Newbie trying to see M81 / M82??
Terence Kirk
reflector with 25mm / 9mm eyepiece). I've been trying to find M81 / M82
(actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony about 500 feet above
the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly where they should be, and I
think I found them last year through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but I
don't seem to be able to find them through the telescope. I looked for
them last night (Sat 4/8) between 10 and 11pm, but no luck.
There was a crescent moon, there were scattered clouds on the horizon
(when I looked at the moon through the telescope it looked like it was
boiling, but when I looked at anything directly above, it was a steady
point), and there was low level street lighting coming from the valley
below.
I realize this is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but should
I be able to see galaxies under these conditions with this equipment?
What magnitude should I be able to see to? I believe M81 / 82 are mag
7.8 and 8.8.
Thanks
Terence
tk...@pipeline.nospam.com
ZodiacMan
I have known people with years of experience have problems finding them
at 250X, which is low power with their f/20 Cassegrains; but, in the
same dark skies at 40X with an 8 inch reflector, I have been able to
just walk over and put the Telrad on them and find them. So, one key
is low power wide field, and the other is dark skies. Some find them
easy with binoculars at a dark site.
As a test one night, in mag 3.5 to 4.0 limited skies, aka super bad sky
glow in a big city, I went after them in a C90 -- it ended up being
more than one night. First, aperture can be helpful in sky glow. The
C90 has none, and second, all galaxies are much better seen and more
easily found at dark sites. I think I tried for three evenings at
about two hours each evening until I finally found them with the C90 in
city sky glow. And, they weren't all that impressive when I finally
did find them. Don't expect to find them easily in the city unless you
have lots of aperture, and/or a moonless night, and/or are willing
and "stupid" enough like me to just decide that you are going to keep
looking for them in city sky glow until you find them.
There are no significant stars around them to easily use as guideposts
in a dark site, and they can at times be troublesome unless the
equipment is right; but, there is literally nothing to guide off of or
star hop off of with an alt-az mount combination that would give
somebody a fighting chance in heavy city sky glow. Under such
conditions it becomes a battle of wills -- the same with any other
galaxy except the Andromeda Galaxy. With digital setting circles and
my 16 inch, I can dial galaxies up at will in the city, and most the
time they are invisible in the city sky glow even when I know for a
fact that I am right on top of them. The farther you can get away from
a city, the easier galaxies will be in any scope.
--
ZodiacMan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim Brittain
Under good conditions, you should have no problems with your 4.5" seeing M81
& M82. You do need dark skys. I don't know what your local light pollution
is, but I can sometimes find the two from my heavily light polluted yard in
Richmond using my 8" dob. The crescent moon, combined with city lights, may
wash it out, though. Get to a dark site, and you'll have no problem. You
should be able to see to magnitude 11 or so with that scope.
Tim
Terence Kirk wrote:
> I recently bought a Meade DS 114 (4.5", 910mm focal length Newtonian
> reflector with 25mm / 9mm eyepiece). I've been trying to find M81 / M82
> (actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony about 500 feet above
> the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly where they should be, and I
> think I found them last year through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but I
> don't seem to be able to find them through the telescope. I looked for
> them last night (Sat 4/8) between 10 and 11pm, but no luck.
>
> There was a crescent moon, there were scattered clouds on the horizon
> (when I looked at the moon through the telescope it looked like it was
> boiling, but when I looked at anything directly above, it was a steady
> point), and there was low level street lighting coming from the valley
> below.
>
> I realize this is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but should
> I be able to see galaxies under these conditions with this equipment?
> What magnitude should I be able to see to? I believe M81 / 82 are mag
> 7.8 and 8.8.
>
> Thanks
>
> Terence
Paul Gustafson
4", so you should be able to pick them up in a 4.5". Severe light pollution
will make it difficult, a wide field of view eyepiece will help.
Gus
Daniel van Os
ti...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
> Terence,
>
> Under good conditions, you should have no problems with your 4.5"
seeing M81
> & M82. You do need dark skys.
I can ack that. I've seen them several times with my 130mm scope, also
from my north/east facing balcony. This means that I'm looking straight
toward the centre of the medium sized city I live in. I'm so used to
the city lights that I almost missed the Aurora. Only when I noticed
that the colours were changing I realized what I was seeing.
Daniel
----
Allstar Freeware Planetarium: http://www.crosswinds.net/~allstar2000/
tfla...@my-deja.com
Terence Kirk <tk...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> I recently bought a [4.5" reflector]. I've been trying to find
> M81 / M82 (actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony
> about 500 feet above the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly
> where they should be, and I think I found them last year
> through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but I don't seem to be
> able to find them through the telescope.
