stuff? I have used U2k
plenty, and never seen nor used any descriptive material
whatever.
>>What about Harold-Bobroff Astroatlas? Seems to cover everything,
William...@nashville.com
On 1998-04-27 med...@NOBULKc2i2.comMERCIAL said:
>Uranometria goes to the south celestial pole in a second
>volume. Normally people get both volumes as a set.
>What is this descriptive volume stuff? I have used U2k
>plenty, and never seen nor used any descriptive material
>whatever.
The Deep Sky FIeld Guide to Uranometria 2000.0 has all the non-stellar
objects. It would be nice to have a volume with the double stars in it.
Net-Tamer V 1.10 - Registered
Sue and Alan French
Your looking for the laminated desk edition of Sky Atlas 2000.0. It
goes for $59.95 plus shipping from Sky Publishing (Order # 4631L,
1-800-253-0245). It's a very good atlas, and goes down to 8th mag.
Clear skies, Sue
Mike wrote in message <6i2i7n$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Geoff Shapiro
In article <uDEg8frc9GA.199@upnetnews03>, Sue_and_A...@msn.com
says...
> Your looking for the laminated desk edition of Sky Atlas 2000.0. It
> goes for $59.95 plus shipping from Sky Publishing (Order # 4631L,
> 1-800-253-0245). It's a very good atlas, and goes down to 8th mag.
Do you, or anyone else, have the ISBN number for the above laminated
field or desk edition of the Sky Atlas 2000.0? My wife works in a library
and is thinking of beefing up the Astronomy section with some atlases.
(The ISBN number is usually on one of the first few pages where
publishing and copyright dates are also printed).
TIA,
Geoff Shapiro
Sue and Alan French
Geoff,
The ISBN for the desk edition is 0-933346-31-X. We don't know if
the laminated version has a different number.
Clear skies, Alan & Sue
Geoff Shapiro wrote in message ...
DM Roady
Mike wrote:
>
> Can someone help me put my finger on an atlas with the following
> attributes?
> 1) white stars on black
> 2) spiral bound
> 3) lamenated
> 4) not too particular about depth of mag
> I saw an atlas like this several years ago, but can't remember the title
> and I have seen no others that fit all the criteria. Descriptions?
> Opinions? Thanks in advance--Mike.
Mike-
Sounds like your talking about the "Sky Atlas 2000" Laminated Field
Edition. It's white stars on black, plastic lam, spiral bound, up to
mag 8 and shows 2500 deep sky objects. Written by Will Tirion.
Published by Sky Publishing Corp. Call them @ 1-800-253-0245. You
might want to get them to send you a catalog first (full of neat
stuff!) They have many different kinds of star atlases. I use the same
atlas only in the unbound white desk edition. That way I could mark it
up, draw constellation lines, highlight M objects, etc. It also works
better with a red light in the field. I can run copies and get
whichever charts I want laminated by a copy shop. Being @ 33N, I
probably wont use any of the charts below 40S.
Dave Roady
Charleston, SC
Mike
Thanks for all the responses. Weird that Sky Atlas 2000 is the only one
in this format. --Mike
I wrote:
>
> Can someone help me put my finger on an atlas with the following
> attributes?
> 1) white stars on black
> 2) spiral bound
> 3) laminated <typo corrected, grin>
Jeff Medkeff
Probably "Chris Marriott" <ch...@NOSPAM.skymap.com> said
this:
>The Uranometria "Field Guide" (if I recall its name
>correctly) has a page for each chart in the atlas, and
>lists data in a tabular format for all the
>deep sky objects on that chart.
Oh, yeah. That thing, now I remember. A local guy has a copy
of it.
I would not say at all that it is necessary for use of the
atlas, though, as the original poster seemed to think.
Terry Herrin
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:42:50 -0400, "Sue and Alan French"
<Sue_and_A...@msn.com> wrote:
> The ISBN for the desk edition is 0-933346-31-X. We don't know if
>the laminated version has a different number.
I just checked and my laminated desk edition has the same ISBN number.
Terry Herrin
the...@isaac.net
Geoff Shapiro
In article <354e8288...@news.randori.com>, the...@isaac.net
says...
Thanks Terry, and Alan, and Sue... My wife appreciates the info.
BTW, I just discovered another way of find ISBN's for books. The Amazon
books website (www.amazon.com) has a monster database of books. A search
of their database brought up 4 hits for the Sky Atlas 2000. They are all
the various flavors of editions of the Atlas and they seem to all have
different ISBN numbers too. Two of the editions are not yet available
until Sept of this year -- apparently Sky Publishing is releasing a new
edition?
Geoff Shapiro
r...@telcocom.com
Get a catalog from Willmann-Bell. They have a large number of books
(that's what they sell) and your wife will probably be very happy and
hopefully will buy from them. Have Fun and Keep Looking Up! Bob May
Geoff Gaherty
Sue and Alan French,Sue_and_A...@msn.com,Internet writes:
>The ISBN for the desk edition is 0-933346-31-X. We don't know if
>the laminated version has a different number.
I have the laminated field edition (white stars on black), and it has a
different ISBN: 0-933346-32-8. This one is marked "Revised printing, 1987".
Geoff Gaherty
Toronto
Sue and Alan French
Yes, the desk edition does have a different ISBN than the field. We don't
know if each respective additon has a different # than it's laminated
counterpart, though, since we had our loose sheet version laminated and
bound.
Clear skies, Sue & Alan
Geoff Gaherty wrote in message <87365628...@logicbbs.org>...