[AZ-Observing] Re: Visual observation of McNeil's nebula in 16" dob.
- From: "Michael Wiles" <mwiles@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:31:45 -0700
Joe,
So are you saying that given better conditions, the nebula would be a pretty
easy object in your 16"?
It's on my observing list for next weekend at Sentinel, but frankly, I wasn't
expecting to see it in only 15" of aperture.
In related news, I'll start. Who's in for Sentinel next weekend?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Joe Larkin"<joeclarkin@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: 2/15/04 10:14:34 AM
>To: "az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"<az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [AZ-Observing] Visual observation of McNeil's nebula in 16" dob.
>The conditions last night (Evening of 2/14/04) at Vekol Road were far
>from optimal. It started out cloudy and graduated to hazy with clear
>patches in the late evening.
>
>Jon Christensen and I were the only ones out there. He was set up for
>photography with a Tak 210mm (I think) F3 Newt Astrograph with Ross
>corrector and ST-8 Camera.
>
>I had my new-to-me 16" dob and a printout of the finder chart
>provided by Tom Polakis.
>
>As the thicker clouds cleared out, I observed the M78 area. M78 was
>of course easy, and the brighter parts of NGC 2071 and 2067 were not
>too difficult. But the conditions weren't good enough to spot the
>nebula.
>
>Jon wanted to try for the nebula with his setup. I helped him by
>pointing his scope at M78. He took some very short exposures to find
>the correct field and the new nebula jumped right out, even under
>adverse conditions!
>
>The skies were getting better so I did some other mostly casual
>observing. I spotted IC 2003, a bright but small round planetary in
>Perseus. Maybe 7", round, and perhaps a bit blue. Spotted it at 90x
>pretty easily, but was better at 145x. I also tried for, but didn't
>spot, NGC 1465, a small edge on galaxy in Perseus. The transparency
>still wasn't great.
>
>Conditions improved a bit, and I went back to the M78 region. More
>nebulousity was visible including NGC 2064. This whole region
>contains a lot of complicated nebulousity.
>
>I thought that higher power might help, so I put in a 7mm UO Ortho,
>yielding about 300x. I a nebulous spot in what I thought was the
>correct location. However, I couldn't spot the 15 magnitude double
>nearby. I did see one star, but not a pair. I then realized I was
>spotting the star with the comma shaped nebulousity that can be seen
>at the very edge of the finder image on the bottom right. Guide
>version 6 shows this nebula as HH24.
>
>From there I moved back to the correct area but didn't conclusively
>see anything. The power was too high and the field too narrow to be
>sure I was looking at the right spot.
>
>I put in my 14mm Meade UWA. This gave half the maginfication and a
>much large field because of the 84 degrees apparent field.
>
>At this power I could see M78, NGC 2067, and HH24 in the same field.
>I spotted the correct part of the field by using HH24 and the bright
>star near NGC 2067 and 2064. I still couldn't see the 15 mag double,
>but I did see a small nebulous patch in the correct location. Jon was
>able to confirm this, but found it easier at lower power using a 22mm
>Panoptic.
>
>I think that transparency was never quite perfect and it would have
>been a bit easier with better conditions. The nebula was harder to
>spot than HH24. HH24 wasn't bright but there was clearly nebulousity
>around a star. The wide pair of stars to the lower left of HH24 on
>the finder chart were of comparable brightness to HH24, but showed no
>nebulousity.
>
>Jon took a few exposures of the new nebula while I was looking for it
>visually. He took some exposures with colored filters so hopefully he
>can make a decent color composite, but the sky wasn't totally
>cooperative.
>
>
>
>Joe Larkin
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>--
>See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
>send personal replies to the author, not the list.
>
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