I can see M81 quite easily in my 70mm refractor from my own
urban location, and M82 with a bit more difficulty. So you
would certainly be able to see them if you had the telescope
pointed at the right spot. Especially if you could see them
through hand-held binoculars -- these galaxies are *much*
easier to see with 114mm of aperture than 50mm, or even 70mm.
However, knowing roughly where they are won't cut it, especially
if you are not used to looking at galaxies, and especially under
moderate light pollution. With no bright naked-eye stars near
by, you have at *least* 100 square degrees of sky to search,
or some 30-40 low-power telescopic fields. And although I
consider these to be "easy", that doesn't mean that they are
going to jump out at you and grab your eye the way (say) M42,
or even one of the bright globular clusters will. At your
level of skill, light pollution, and aperture, you could
probably scan right over M81 without noticing it.
What you need to do is get a decent chart showing stars down
to magnitude 8.5 or better, and then star-hop to it carefully,
starting with a known star, probably Dubhe (alpha UMa). It
will make things much easier if you work out the path in
advance using your binoculars.
--
- Tony Flanders
Cambridge, MA
Sketcher
1) Make certain the finder is aligned with the main telescope, then
practice pointing the telescope at some terrestrial daytime targets
using the finder. Later, practice pointing the telescope at some of
the brighter stars in your night sky -- again using the finder. It
may take some persistent practice to get good at this task.
2) Allow your eyepiece eye time to dark adapt. Take whatever measures
are necessary to keep that eye from seeing any light other than star
light for 30 minutes prior to searching for the galaxies. If
necessary, drape a dark cloth over your head to block stray light from
entering your eyepiece eye when you're looking through the telescope.
3) It might be necessary to get a better star atlas. You need an
atlas that is sufficiently accurate for you to pinpoint the locations
of each galaxy against the background star patterns. "Close" is not
always good enough. Sometimes you need to know exactly where the
object is and exactly where the telescope is pointed.
A 4.5 inch telescope should be more than sufficient to reveal M81 and
M82 to your telescope eye under your conditions, though those galaxies
will be easier to see when the moon is below your horizon. An 8x50
finder will easily show M81 and M82 under a "dark" sky. Start out
with your lowest powered eyepiece. After finding one or both
galaxies, you can try cranking up the magnification.
Cousin Ricky
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 21:12:46 -0700, Terence Kirk <tk...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
>I recently bought a Meade DS 114 (4.5", 910mm focal length Newtonian
>reflector with 25mm / 9mm eyepiece). I've been trying to find M81 / M82
>(actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony about 500 feet above
>the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly where they should be, and I
>think I found them last year through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but I
>don't seem to be able to find them through the telescope.
There are enough mag 6 stars in the area to star hop in binoculars with
no problem. I suspect that won't be enough for a slow telescope, as the
field of view doesn't seem much bigger than the galaxy.
> I looked for
>them last night (Sat 4/8) between 10 and 11pm, but no luck.
>
>There was a crescent moon, there were scattered clouds on the horizon
Did you try it after the moon set?
>I realize this is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but should
>I be able to see galaxies under these conditions with this equipment?
No sign of M81 last night (April 11) through 7x50 binoculars. Most
likely the 1st quarter moon washed it out. It will only get worse for
the next week or so.
--
@->-`-,-------------------------------------------------------+
| Cousin Ricky USDA zone 11, U.S. Virgin Islands |
| (Richard Callwood III) previously zone 6, Massachusetts |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
IndoMondo
<rca...@uvi.edu.invalid> wrote:
>No sign of M81 last night (April 11) through 7x50 binoculars. Most
>likely the 1st quarter moon washed it out. It will only get worse for
>the next week or so.
Never paid much attention to the moon before I got my scope. Now, it
really bugs me.
Sean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.indomondo.com/ Astronomy for the rest of us
tfla...@my-deja.com
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> Never paid much attention to the moon before I got my scope. Now, it
> really bugs me.
I know what you mean. But don't forget that the Moon is itself
the single best telescopic target in the whole sky, arguably
showing more visible detail through any given telescope than
all the planets and DSOs combined.
IndoMondo
>But don't forget that the Moon is itself
>the single best telescopic target in the whole sky, arguably
>showing more visible detail through any given telescope than
>all the planets and DSOs combined.
I have a peek if it's up and love it, love the detail as you say. But
the phrase "the thrill of the chase" doesn't exactly leap to mind.
"I've got THE MOON!"
In contrast, I feel like I *earn* my time with M13 or M51. I find the
hunting/learning just as satisfying as the actual viewing, and feel a
little cheated of something because the moon is so easy.
Speaks to my own personal problems, obviously.
gf
M82 from Dubhe.
ZodiacMan <zodi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8crnp9$suu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38F154BE...@pipeline.com>,
> Terence Kirk <tk...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> > I recently bought a Meade DS 114 (4.5", 910mm focal length Newtonian
> > reflector with 25mm / 9mm eyepiece). I've been trying to find M81 /
> M82
> > (actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony about 500 feet
> above
> > the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly where they should be, and I
> > think I found them last year through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but
> I
> > them last night (Sat 4/8) between 10 and 11pm, but no luck.
> >
> > There was a crescent moon, there were scattered clouds on the horizon
> > boiling, but when I looked at anything directly above, it was a steady
> > point), and there was low level street lighting coming from the valley
> > below.
> >
> should
> > I be able to see galaxies under these conditions with this equipment?
> > 7.8 and 8.8.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Terence
> >
> >
>
Cousin Ricky
> But don't forget that the Moon is itself
>the single best telescopic target in the whole sky
But you have to save it for last, after you've given up on the DSOs.
Jeff DeTray
>
>With a good star atlas you should be able to starhopp over from to M81 and
>M82 from Dubhe.
With an equatorial mount, I have found that an easier star hop to M81/82 starts
at Giausar (lambda Draconis), the very last star in the tail of Draco. Giausar
is not as bright as Dubhe, but still brighter than 4th magnitude, and it's
closer to M81/82 than is Dubhe. The clincher is that Giausar is at the same
declination as M81/82, so an easy sweep in RA brings the two galaxies into view
every time.
- Jeff
--
Jeff DeTray | CG-5 Mount Improvements
je...@astronomyboy.com | Barn Door Camera Mount
http://www.AstronomyBoy.com | Wide-field Astrophotos
| Equatorial Mount Tutorial
tfla...@my-deja.com
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> In contrast, I feel like I *earn* my time with M13 or M51. I find the
> hunting/learning just as satisfying as the actual viewing, and feel a
> little cheated of something because the moon is so easy.
Well, anything is as easy or as hard as you make it. For me,
finding the Messier objects is no longer thrilling or educational;
I probably know where about 30% of them are by memory, and can
just point a scope right at them without any muss or fuss.
The rest are trivial to find, unless I am using a very small
scope or working under severe light pollution.
What to do then? Think of more challenges, along several
dimensions. Try to find the Messier objects with a small scope
and under severe light pollution -- a fairly dorky exercise, but
definitely a challenge. More interestingly, observe the Messier
objects ever more carefully, comparing notes against earlier
observations, and against other people's notes, trying to
discern as much detail as possible within them -- for instance,
the spiral arms of M51, the dust lanes of M31, or the bar in
M95. A different kind of chase, but a very satisfying one.
Or, if I want to have a challenge locating faint DSO's near the
border of visibility, I can try for mag 12.5 galaxies in my
7-inch Dob, or mag 14 galaxies in my 12-inch, or try to see
how many individual galaxies I can see in the Coma galaxy
cluster half a billion light years away.
Likewise with the Moon. Of course you are going to lose
interest in a hurry if you just find it in your telescopes,
goggle at it for a few minutes, and then move on. But if
you are looking at the Moon at low power -- say 50X, where
you can easily see the whole thing in one field -- how many
of the visible features can you name? At any moment, that
probably includes half a dozen seas, a couple dozen bays,
a dozen mountain ranges, several dozen major named craters,
several hundred medium-sized craters, and a few dozen rilles,
wrinkle ridges, and the like. What do you know about each
one -- how and when it was probably formed, what it looks
like under various illuminations, what is distinctive about
it? If you work for a couple of years on every possible
night, you will be able to answer those questions.
Then you can move on to high powers, at which the number of
craters will explode to the thousands or tens of thousands,
and the distinctive features of each one will become much
more obvious.
I don't really have the inclination to attack the Moon in
such an organized fashion; instead, I move back and forth
from low power to high power, observing maybe 1 night out
of 10, chipping away at it, learning a little, forgetting
a little. It is very rewarding; the Moon is a fascinating
place, and the one object that can be explored by amateur
telescopes in reasonable detail. But only if you make a
point of focusing your attention, of really looking at it,
rather than passively allowing the image to fall on your
retina.
--
- Tony Flanders
Cambridge, MA
IndoMondo
>Well, anything is as easy or as hard as you make it. For
>me, finding the Messier objects is no longer thrilling or
>educational
Yes, I suppose it's your level of experience that defines what you get
your jollies from. I'm right at the beginning, delighted to see stuff
for the first time.
