[AZ-Observing] Re: Goto Scopes for Marathons
- From: Brian Skiff <Brian.Skiff@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:19:24 -0700 (MST)
Just for the record, I would not have considered using GoTo scopes
for anything except doing "real" science. My idea in doing most of the
H400 myself would be the same as with the MM: 70mm telescope, no finder,
certainly no GoTo. There seems to be this thing about insisting that one
always savor every object that one finds in the telescope---and folks
certainly know that I've done a little bit of that. But as someone who
would have argued (and did!) Steve Bell's case against the MM until 18
months ago, I'm here to tell you that blasting through a long list in a
single night, without getting much more than a simple look at most of them,
_will_not_hurt_you_, and as I and others have pointed out, is actually
useful, and provides a perspective you won't get any other way. Again, this
does not prevent you from looking at every one for three hours each on
three different nights in three different telescopes. And as I recall,
AJ and I spent ten minutes pondering NGC 5866 (maybe M102) in my little
Pronto discussing whether it was bright enough to have been found by Messier
(as we looked at it in a Messier-sized telescope)---probably, if you include
the two bright stars right next to the galaxy. I also revisited several
objects, partly in response to others nearby having trouble finding certain
objects, so they could see what the thing looked like so they'd have a
better idea of what to expect in their own telescope. So, as has been
noted, the 2001 MM was an interesting overnight "workshop" as much as
communing with the sky.
There was plenty of time at the 2001 MM to keep scanning for objects,
so I see no problem in at least doubling the body count without finders or
GoTo.
An aside for Steve Bell re ex-pat/patriot: I neglected to put a
smiley at the end of my comment, B-) , since I was playfully (I thought)
pointing out the odd ambiguities of the wacko language we speak. No personal
slight was intended.
\Brian
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts: