April 2003 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Today's NASA Briefing
by Patrick Wiggins 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Two things of note out of today's briefing. 1) The briefer noted they have received 132 reports of found debris in CA, 130 in AZ and 9 in NM but that none had been confirmed. He made no mention of Utah. 2) The picture mentioned in the Aviation Week article was shown. Some of the media has been playing it up as being "hi resolution". Don't know that I'd call it hi-res but it does show the shape of the orbiter and maybe there's "something" with the left wing but the image is so pixcelated it's hard to say for sure. No doubt the picture will be all over the TV tonight.

6 19

New Saturn Picture
by Siegfried Jachmann 27 Oct '04

27 Oct '04

Joe, I see it the same way and wondered the same thing even before reading your post. The ring is not parallel with the belts. I'm also wondering where the top of the planet disappeared to. Siegfried Jachmann Family History Network Comptroller 801-553-8881

6 9

Re: [Utah-astronomy] NGC5139
by UTAHDEB＠aol.com 01 May '03

01 May '03

Jim, We must be on the same wavelength. Last night, I was checking out Omega Centauri on the Sky and Telescope interactive chart. I was trying to figure out when it would be highest in the sky. I saw it last year down here just over the Arizona border. My scope was in a complete horizontal position but it was in the eyepiece (22 Panoptic). I guess I got lucky because I didn't know when the cluster was at its highest point in the sky. I just love this cluster. It is about the size of the full moon. M13 is about half of it's size. Keep in mind this NGC 5139 is at its highest when Spica is at its highest. If you haven't seen this cluster, I'd suggest coming down to St. George this spring. Also check out the Centaurus A galaxy. It is higher up in the sky than the Omega Centauri cluster. Debbie

5 9

PPPP
by Patrick Wiggins 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

For all those who have expressed interest, the final pour of Patrick's Pompous Pier Project was accomplished today. I now have 12 tons of concrete and steel curing under and in my observatory. Patrick President & presenter, Patrick's Pompous Pier Project :-)

2 1

Re: Halo
by David L Bennett 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

On Sunday, Apr 27, 2003, at 22:42 US/Mountain, Patrick Wiggins wrote: > > SLAS member Roger Butz caught an unusual sundog on film a few years > back. > > While the picture has been submitted to the SLAS site, for now you can > see it as > image #003 at > > http://planet.state.ut.us/slas/rogerb/ROGERB.HTML I was very curious about this photo of Roger Butz' having not seen anything like it myself. I found a good website ( http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/atoptics/phenom.htm ) which has examples- both photographic and simulated - of all sorts of atmospheric phenomena. In Roger's photo you see the 22 degree radius Halo and another halo easily seen on the left side of the photo coming out of his 'fist'. This arc continues through his fist and can be traced through the bottom right portion of the photo. (The other 'arcs' in the photo - top right, left, and again near the right side of the fist- appear to be only clouds.) This second halo is the unusual bit. From the photos available on the website this second arc appears to be a Parhelic Circle, though there are no parhelia (sundogs) as far as I can tell in the photo. The Parhelic Circle is always very white (compared to the colors in the 22 degree Halo) and often mistaken for clouds. When it is complete it goes all around the sky. http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/circum.htm http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/parcirc.htm If anyone else has any other ideas and photographic examples of what the second halo is I would be very interested to hear. Dave Bennett

4 5

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How bright is bright?
by Brent Watson 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Jim, I'll bet with care and training you'll easily see deeper than 10th magnitude in your back yard. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > BrentThanks for taking time to answer my enquiries. > You wrote:The descriptions in my books are from J. > L. E. > Dreyer's reference "New General Catalog" I just > ordered the book from Amazon.com. Good. I like > consistency. I am also glad to know how objects are > characterized. But darn! Most of the galaxies in > Virgo are 9s or better. I won't be seeing them from > my back yard except on exceptional nights. About the > states, I probably learned it from you and forgot > where I learned it; see, it's mine now. ThanksJim > > Brent Watson <brentjwatson(a)yahoo.com> wrote:I just > about died rolling on the floor laughing over > your typo. > > I consider bright to be anything over 8th magnitude. > > Sure, you'll be able to see fainter from your back > yard, but the real faint stuff you can save for a > dark > site. > > Charles Messier saw all of his objects with the > equivalent of an 8" scope from Paris. It wasn't as > light polluted, but it was very air polluted from > heating fires burning coal. You should be able to > see > 12th mag and fainter from a dark site. > > It will help if you keep your self dark adapted. > Keep > one eye (your observing eye) closed unless you are > actuallly looking through the eyepiece. You can also > put a coat, blanket, or other dark cloth over your > head while you observe to keep out stray light. > > As far as size goes, 11X9 is one third the size of > the > full moon!. The moon is only 30 minutes of arc. Of > course, you won't see the full extent of many > galaxies > because they are too faint in the extremeties. > > Also, an 8th magnitude galaxy is fainter than an 8th > magnitude star. Extended objects like galaxies and > nebulae are characterized by surface brightness. The > magnitude rating is taking all of the light from an > object and putting it into the size of a star. In > other words, there is as much light in an 8th > magnitude galaxy, bt it is spread out across the > size > of the galaxy making the surface brightness fainter. > > Your mirror is functioning as a 12.4 inch telescope > with that chip taken out of it. This assumes that > you > have only masked the chip out and not the entire > ring > around the diameter of the mirror. You really should > not see a bunch of difference with the chip gone. > > The descriptions in my books are from J. L. E. > Dreyer's reference "New General Catalog" and the > "Index Catalog" by the same author. They are not > mine, unless they are in the text after the > "description". The initials of those works should > look familiar - NGC and IC. > > M62 would not have migrated into a new constellation > due to precession. The constellation (constipation > :>)boundaries also precess, so once the line is > drawn, > it moves with the stars. I am not sure of the reason > why Burnham placed it in Scorpius. He may have had > erroneous coordinates or ????? > > Your analogy of states is one I have used for years. > > The constellations are the states, and the stars are > the cities within the states. If you want to go > somewhere, you always check the map. The same is > true > of the stars. > > Keep looking up. > Brent > > --- Jim Gibson wrote: > > Brent > > I like your 2 books, Finder Charts of The Messier > > Objects, with the Telrad positions. I have some > > questions about the descriptions though. First, a > > little explanation of where I am coming from. > Using > > your charts I was able to locate M51. Needless to > > say it was considerably less thrilling a view than > > the cover picture on Burnahm's Celestial Handbook > > Vol. I. Although, to view it with a 11.3 inch > > mirror ( I figure that's what I have left after > > taking a big chip out of a 12.5 inch mirror) was > > still satisfying. The picture for me was not well > > resolved. The day had been windy and there was > allot > > of dust in the air and the skys over Pleasant > Grove > > are getting more light polluted by the day. I saw > > two fuzzys more separated than I expected after > > seeing the picture. Under the conditions described > I > > was not able to see the spiral arms causing the > > appearance of widely separated fuzzys. In my mind > I > > can still see two fuzzys (not well resolved), not > > really bright, but more than faint. I would call > M65 > > - 66 faint from what I have seen. > > OK. now that you might better understand where my > > question is coming form, in your book I on page 50 > > under the heading M51 there is