>I don't really have the inclination to attack the Moon in
>such an organized fashion; instead, I move back and forth
>from low power to high power, observing maybe 1 night out
>of 10, chipping away at it, learning a little, forgetting
>a little. It is very rewarding; the Moon is a fascinating
>place
At the end of my session last night, I spent some time on the moon:
Tycho, Clavius, Ptolemaeus, the Straight Wall, Montes Spitzbergen,
Plato. This morning, I read up a little on these features and that has
enhanced the pleasure of viewing considerably.
I visited the New Hayden Planetarium last week and the most moving part
of the experience was seeing the photographs taken by astronauts on the
moon. They're stunning. Remembering the landscapes shown in these prints
while looking at features on the moon itself gave me a great sense of
connection.
colorado
Telrad and a 7x50 finder, but I also live in light polluted skies (Colorado
Springs). After polar aligning my scope, the position I'm in when trying
to find M81,M82 barely allows me access to the Telrad or finder. Should I
just turn my tripod/wedge 180.0 from normal and give up on sidereal tracking
so I can at least find the galaxies? Or is there a simple solution to the
awkward position I find I'm in when I've polar aligned the scope and am
looking for M81, M82. Sorry for another dumb newbie question....
Jeff DeTray <je...@detray.com> wrote in message
news:P0aJ4.23781$y4.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Cousin Ricky
wrote:
>Hi, another newbie looking for M81, M82... I've got an Ultima 9.25 with a
>Telrad and a 7x50 finder, but I also live in light polluted skies (Colorado
>Springs).
Speaking of light pollution... How about waiting until the Moon gets
out of the way. Next weekend sounds like a good time, unless you're
planning on staying out late.
> Should I
>just turn my tripod/wedge 180.0 from normal and give up on sidereal tracking
>so I can at least find the galaxies?
Won't hurt to try. That's how i always do it (except the 180.0?). But
then again, i don't *have* a wedge or a sidereal tracker.
Terence Kirk
Thanks very much for all the responses. It seems I should be able to see
M81/M82 - although I'm in a city location, the skies are reasonably dark for
a city.
There was a lot of great stuff in these answers. The one response about
allowing my "telescope eye" time to get used to the dark raises some
interesting (dumb maybe?) questions though:
- How do you figure out which is the best eye? I have good vision in both
eyes and do not wear glasses, and feel reasonably comfortable using either
eye.
- What do you do with other eye? I find it tiring to keep it closed for long
periods, and if I leave it open it detracts from the view in the telsecope
eye.
The "star catalog" I'm using is Terence Dickenson's "Nightwatch". It only
seems to show the major stars. Can anyone recommend a good catalog for a
beginner?
Also the finder scope on the DS 114 doesn't seem to focus - it seems like it
needs to screw in a couple more turns past it's tightest position. I have it
aligned properly - I can find Mizar for instance, and when I look in the
main scope it's bang in the middle, even with the 9mm eyepiece. But all in
the finder all I see is the brightest stars, which appear as fuzzy little
blobs. Is there a way of adjusting this, or do I need to get a better
finder? If so, can anyone make some reccommendations?
Once again, thanks for all the great feedback - this is a great way of
learning.
Terence Kirk wrote:
> I recently bought a Meade DS 114 (4.5", 910mm focal length Newtonian
> reflector with 25mm / 9mm eyepiece). I've been trying to find M81 / M82
> (actually any galaxy) from my North facing balcony about 500 feet above
> the bay in Sausalito CA. I know roughly where they should be, and I
> think I found them last year through binoculars (I saw a smudge), but I
> don't seem to be able to find them through the telescope. I looked for
> them last night (Sat 4/8) between 10 and 11pm, but no luck.
>
> There was a crescent moon, there were scattered clouds on the horizon
> (when I looked at the moon through the telescope it looked like it was
> boiling, but when I looked at anything directly above, it was a steady
> point), and there was low level street lighting coming from the valley
> below.
>
> I realize this is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but should
> I be able to see galaxies under these conditions with this equipment?
> What magnitude should I be able to see to? I believe M81 / 82 are mag
> 7.8 and 8.8.
>
> Thanks
>
> Terence
Sketcher
>- How do you figure out which is the best eye? I have good vision in both
>eyes and do not wear glasses, and feel reasonably comfortable using either
>eye.
In general, one eye is the "dominant" eye. That's the eye most people
use as their eyepiece eye. But if you're comfortable using either
eye, then it really doesn't matter. Your brain ought to be able to
get accustomed to either after a little practice.
