Is the whirlpool galaxy visible
Charles Murphy
I just bought a 6" Orion reflector and was excited to see the
Orion Nebulae with such detail. Now that it's going out of sight,
I've been searching for the whirlpool galaxy and other interesting
sights. I've read that it is visible with the naked eye (Peterson's
First Guide). I can't find it with binoculars or telescope. Do I
need to go to a very dark place for it to be visible?
Thanks,
Charles
Dave Nash
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The Whirlpool Galaxy is
a popular name for Messier 51 (M51), which is an interesting galaxy,
but much too dim to be seen with the naked eye (unless you've had
your retinas ripped out and replaced with PMT's or something). A 6"
telescope should show M51, but it's often a tough object for newcomers to
find, especially under city lights.
The only galaxy (aside from the Magellanic Clouds, which you can't see
from the US) easily visible to the naked eye under most conditions is
M31, the Andromeda Galaxy. If this is what you have in mind, bear in
mind that this is a tough target now (only shows up in the early
morning, a bit before morning twilight).
OTOH, M51 *is* well placed for evening observing now, but, again, it's
not a naked eye object. The best thing to do here is get a guide
that's more detailed than Peterson's (Wil Tirion's _Sky Atlas 2000_ is
a very good all-purpose star atlas), and using your lowest
magnification on a dark, clear, moonless night, go hunting. If you
don't have a better star atlas, find someone else (astronomy club
member, perhaps) who's familiar with the area and ask them for help.
M51 is visible in a 6", but don't expect to see the spiral arms that
you see in the photos.
>Thanks,
>Charles
--
Dave Nash, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Illinois
E-mail: na...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu; WWW: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~nash/
"Holy Smoke! Somebody blew up the Pope!"
Braddock Bull
I can see M51 with my little 4" Meade refracter. Of course, it's just a
fuzzy for me but I believe the galaxy is viewed straight on it's
horizontal plane which makes for a nice big target. I bet you might see
some spiral detail in a 6", maybe not. Just point your scope at Alkaid
(the last star in the big dipper's handle) and move to the west (under the
arc of the handle) You will see another fainter star...it you center on
that star, you should be able to see the Whirlpool in the field, about
10:00 o'clock. You should be able to see the companion galaxy as well,
NGC 5195.
I think some better viewing choices would be M81 and M82 in Ursa Major or
M65 and M66 in Leo - check 'em out in your star atlas - they're pretty
easy. I don't know who says they can see any galaxy except Andromeda with
the naked eye, even that is quite difficult! Good luck - I just took on
this hobby in December - it takes patience - remember, objects never look
like they do in the pictures! Oh well. Have you checked out any of the
nice Globular Clusters like M13 or M3 - very nice.
Brad
Braddock H. Bull
brad...@together.net
Clive Gibbons
My first attempts to see deep-sky objects fainter than M42 or M31 were
almost always unsuccessful when I used my (then) trusty 4-1/2" reflector.
It wasn't until I tried using my Dad's 10x50 binoculars that I was able
to objects like M51. The telescope's field of view was just too narrow to
sweep up the object and my star charts where very poor by todays
standards. However, the field of the 10x50's was a better match to the
charts scale, the images were "right side up" and the fact that both eyes
are being used made picking out pesky M-objects a virtual snap. BTW, this
was done under rather bright suburban skies. You should be able to spot
galaxies down to at least mag. 8 with 10x50's. They won't look like much,
but at least you'll have found them and will have a much better chance
locating them in the 6".
And, oh yes, driving out to dark sky country wouldn't hurt either. :)
Good luck,
--
Clive Gibbons " Work is the scourge of the
Technician, drinking class." - O. Wilde.
McMaster University.
Hartmut Frommert
>I just bought a 6" Orion reflector and was excited to see the
>Orion Nebulae with such detail. Now that it's going out of sight,
>I've been searching for the whirlpool galaxy and other interesting
>sights. I've read that it is visible with the naked eye (Peterson's
>First Guide). I can't find it with binoculars or telescope. Do I
>need to go to a very dark place for it to be visible?
The Whirlpool galaxy is usually the name for M51=NGC 5194 in Canes Venatici.
(if you shouldn't know, M stands for Messier who compiled his object catalog
1758-82, and NGC for New General Catalog, compiled by Dreyer in the late
19th century) As it is of visual magnitude 7.9 according to Don Machholz'
estimate it is certainly *not* visible to the naked eye (at least unless you
are outside Earth's atmosphere or the top of Mauna Kea, perhaps). However
it should not be too difficult in good binoculars e.g. 10x50, and it is
great in your 6" if you find it and get it sharp -- use minimal power !
Also you will probably not find it when the moon is over horizon and more
than about 5 days from the New Moon phase.
If you look, instead, for the Andromeda galaxy M31 or the Triangulum M33,
these *are* for the naked eye (M33 only under considerably good conditions).
They are great in the binoculars, but M33 will eventually be unimpressive or
not visible in the 6" because its surface brightness is low; also you will
eventually be disappointed of M31 (`That fuzzy patch ?'). Moreover both
these objects are currently very difficult dawn views -- wait 'til fall to
have them easy. There's a bunch of other galaxies visible right now, I'll
only give the easiest: M81/82, M51, M63, M64, M65/66, M94, M104, M106 and
M83 for those living not too much north, and of course the Virgo cluster
where M49, M84, M85, M86, and M87 should be quite easy. For start I'd
recommend M81/82, then M51 ! And remember that your telescope will show
hundreds of galaxies under good conditions !
Good luck !
| OS/2 vs. NT: Better Half than Not Testified
Hartmut Frommert | Warp 3.0 vs. 95: Cheaper, Smaller, Faster
<phf...@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | and finally, it exists..
----------- Get astronomical and space gifs via anon ftp from: -------------
seds.lpl.arizona.edu; explorer.arc.nasa.gov: /pub/SPACE/GIF; ftp.cnam.fr |
garbo.uwasa.fi: /pc/gif*; jplinfo.jpl.nasa.gov; ftp.univ-rennes1.fr |
HST: ftp.stsci.edu: /pubinfo/gif; Clementine: clementine.s1.gov | Updates |
images.jsc.nasa.gov (no more ftp); ftp.bdl.fr; ftp.fce.vutbr.cz | welcome |
- More in SEDS' Astro FTP List: ftp://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/faq/astroftp.txt
The SL9 crash was just a heavenly celebration of Apollo 11 25th anniversary!
John Harper
Braddock Bull <brad...@together.net> wrote:
> I don't know who says they can see any galaxy except Andromeda with
>the naked eye, even that is quite difficult!
I do. Andromeda is visible on a dark night with the naked eye even here
where it never gets far above the horizon, but the Magellan Clouds are
almost as conspicuous as ordinary (i.e. non-Sagittarius) Milky Way.
That makes 4 easy naked-eye galaxies, one of which we live in.
John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand
Russell Lederman
>
>
> My first attempts to see deep-sky objects fainter than M42 or M31 were
> almost always unsuccessful when I used my (then) trusty 4-1/2" reflector.
I could almost guarantee that the eyepiece design was the problem in
not finding deepsky objects in the 4.5. Using a Huygenian or cheapo
Kelner with a 28-39 degree apparent field to spot a large low surface
brightness galaxy like M51,100 or 33 is an exercise in fustration for
all but the most expeienced observers.Everyone should have a 2 inch
focuser that will take an inexpensive 32mm erfle or use a 1 1/4 wide
field design to sweep these extended objects up. The enjoyment you get
will be worth the effort in this upgrade.If it doesn't work, I'll send
you a photo of M51!:)
-Russ
W. Falcone
>> My first attempts to see deep-sky objects fainter than M42 or M31 were
>> almost always unsuccessful when I used my (then) trusty 4-1/2" reflector.
>I could almost guarantee that the eyepiece design was the problem in
>not finding deepsky objects in the 4.5.
I've seen it with 10x50 binoculars. It **should** be easy with a 4.5"...
Vad
Robert Schwebel
> I just bought a 6" Orion reflector and was excited to see the
> Orion Nebulae with such detail. Now that it's going out of sight,
> I've been searching for the whirlpool galaxy and other interesting
> sights. I've read that it is visible with the naked eye (Peterson's
> First Guide). I can't find it with binoculars or telescope. Do I
> need to go to a very dark place for it to be visible?
No problem! I have seen it on monday with my 4"-maksutov-cassegrain!
bye, Robert
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Robert Schwebel, Bienroder Weg 54, Zi. 2819, D - 38108 Braunschweig +
+ Public Observatory Rothwesten (near Kassel, Germany) +
+ phone: +49-531-353745, e-mail: r.sch...@tu-bs.de +
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hartmut Frommert
>Subject: Re: Is the whirlpool galaxy visible
>Date: 5 May 1995 03:02:39 GMT
>gibb...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Clive Gibbons) wrote:
>>
>>
>> My first attempts to see deep-sky objects fainter than M42 or M31 were
>> almost always unsuccessful when I used my (then) trusty 4-1/2" reflector.
>I could almost guarantee that the eyepiece design was the problem in
>not finding deepsky objects in the 4.5.
I'd bed the real prob is a too small finder scope. You should have at
least about 8x30, better 10x50 as the finder ! Still some dealers provide
those little 6x20 toys -- nice for finding the Moon but not so much more :-)
> Using a Huygenian or cheapo
>Kelner with a 28-39 degree apparent field to spot a large low surface
>brightness galaxy like M51,100 or 33 is an exercise in fustration for
>all but the most expeienced observers.
Certainly it would be nice to have fine eyepieces, and for all kind of deep-
sky objects you need a small-to-medium power (no more than about 70x for your
4.5" instrument). M33 is always difficult even then (go down to 30x or less
if you can), but you should manage the brighter center of M100 and M51. Note
that Messier had only a 3-inch for all of his objects !
Hartmut Frommert
>Braddock Bull <brad...@together.net> wrote:
>> I don't know who says they can see any galaxy except Andromeda with
>>the naked eye, even that is quite difficult!
>I do. Andromeda is visible on a dark night with the naked eye even here
>where it never gets far above the horizon, but the Magellan Clouds are
>almost as conspicuous as ordinary (i.e. non-Sagittarius) Milky Way.
>That makes 4 easy naked-eye galaxies, one of which we live in.
Being too much north for the Magellanics, I managed to view exactly 3
galaxies with the naked eye: The Milky Way, M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy
M33, the latter only under considerably good conditions. This brings the
total number to 5.
Russell Lederman
> >> almost always unsuccessful when I used my (then) trusty 4-1/2" reflector.
>
> >I could almost guarantee that the eyepiece design was the problem in
> >not finding deepsky objects in the 4.5.
>
> I'd bed the real prob is a too small finder scope. You should have at
> least about 8x30, better 10x50 as the finder ! Still some dealers provide
> those little 6x20 toys -- nice for finding the Moon but not so much more :-)
I am presuming that the area of sky containing M51 was searched
thoroughly through the main instrument before coming to the conclusion
that M51 could not be swept up.
> > Using a Huygenian or cheapo
> >Kelner with a 28-39 degree apparent field to spot a large low surface
> >brightness galaxy like M51,100 or 33 is an exercise in fustration for
> >all but the most expeienced observers.
>
> Certainly it would be nice to have fine eyepieces, and for all kind of deep-
> sky objects you need a small-to-medium power (no more than about 70x for your
> 4.5" instrument). M33 is always difficult even then (go down to 30x or less
> if you can), but you should manage the brighter center of M100 and M51. Note
> that Messier had only a 3-inch for all of his objects !
> | OS/2 vs. NT: Better Half than Not Testified
> Hartmut Frommert | Warp 3.0 vs. 95: Cheaper, Smaller, Faster
> <phf...@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | and finally, it exists..
Oh and don't forget absolutley pristine skies! Certainly the
determining factor that enabled objects like M51 to have been
somewhat easy in Messier's three inch scope. For average conditions
and I believe the thread mentioned city skies or suburban anyway,
an eyepiece with wide apparant field will be a more prudent
investment than a larger finder. Any finder should enable one
to find a general star field where an objecy is located. With M51,
just form an unequal triangle with the last two tail stars in the
Ursa Major asterism. M100 likewise forms an almost perfect equalateral
triangle with the two tail stars. Why would a larger finder be a
in this circumstance?
Russell Lederman
>
> On Tue, 2 May 1995 17:14:06 GMT you wrote in sci.astro.amateur:
>
>
> bye, Robert
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + Robert Schwebel, Bienroder Weg 54, Zi. 2819, D - 38108 Braunschweig +
> + Public Observatory Rothwesten (near Kassel, Germany) +
> + phone: +49-531-353745, e-mail: r.sch...@tu-bs.de +
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Out of curiosity Robert, what was the type of eyepiece that you used
to make the observation and what were the sky conditions? I have seen
it many times as well as M76 with an ariel camera lens. M33 is readily
visible as well.
Lens: 4inch F6
eyepiece:20 Nagler with 82 degree apparent field.
Sky condition: Moderate light polution-Milky way visible on good nights
M31 naked eye but dim. Coma Berinices asterism visible.
Hartmut Frommert
me>> I'd bed the real prob is a too small finder scope. You should have at
me>> least about 8x30, better 10x50 as the finder ! Still some dealers
me>> provide
me>> those little 6x20 toys -- nice for finding the Moon but not so much
me>> more :-)
>I am presuming that the area of sky containing M51 was searched
>thoroughly through the main instrument before coming to the conclusion
>that M51 could not be swept up.
[..]
>Oh and don't forget absolutley pristine skies! Certainly the
>determining factor that enabled objects like M51 to have been
>somewhat easy in Messier's three inch scope. For average conditions
>and I believe the thread mentioned city skies or suburban anyway,
>an eyepiece with wide apparant field will be a more prudent
>investment than a larger finder. Any finder should enable one
>to find a general star field where an objecy is located. With M51,
>just form an unequal triangle with the last two tail stars in the
>Ursa Major asterism. M100 likewise forms an almost perfect equalateral
>triangle with the two tail stars. Why would a larger finder be a
>in this circumstance?
Did you see, under the [sub]urban conditions you mention, any of these stars
in a 6x20 finder scope ?? Certainly the surrounding stars *are* the objects
to find with it, but from my impression, it is hard to see enough stars with
such toys to locate objects in regions with few brighter stars -- in some
cases more difficult than to see the object in the scope, if you search long
enough ! Thus your presumtion may fit with those toys.
And of course, there are light poluted regions where you cannot see any stars
but the very brightest and absolutely no deep-sky objects.
| OS/2 vs. NT: Better Half than Not Testified
Hartmut Frommert | Warp 3.0 vs. 95: Cheaper, Smaller, Faster
<phf...@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | and finally, it exists..
Casper ter Kuile
I've been doing a lot into deep-sky observing (and write
regularly about this subject in astron. magazines in The
Netherlands) and regularly get this sort of remarks. Much
depends on sky quality and experience of observer. Try
trics like averted vision etcetera. The spiral structure of
M51 should be visible in a 6" telescope under not to bad
sky conditions. With my 4.5" Newton I'm able to see one of
the HII-regions in one of the spiral arms, but only when
sky conditions are good (limiting mag. >6.3). Bot M51 and
the accompanying dwarf galaxy are visible in my 4.5". M51
itself is to be seen in 20x80 binoculars or even smaller.
With your 8", you should see something of a spiral
structure. Try different magnifications (strong and low)and
trics like averted vision, moving your tube a litlle bit
etcetera. Deep sky observing mainly comes to: trying a
lot in vain before being succesful. Never give up to
quickly. Good Luck!
Marco Langbroek (The Netherlands)
--
*----------------------------------------------------------
------------*
/ Casper ter Kuile, DMS, IMO, Delphinus, Buzzer:
06-59720161 \
\ S-mail home: Akker 145, NL-3732 XD De Bilt, the
Netherlands /
/ E-mail home: pega...@cc.ruu.nl Voice home:
+(31)-30-203170 \
\ E-mail work: casper.t...@rivm.nl Voice work:
+(31)-30-742647 /
*----------------------------------------------------------
------------*
Lawrence Picard
not knowing when i'm actually looking at it. I own a 8" SCT and use a
40mm ep to find an object and then switch to higher magnification for
detail. Using the setting circles gets me within a few degrees but for
the life of me I can't see any spirals, just a smudge.
Hartmut Frommert
spiral arms in my 11-cm (4.5-inch) Schiefspiegler telescope (so you should
view them in a refractor of same size, and a 6-7 inch "obscured" reflector),
and quite clear the "bridge" to its companion NGC 5195, under considerably
good conditions. The impression is quite close to that given by John Mallas
in the "Messier Album" (Mallas used a 4-inch refractor).
Dave Nash
[zap]
>sky conditions. With my 4.5" Newton I'm able to see one of
>the HII-regions in one of the spiral arms, but only when
>sky conditions are good (limiting mag. >6.3). Bot M51 and
>the accompanying dwarf galaxy are visible in my 4.5". M51
>itself is to be seen in 20x80 binoculars or even smaller.
It is easily visible in 10x70's under a dark sky, and should be visible
with N x 50's (or possibly somewhat smaller).
>With your 8", you should see something of a spiral
>structure. Try different magnifications (strong and low)and
>trics like averted vision, moving your tube a litlle bit
>etcetera. Deep sky observing mainly comes to: trying a
>lot in vain before being succesful. Never give up to
>quickly. Good Luck!
Practice and experience are also important. I remember when first
looking at M51 with my 10" scope (almost 4 years ago), I saw very
little detail even under a dark sky; now I can often make out at least
the brighter parts of the spiral shape even in mildly light polluted
areas.
>Marco Langbroek (The Netherlands)
>--
>
>*----------------------------------------------------------
>------------*
>/ Casper ter Kuile, DMS, IMO, Delphinus, Buzzer:
>06-59720161 \
>\ S-mail home: Akker 145, NL-3732 XD De Bilt, the
>Netherlands /
>/ E-mail home: pega...@cc.ruu.nl Voice home:
>+(31)-30-203170 \
>\ E-mail work: casper.t...@rivm.nl Voice work:
>+(31)-30-742647 /
>*----------------------------------------------------------
>------------*
Al Paglieri
W> not knowing when i'm actually looking at it. I own a 8" SCT and use a
W> 40mm ep to find an object and then switch to higher magnification for
W> detail. Using the setting circles gets me within a few degrees but for
W> the life of me I can't see any spirals, just a smudge.
In a 8 inch you should be able to see two smudges for M51, the other being its
companion galaxy. You can not however see the spiral arms in an 8 inch. At
least I never have. I have seen them in a 14 inch SCT, nice view.
Al
--
|Fidonet: Al Paglieri 1:250/454
|Internet: Al.Pa...@stargazer.net250.org
Paul C Leyland
> In article <braddock-030...@vtr21.together.net>,
> Braddock Bull <brad...@together.net> wrote:
> > I don't know who says they can see any galaxy except Andromeda with
> >the naked eye, even that is quite difficult!
>
> I do. Andromeda is visible on a dark night with the naked eye even here
> where it never gets far above the horizon, but the Magellan Clouds are
> almost as conspicuous as ordinary (i.e. non-Sagittarius) Milky Way.
> That makes 4 easy naked-eye galaxies, one of which we live in.
I've seen M33 in Triangulum with the naked eye on good nights. Make it
at least 5...
Paul
--
Paul Leyland <p...@sable.ox.ac.uk> | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Services | the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1865-273200 Fax: 273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
Finger p...@sable.ox.ac.uk for PGP key |
Tom Picciani
elevation 1300 ft, Andromeda was visible with the naked eye to a width of
2 degrees. M33 was visible also, and believe it or not, M51's central
core was just barely visible enough to sight on with my telrad. Get to
a dark sky location and you'll see a lot of stuff you never thought possible.
Tom P.
W. Falcone
> Using the setting circles gets me within a few degrees but for
I saw it through a 10" newtonian from light polluted Leeds and could see no
arms either. My surprise was that M51's nucleus didn't look much brighter
than its satellite's!
Vad
Pat Wright
to use about 100x and to have really clean contrasty optics . I can actually
see it sometimes in my 60 mm. finder . There is a definite coarse spiral
appearance to it .
Ferris
>I observed the whirlpool galaxy a month ago with a 16-in scope. The spiral
>structure was quite obvious, and showed beautiful detail, but I don't
>remember seeing the bridge which connects the galaxies. I don't have
>access to my notes right now so I won't be able to check it, but it is my
>impression that the bridge is a lot more difficult to detect than the
>spiral structure. The background sky was slightly brightened during my
>observation. Comments, anyone?
-----------------
My field notes show two references to observing the overlaping bridge
between M51 and NGC 5195, one on 4/1/94 and the second on 5/5/95. Both
observations were made with a 10-inch, f/4.5.
Bill Ferris
Madison, WI