this word "Bright" > > describing an object of Mag 8.1 and of size 11' X > > 8'. Then in book II on page 37 under the heading > M94 > > (which is just down the street from M51) there are > > the words "Very bright" describing an object of > Mag > > 8.1 size of 11' X 9'. The question is, what > > constitutes bright? Is that bright if you are on > > top of Mauna Kea or do you need a full 12.5 inches > > in Pleasant Grove to see bright? Are all objects > > with the same magnitued rating just as easy/hard > to > > see; say a galaxy vs. an open cluster vs. a star? > > Oh, and nebula too? > > I have only seen M65 - M66 from SPOC. So I am > > guessing that any object with a Mag of 9.0 or > higher > > I may not be able to see from my backyard; heaven > > forbid I should use a filter. > > By the way, for some reason I was checking the > > number of Messier Objects in Scorpius in Burnhams > > and in your books. I noticed that there is a > > discrepancy of one. On page 1652 of Burnhams > > handbook he lists M62 in Scorpius. You, on the > other > > hand, have M62 in Ophiuchus. I figured since I was > > kind of teasing you above I had better end with > due > > respect. You are right. According to Wil Tirion's > > SkyAtlas 2000.0 M62 is in Ophiuchus. Or was it in > > Scorpius when Burnham wrote the book (1979) and > > because of precession M62 is now in Ophichus? > > What is interesting though is in the SkyAtlas > chart > > there is a dotted line that separates the area of > > the sky by name; kind of like states. The dotted > > line between Scorpius and Ophichus start about > > 18080s3001, or something, and as it continues west > > the line departs from the -30 degree line. I > wonder > > why the cartographers didn't just follow the -30 > > degree line. Maybe they did originally and because > > of precession they had to move the dotted line. > > Anyway I think that's what caused M62 to end up > just > > barely in Ophiuchus. I implied that the dotted > lines > > move, but I dont know that. Do the dotted lines > > move (the borders between constipations) because > of > > precession and if not will the constellation > Scorpio > > end up in Ophiuchus someday like the First Point > of > > Aries now being in Pisces? That would be a mess. > > Jim > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.> > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How bright is bright?
by Brent Watson 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Yes, bright is under 8th magnitude. Its a comedy of errors on this thread! Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > BrentThanks for taking time to answer my enquiries. > You wrote:The descriptions in my books are from J. > L. E. > Dreyer's reference "New General Catalog" I just > ordered the book from Amazon.com. Good. I like > consistency. I am also glad to know how objects are > characterized. But darn! Most of the galaxies in > Virgo are 9s or better. I won't be seeing them from > my back yard except on exceptional nights. About the > states, I probably learned it from you and forgot > where I learned it; see, it's mine now. ThanksJim > > Brent Watson <brentjwatson(a)yahoo.com> wrote:I just > about died rolling on the floor laughing over > your typo. > > I consider bright to be anything over 8th magnitude. > > Sure, you'll be able to see fainter from your back > yard, but the real faint stuff you can save for a > dark > site. > > Charles Messier saw all of his objects with the > equivalent of an 8" scope from Paris. It wasn't as > light polluted, but it was very air polluted from > heating fires burning coal. You should be able to > see > 12th mag and fainter from a dark site. > > It will help if you keep your self dark adapted. > Keep > one eye (your observing eye) closed unless you are > actuallly looking through the eyepiece. You can also > put a coat, blanket, or other dark cloth over your > head while you observe to keep out stray light. > > As far as size goes, 11X9 is one third the size of > the > full moon!. The moon is only 30 minutes of arc. Of > course, you won't see the full extent of many > galaxies > because they are too faint in the extremeties. > > Also, an 8th magnitude galaxy is fainter than an 8th > magnitude star. Extended objects like galaxies and > nebulae are characterized by surface brightness. The > magnitude rating is taking all of the light from an > object and putting it into the size of a star. In > other words, there is as much light in an 8th > magnitude galaxy, bt it is spread out across the > size > of the galaxy making the surface brightness fainter. > > Your mirror is functioning as a 12.4 inch telescope > with that chip taken out of it. This assumes that > you > have only masked the chip out and not the entire > ring > around the diameter of the mirror. You really should > not see a bunch of difference with the chip gone. > > The descriptions in my books are from J. L. E. > Dreyer's reference "New General Catalog" and the > "Index Catalog" by the same author. They are not > mine, unless they are in the text after the > "description". The initials of those works should > look familiar - NGC and IC. > > M62 would not have migrated into a new constellation > due to precession. The constellation (constipation > :>)boundaries also precess, so once the line is > drawn, > it moves with the stars. I am not sure of the reason > why Burnham placed it in Scorpius. He may have had > erroneous coordinates or ????? > > Your analogy of states is one I have used for years. > > The constellations are the states, and the stars are > the cities within the states. If you want to go > somewhere, you always check the map. The same is > true > of the stars. > > Keep looking up. > Brent > > --- Jim Gibson wrote: > > Brent > > I like your 2 books, Finder Charts of The Messier > > Objects, with the Telrad positions. I have some > > questions about the descriptions though. First, a > > little explanation of where I am coming from. > Using > > your charts I was able to locate M51. Needless to > > say it was considerably less thrilling a view than > > the cover picture on Burnahm's Celestial Handbook > > Vol. I. Although, to view it with a 11.3 inch > > mirror ( I figure that's what I have left after > > taking a big chip out of a 12.5 inch mirror) was > > still satisfying. The picture for me was not well > > resolved. The day had been windy and there was > allot > > of dust in the air and the skys over Pleasant > Grove > > are getting more light polluted by the day. I saw > > two fuzzys more separated than I expected after > > seeing the picture. Under the conditions described > I > > was not able to see the spiral arms causing the > > appearance of widely separated fuzzys. In my mind > I > > can still see two fuzzys (not well resolved), not > > really bright, but more than faint. I would call > M65 > > - 66 faint from what I have seen. > > OK. now that you might better understand where my > > question is coming form, in your book I on page 50 > > under the heading M51 there is this word "Bright" > > describing an object of Mag 8.1 and of size 11' X > > 8'. Then in book II on page 37 under the heading > M94 > > (which is just down the street from M51) there are > > the words "Very bright" describing an object of > Mag > > 8.1 size of 11' X 9'. The question is, what > > constitutes bright? Is that bright if you are on > > top of Mauna Kea or do you need a full 12.5 inches > > in Pleasant Grove to see bright? Are all objects > > with the same magnitued rating just as easy/hard > to > > see; say a galaxy vs. an open cluster vs. a star? > > Oh, and nebula too? > > I have only seen M65 - M66 from SPOC. So I am > > guessing that any object with a Mag of 9.0 or > higher > > I may not be able to see from my backyard; heaven > > forbid I should use a filter. > > By the way, for some reason I was checking the > > number of Messier Objects in Scorpius in Burnhams > > and in your books. I noticed that there is a > > discrepancy of one. On page 1652 of Burnhams > > handbook he lists M62 in Scorpius. You, on the > other > > hand, have M62 in Ophiuchus. I figured since I was > > kind of teasing you above I had better end with > due > > respect. You are right. According to Wil Tirion's > > SkyAtlas 2000.0 M62 is in Ophiuchus. Or was it in > > Scorpius when Burnham wrote the book (1979) and > > because of precession M62 is now in Ophichus? > > What is interesting though is in the SkyAtlas > chart > > there is a dotted line that separates the area of > > the sky by name; kind of like states. The dotted > > line between Scorpius and Ophichus start about > > 18080s3001, or something, and as it continues west > > the line departs from the -30 degree line. I > wonder > > why the cartographers didn't just follow the -30 > > degree line. Maybe they did originally and because > > of precession they had to move the dotted line. > > Anyway I think that's what caused M62 to end up > just > > barely in Ophiuchus. I implied that the dotted > lines > > move, but I dont know that. Do the dotted lines > > move (the borders between constipations) because > of > > precession and if not will the constellation > Scorpio > > end up in Ophiuchus someday like the First Point > of > > Aries now being in Pisces? That would be a mess. > > Jim > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.> > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How bright is bright?
by Brent Watson 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

I just about died rolling on the floor laughing over your typo. I consider bright to be anything over 8th magnitude. Sure, you'll be able to see fainter from your back yard, but the real faint stuff you can save for a dark site. Charles Messier saw all of his objects with the equivalent of an 8" scope from Paris. It wasn't as light polluted, but it was very air polluted from heating fires burning coal. You should be able to see 12th mag and fainter from a dark site. It will help if you keep your self dark adapted. Keep one eye (your observing eye) closed unless you are actuallly looking through the eyepiece. You can also put a coat, blanket, or other dark cloth over your head while you observe to keep out stray light. As far as size goes, 11X9 is one third the size of the full moon!. The moon is only 30 minutes of arc. Of course, you won't see the full extent of many galaxies because they are too faint in the extremeties. Also, an 8th magnitude galaxy is fainter than an 8th magnitude star. Extended objects like galaxies and nebulae are characterized by surface brightness. The magnitude rating is taking all of the light from an object and putting it into the size of a star. In other words, there is as much light in an 8th magnitude galaxy, bt it is spread out across the size of the galaxy making the surface brightness fainter. Your mirror is functioning as a 12.4 inch telescope with that chip taken out of it. This assumes that you have only masked the chip out and not the entire ring around the diameter of the mirror. You really should not see a bunch of difference with the chip gone. The descriptions in my books are from J. L. E. Dreyer's reference "New General Catalog" and the "Index Catalog" by the same author. They are not mine, unless they are in the text after the "description". The initials of those works should look familiar - NGC and IC. M62 would not have migrated into a new constellation due to precession. The constellation (constipation :>)boundaries also precess, so once the line is drawn, it moves with the stars. I am not sure of the reason why Burnham placed it in Scorpius. He may have had erroneous coordinates or ????? Your analogy of states is one I have used for years. The constellations are the states, and the stars are the cities within the states. If you want to go somewhere, you always check the map. The same is true of the stars. Keep looking up. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Brent > I like your 2 books, Finder Charts of The Messier > Objects, with the Telrad positions. I have some > questions about the descriptions though. First, a > little explanation of where I am coming from. Using > your charts I was able to locate M51. Needless to > say it was considerably less thrilling a view than > the cover picture on Burnahm's Celestial Handbook > Vol. I. Although, to view it with a 11.3 inch > mirror ( I figure that's what I have left after > taking a big chip out of a 12.5 inch mirror) was > still satisfying. The picture for me was not well > resolved. The day had been windy and there was allot > of dust in the air and the skys over Pleasant Grove > are getting more light polluted by the day. I saw > two fuzzys more separated than I expected after > seeing the picture. Under the conditions described I > was not able to see the spiral arms causing the > appearance of widely separated fuzzys. In my mind I > can still see two fuzzys (not well resolved), not > really bright, but more than faint. I would call M65 > - 66 faint from what I have seen. > OK. now that you might better understand where my > question is coming form, in your book I on page 50 > under the heading M51 there is this word "Bright" > describing an object of Mag 8.1 and of size 11' X > 8'. Then in book II on page 37 under the heading M94 > (which is just down the street from M51) there are > the words "Very bright" describing an object of Mag > 8.1 size of 11' X 9'. The question is, what > constitutes bright? Is that bright if you are on > top of Mauna Kea or do you need a full 12.5 inches > in Pleasant Grove to see bright? Are all objects > with the same magnitued rating just as easy/hard to > see; say a galaxy vs. an open cluster vs. a star? > Oh, and nebula too? > I have only seen M65 - M66 from SPOC. So I am > guessing that any object with a Mag of 9.0 or higher > I may not be able to see from my backyard; heaven > forbid I should use a filter. > By the way, for some reason I was checking the > number of Messier Objects in Scorpius in Burnhams > and in your books. I noticed that there is a > discrepancy of one. On page 1652 of Burnhams > handbook he lists M62 in Scorpius. You, on the other > hand, have M62 in Ophiuchus. I figured since I was > kind of teasing you above I had better end with due > respect. You are right. According to Wil Tirion's > SkyAtlas 2000.0 M62 is in Ophiuchus. Or was it in > Scorpius when Burnham wrote the book (1979) and > because of precession M62 is now in Ophichus? > What is interesting though is in the SkyAtlas chart > there is a dotted line that separates the area of > the sky by name; kind of like states. The dotted > line between Scorpius and Ophichus start about > 18080s3001, or something, and as it continues west > the line departs from the -30 degree line. I wonder > why the cartographers didn't just follow the -30 > degree line. Maybe they did originally and because > of precession they had to move the dotted line. > Anyway I think that's what caused M62 to end up just > barely in Ophiuchus. I implied that the dotted lines > move, but I dont know that. Do the dotted lines > move (the borders between constipations) because of > precession and if not will the constellation Scorpio > end up in Ophiuchus someday like the First Point of > Aries now being in Pisces? That would be a mess. > Jim > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.> _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How bright is bright?
by Jim Gibson 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Oops. That was suposed to be "(the borders between constellation)". I misspelled constellation some way and I just took the first option on the spell checker. Sorry. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

1 0

Correction
by Patrick Wiggins 23 Apr '03

23 Apr '03

Oops, for the nit pickers out there (grin) I just noticed I erred in my last post. The pier is 4 meters tall but the footer only goes down one meter and is 1.5 meters square. That's about 12 tons of concrete and steel. Somehow I think it'll still be standing long after the house falls down. :-) Patrick

5 8