I usually use one eye for most of my night time observing and the
other eye for solar observing. When I was into comet hunting I would
sometimes switch eyes after prolonged sweeping with one eye.
>- What do you do with other eye?
For short observing sessions, closing it can often work well enough.
For longer sessions it's best to keep both eyes open. You can either
ignore what the non-eyepiece eye is seeing (not always easy --
especially if that eye is seeing brighter images than the telescope
eye is seeing) or you can cover that eye by any means that works well
for you. A pair of homemade goggles with a cutout in front of one eye
is one of many possibilities.
>The "star catalog" I'm using is Terence Dickenson's "Nightwatch". It only
>seems to show the major stars. Can anyone recommend a good catalog for a
>beginner?
"The Cambridge Star Atlas" is one of many possibilities. After a
while you may end up wanting to own several different atlases. Each
tends to have its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Many amateurs
find certain atlases easier to use after they've drawn in the lines to
create familiar constellation "stick" figures.
>Also the finder scope on the DS 114 doesn't seem to focus - it seems like it
>needs to screw in a couple more turns past it's tightest position. I have it
>aligned properly - I can find Mizar for instance, and when I look in the
>main scope it's bang in the middle, even with the 9mm eyepiece. But all in
>the finder all I see is the brightest stars, which appear as fuzzy little
>blobs. Is there a way of adjusting this, or do I need to get a better
>finder? If so, can anyone make some reccommendations?
I'm not familiar with that finder, but you might try adjusting both
the eyepiece end and the objective end. If it still won't focus, you
may have to either resort to a little "surgery" to change the distance
between the objective and eyepiece -- or you could look for a better
finder.
Cousin Ricky
wrote:
>- What do you do with other eye?
I saw an eye patch for sale in one catalog.
>The "star catalog" I'm using is Terence Dickenson's "Nightwatch". It only
>seems to show the major stars. Can anyone recommend a good catalog for a
>beginner?
The Cambridge Star Atlas has all stars to magnitude 6.5. This is still
brighter than many, or most, DSOs, but it's plenty for finderscope or
binocular star hopping.
>Also the finder scope on the DS 114 doesn't seem to focus
This is a chronic complaint with Meade finderscopes. Check Deja.com for
recent discussions.
Cousin Ricky
<rca...@uvi.edu.invalid> wrote:
>brighter than many, or most, DSOs, but it's plenty for finderscope or
I just realized that i never defined DSO in that article. I don't know
how adept you are at picking up on the acronyms, so at the risk of
underestimating your knowledge, DSO = Deep Sky Object.
Terence Kirk
Terence
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:50:54 -0700, Terence Kirk <tk...@pipeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >- What do you do with other eye?
>
> I saw an eye patch for sale in one catalog.
>
> >The "star catalog" I'm using is Terence Dickenson's "Nightwatch". It only
> >seems to show the major stars. Can anyone recommend a good catalog for a
> >beginner?
>
> The Cambridge Star Atlas has all stars to magnitude 6.5. This is still
> brighter than many, or most, DSOs, but it's plenty for finderscope or
> binocular star hopping.
>
> >Also the finder scope on the DS 114 doesn't seem to focus
>
> This is a chronic complaint with Meade finderscopes. Check Deja.com for
> recent discussions.
>
Terence Kirk
its this kind of knowledge that makes the hobby more enjoyable.
Terence
Sketcher wrote:
> Terence Kirk <tk...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >- How do you figure out which is the best eye? I have good vision in both
> >eyes and do not wear glasses, and feel reasonably comfortable using either
> >eye.
>
> In general, one eye is the "dominant" eye. That's the eye most people
> use as their eyepiece eye. But if you're comfortable using either
> eye, then it really doesn't matter. Your brain ought to be able to
> get accustomed to either after a little practice.
>
> I usually use one eye for most of my night time observing and the
> other eye for solar observing. When I was into comet hunting I would
> sometimes switch eyes after prolonged sweeping with one eye.
>
> >- What do you do with other eye?
>
> For short observing sessions, closing it can often work well enough.
> For longer sessions it's best to keep both eyes open. You can either
> ignore what the non-eyepiece eye is seeing (not always easy --
> especially if that eye is seeing brighter images than the telescope
> eye is seeing) or you can cover that eye by any means that works well
> for you. A pair of homemade goggles with a cutout in front of one eye
> is one of many possibilities.
>
> >The "star catalog" I'm using is Terence Dickenson's "Nightwatch". It only
> >seems to show the major stars. Can anyone recommend a good catalog for a
> >beginner?
>