[sac-forum] Re: Messier Marathon results questions

Hi Folks,
Let me start by saying again, I'm not in any manner questioning the two reported sightings nor trying to cast aspersions on the viewers, I'm trying to determine what Bob and I might have done differently to have seen M77. The closing paragraph from my original post:
I'm not trying to cast doubt on the two reported sightings, just trying to understand what we could have done differently from what we did.
So Rick, please don't try to turn my question into something that it wasn't and focus on the question at hand: What else could we have tried to either validate or refute that the target that we saw was M77? Your first two paragraphs did this very well, but I'm really not sure where your third and fourth paragraphs come from in relationship to the discussion.
AJ has responded that neither Dr. Aguirre nor George Robinson added notes as to "how" they viewed the target. And, for those who didn't discuss this with me at last night's meeting, many believe that what we were actually viewing was the bright core of M77 and not a stellar object as Bob and I originally thought; much as you mention in how you locate and view M77. As for "tapping" the scope, we did try that many times, so I guess that Bob and I qualify as members of your "experienced observers" club.
However, we did get some good input from different parties last evening on other things to try, including adding more power and then seeing if we can get the focus sharp. If we can, we've got a star, if it stays fuzzy, we've got the core. 

Thanks to all for the discussion and tips last night.

Tim

On Apr 11, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Rick Tejera wrote:
The times I've gotten M74 & M77 in twilight, I've had several star maps of the field, down to various magnitudes. Surprisingly, I've always found M74 to the easier of the two. The star field is easy to recognize and it's an easy star hop from Beta Arietis. Once I know where it is in relation to the star field averted vision brings it out ever so slightly.
I use the same technique for M77. I just look for the "Star" that shouldn't be there in the field and that would be M77's core. Tapping on the tube certainly helps. I imagine any experienced observed knows this trick and would avail him/herself of it's use.
While certainly a challenge this year, I see no reason to doubt Dr Aguirre's observations. Certainly no one who turned in a list to me and asked the high count posed no objection or doubt. Most said great job. After all the impossible is impossible only until someone does it.
Besides, the objective of the Messier Marathon is to have fun. From the comments I heard as I collected the Checklists, this objective was met in spades. 

Clear Skies
Rick Tejera
Editor SACnews
Saguaro Astronomy Club
Phoenix, Arizona
www.saguaroastro.org
saguaroastro@xxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-forum- bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of AJ Crayon
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 17:31
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Messier Marathon results questions
Tim, there are no other references by Dr. Aguirre or George Robinson on what they did to bag this elusive object. At least nothing more than what I've said earlier. Perhaps they did try tapping the telescope tube, but there isn't any reference on the list nor would I expect this to be mentioned.
To your earlier reference - perhaps you saw the core of M77 and not a star. Quite possible. What I'd suggest is to wait until M77 affords a better view, some months from now, and make an observation and see if it comes close to what you saw. 

AJ Crayon
Phoenix, AZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Harshaw" <rharshaw2@xxxxxxx>
To: <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:17 PM
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Messier Marathon results questions
Tim, the only really bright star in that area IS Delta Ceti, so either your alignment was not as tight as you thought (although your grabbing what-- 108 -- M's shows it was on target), or your FOV is bigger than you thought it was? There is a 9.02 mag star about 15 min NE of M77, but that was not bright enough to be the one Bob saw, is it?? But then you did say you were able to "SEE" Delta-- did you mean through the EP or just with the naked eye, binos or a spotter?
Have you ever measured your FOV diameter using the timing of a transit of a star? 

Richard Harshaw
Cave Creek, AZ

-----Original Message-----
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Jones
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:04 PM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Messier Marathon results questions
Bob has updated me - it apparently wasn't Delta Ceti as Delta Ceti would have been out of the FOV with both eyepieces, so now I'm lost as to what the star was that we saw, but it was bright enough to see even before astronomical twilight. Is it possible that we were seeing the core of M77 and not a star? I'm now totally confused :-O. 

Tim


On Apr 11, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
As an added note to our tracking, we were able to see Delta Ceti for almost 10 minutes before we lost it behind the mountain. 

On Apr 11, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
I have to add my voice to the questions that have come up concerning the viewing of M77. With two observers reporting that they visually saw M77, I am curious as to the method used and what, if any, filters were employed. Bob and I tracked M77 with a Celestron 9.25" SCT with 36MM and 25MM Plossel eyepieces until M77 was physically below the mountain and the background light continually obscured any chance of our seeing this Mag 8.9 object. Of course, our attempt at sighting M77 cost us M33... :-(
I'm not trying to cast doubt on the two reported sightings, just trying to understand what we could have done differently from what we did. 

Tim

Other related posts: