Fat, dumb, and lucky - uncovering the ghost of a cosmic gem
“No object in the Messier catalog has proven more troublesome, more elusive, more provocative to amateur astronomers . . .”
That’s how Stephen James O’Meara, one of the best, if not the best, visual observers alive today describes M74, a distant galaxy, that topped my observing list last night. What was interesting was I had chosen the object totally casually, not having a clue how difficult it was. In fact, my whole observing session was impromptu because the clear weather had caught me by surprise and for various reasons I was reduced to using a tiny 5-inch Celestron NexStar SE in my observatory. But without properly dark adapting my aging eyes, nor knowing the challenge I faced, I found M74 immediately, centered the ghostly object using a wide field, 21mm Hyperion eyepiece, and put a video camera in the 5-inch. I had hardly been out five minutes and I still didn’t know how difficult M74 was supposed to be!
Mind you – M74 did not jump out at me. Even in the video camera it was ghostly. Here’s a snapshot from the computer screen of M74 as seen through the 5-inch using the MallinCam. The view live was a bit better, but either way it’s just a ghost of what the Digitized Sky Survey image of it reveals, as the two images below show. However, even seeing this much of an object made up of billions of Suns whose light started it’s journey when mammals were just settling into secure niches on planet Earth and hominids weren’t even a gleam in evolution’s eye – well, that blows my mind and always will. And make no mistake abut it - in the final analysis it's the mind's eye that counts here - but what you use to bring it to bear on the subject helps.
Look carefully at the image on the left. You may have to tilt your computer screen to see it at its best. But if you do this and also look carefully at the image on the right, you'll see that what is on the left really is a ghostly version of what is on the right. I can appreciate that some people may find this a crazy quest, but all I can tell you is it's the gestalt that counts - the total experience of being there in the observatory with these photons - from eyepiece or videocamera - pinging your brain.
But the lesson I draw from this is simpler and goes beyond this one faint galaxy. It’s this: Amateur astronomers tend to start out putting too much focus on the telescope they purchase, usually moving through a succession of instruments and usually obsessing on getting the largest they can afford. I did. But if I were starting all over today, I’d go a much different route. This is what my priorities would be:
1. Buy or build a nice little observatory. This should give me a secure base from which to approach the universe with the most comfort and the least hassle – or set-up time – possible. As I walked out to the observatory last night I had nothing but a Post-it note stuffed in my pocket with a few numbers jotted on it, a cup of hot chocolate in one hand and a tiny video camera in the other. Because my scope was in “hibernate” mode, set-up consisted of opening the shutter to the observing dome and telling the scope the date and time. Everything else I could possibly want for a total and comfortable observing experience was already in the observatory.
2. But I don’t care if all you have is a good pair of binoculars, learning the night sky from inside the observatory is great. In fact my first purchase of optics would be a decent pair of binoculars. But if I had the funds, I’d put a permanent pier in the observatory that can hold any of a number of scopes. On mine right now is the Celestron NexStar 5 SE. This is not a premier scope. I think I paid $600 for it about a year ago - I bought it for its light weight and easy portability – and I consider it the smallest, least expensive, totally “go to” scope you can get. (Well, actually the 4-inch in the same line is $100 cheaper and I think would also fill the bill.) Notice that with both scope and observatory the emphasis is on convenience and ease of use. That’s not because I can’t do things the hard way. It’s because my enthusiasm is greater and my time much better spent, if I make all the mechanical steps easy and maximize the creature comforts with the least amount of hassle.
3. My next astronomy investment would be a good, deep sky capable, video camera, such as the MallinCam, though I suspect it’s main competitor, Adirondack’s Astrovid StellaCam, is a good choice as well. Even in a small scope, the video camera makes deep sky objects, such as galaxies and nebula, start to look like you expect them to look from your reading of basic astronomy books. Yeah, M74 is a far cry from its splendid self, but that’s a tough example. For seeing faint objects, the video camera more than doubles the size of my scope. The planets, moon, double stars, and star clusters all look fine visually in a small scope, but you need a video camera to avoid disappointment with most of the “faint fuzzies” we call deep sky objects. Again, the emphasis is on ease – the video camera is the simplest, fastest way to get into imaging and experience stuff live, in real time.
Hey – am I ready to turn in my 15-inch Obsession? Of course not. Bigger gives me more and the set-up time for it is still brief - just not quite so easy, so convenient, nor so snug as observing inside the small, domed building. (I would be just as comfortable with a small building and sliding roof – but truth is, if I were doing it over again I would go up one size in the building. My dome is just 6-feet in diameter and the building just 8x10. I’d prefer an 8-foot dome (or sliding roof) and a 10X12 foot building. )
Now – back to last night.
The NexStar 5 was in the place of honor because both the NexStar 8 and Meade LX90 8-inch have computer problems right now and are in for repairs. I was expecting partly cloud skies at best. But I glanced out, it was clear, and so while I nuked the water for my hot chocolate I jotted down a few observing targets for the evening run. Armed with a minimum amount of information I was dumb enough to think I could see M74 with the 5-inch on a marginal night and so I could.
Exactly how surprising this was didn’t become apparent to me, until I shut down for the night, went back in, and curled up with O’Meara’s “The Messier Objects,” one of my favorite guides which I usually review before I observe. That’s when I learned that he thinks M74 is the toughest object in the whole Messier catalog – but strangely there’s an edge for small scopes!
My crude observing plan was to move through three, face-on spiral galaxies in succession. I planned to start with the familiar M33, which at 2.5 million light years was close, but spread-out and thus a minor challenge. M74 seemed like a challenge as well, but at magnitude 9 should be OK and it was about 36 million light years away according to the chart I checked. And M77 – I thought that would be the real test, though it too was listed as magnitude 9, it was - according to this source – about twice as far away as M74.
Turns out, M77 was a real easy target. Using the 5-inch and the 21mm Hyperion, I spotted it immediately – in fact, at first I thought it might be a double-star, but I was mistaken. One portion of this “double” definitely had some nebulosity about it, so I knew it was M77. However, M74 was another story. On a whim I started with it and I don’t feel I observed it so much as detected it. But here’s the thing. My eyes were far from fully dark adapted and while the sky was clear, it was not crystal clear –I had maybe magnitude 4.5 skies it seemed. But not knowing how difficult it would be, I followed the “precise go-to” routine and saw M74 immediately as a ghostly haze in the upper, left-hand corner of the eyepiece. I carefully centered it, decided trying to eek out much detail from such a faint smudge wasn’t worth the time, so I switched to the video view. (I think part of the reason I saw it so quickly visually, however, is that the Hyperion 21mm eyepiece I was using has great contrast. I would include a set of these eyepieces on my priority list along with the small scope. They’re not cheap, but at $130 each ($99 on sale recently) they sure deliver a lot for the money.
Well, you’ve seen the video view. I went wow, did a few minutes contemplation of the screen as I sipped the hot chocolate, then moved on to M33. When I came in and turned to O’Meara it was not because of M74, but because I wasn’t absolutely sure about M77. Although both M74 and M77 had been listed at magnitude 9, M77 was far, far easier to see. It was so easy I really thought I might have had the wrong object for M77. Of course the way they rate the brightness of diffuse objects such as galaxies is always a bit confusing. The figures used are for total light so while the numbers were the same, M77 simply has its light more concentrated making it the easier target. But when I read O’Meara’s description of M74, I wanted to go out and give the little 5-inch scope a big kiss. (Somewhere that wouldn’t smudge the optics, of course ;-) What an incredible job it did considering my old eyes, the average transparency, and my lack of dark adaption. Here’s what O’Meara writes about M74:
“In small telescopes it is more like a phantom, which is the nickname I have given it. No object in the Messier catalog has proven more troublesome, more elusive, more provocative to amateur astronomers than this giant spiral. The problem is that the galaxies large apparent size (10’.5) and very low surface brightness require a very dark sky for it to be seen well, if at all. . . . I searched for M74 many nights with Harvard Observatory’s 9-inch refractor without success. The fact is, so large an aperture under less than perfect skies doomed my quest before it even started. It’s best to use a small aperture instrument, low power, and a wide field of view on the finest of nights.”
OK – I had three out of four – small aperture, low power, and a wide field of view. But I’m still amazed I saw it. I did not see it as O’Meara did with his 4-inch Genesis from high up his mountain in Hawaii, of course. His skies are both dark and clear – so dark and clear he feels his 4-inch scope is the equivalent of an 8-inch scope used at a site like mine. And I don’t have his eyes, patience, or observing skills. To make his relatively detailed drawing he observed for several hours on several different nights.
And as for M77 – yep, I had that one pegged too. I had abandoned the video camera by then, but as I said, this was easy visually and it turns out that the reason is it’s a special class of galaxy known as a “Seyfert.” Apparently the main attribute of Seyfert galaxies is an extremely bright core. Writes O’Meara:
“And indeed, the nucleus of M77 is bright. You can see it shining like a 10th magnitude star about 1° southeast of 4th magnitude delta Ceti, just west of a real 10th magnitude star; so at low power, and at first glance the two look like a fine double star.”
Right! And I might add that if you’re in this stellar neighborhood on one of these fine January nights, take a look at Mira – it’s getting close to its maximum and is an easy naked-eye star right now.
Bottom line: Each observing experience teaches me something. This one drove home the capabilities of a small scope. Yes I love the 15-inch Obsession. But I could be very happy with the Observatory, the little 5-inch Celestron, a set of Hyperion eyepieces, and my MallinCam video. That’s not such a modest array – but when I think of how much buying and selling I’ve done over the years – how many scopes I’ve tried and rejected, always looking for something . . . I’m not quite sure what . . . well, I guess the real lesson is an old one: What you see in astronomy has a lot more to do with what you know about what you’re seeing than it does with the equipment you use. You need to see with your mind – not just your eye.
Note: I find the Digitized Sky Survey a terrific way to check what I see against the reality as revealed by professional cameras at professional observatories. A piece of software called Astro Image browser makes doing this easier. But for the record, here’s the acknowledgement requested by the DSS.
Investigators using these scans are requested to include these acknowledgments in any publications as appropriate.
The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions.
The National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I) was made by the California Institute of Technology with grants from the National Geographic Society.
The Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-II) was made by the California Institute of Technology with funds from the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Sloan Foundation, the Samuel Oschin Foundation, and the Eastman Kodak Corporation.
The Oschin Schmidt Telescope is operated by the California Institute of Technology and Palomar Observatory.
The UK Schmidt Telescope was operated by the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, with funding from the UK Science and Engineering Research Council (later the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council), until 1988 June, and thereafter by the Anglo-Australian Observatory. The blue plates of the southern Sky Atlas and its Equatorial Extension (together known as the SERC-J), as well as the Equatorial Red (ER), and the Second Epoch [red] Survey (SES) were all taken with the UK Schmidt.
All data are subject to the copyright given in the copyright summary. Copyright information specific to individual plates is provided in the downloaded FITS headers.
Supplemental funding for sky-survey work at the ST ScI is provided by the European Southern Observatory.