Re: The one true H400 variant

From: Jason Newquist (jason@No-Spam)
Date: Thu Dec 20 2001 - 07:59:44 MST

  • Next message: Peter Natscher: "Friday Night Observing"

    On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Dillon, Dillon, & Kuh wrote:

    > For me myself, I say skeearoo the Herschels. There was a discussion of this
    > list on amastro last month, whether it's the mark of a true observer.
    > Brack. Now of course it's a very nice pin, let no man gainsay it. I'd just
    > much rather go with lists of gaudier objects. The Dickinsons form a serious
    > list, all cool objects, and they are keeping me nicely off the streets a
    > year and a half already (with numerous side excursions).

    The "Dickinsons" are, as I recall, the compiled DSO described in
    depth on the B-side pages of the Edmunds Mag 6 Star Atlas. Is this
    correct, Jamie?

    From my limited experience with this atlas, I think this is a
    wonderful post-Messier list to accomplish, and I dare say that it's
    what I'll be attempting once I run out of Messiers.

    > When I become the
    > only person I know with the Dickinsons under their belt, DeepMap will be
    > the next checklist. M. Marcus is doing that list and very happy with the
    > eyecandy.

    I've heard very good things about the DeepMap 600 too. That list
    seems, from my readings, to be a true "best of" list, while the H400
    seems to include quite a few... what's the polite term? "Challenge
    objects?" Yes, that.

    > Then on to SkyAtlas. And Burnham's, what a great list!

    A list of lists!

    Yes, indeed. Albert has been very generous with sharing the details
    of and his approach with the SkyAtlas list. And with the
    publication of the companion volume for that atlas, I think it makes
    a sensible Big List.

    I think you've put signposts down along a wonderful path, one after
    my own heart. The H400 isn't a list that fires my imagination --
    perhaps it seems too artificial, or too design-by-committee, or too
    inconsistent. With the Dickinsons and the DM600, you at least get
    one man's opinion of the best objects out there, in reach of a
    certain telescope size. This appeals to me.

    And then there are those lists which dwarf all others -- those lists
    that may require the purchase of a larger telescope. I'm thinking,
    in particular, of Kepple and Sanner. Isn't Bob Czerwinski
    attempting a Night Sky Observers Guide survey?

    > Clear skies a requisite,

    Verily. God's teeth, my work schedule doth suck. I think I'm going
    to bite the bullet and just forego sleep in order to get out. I may
    be amassing gray hairs at an alarming rate, but I think I've got
    some youthful vigor left in my bones. ;-)

    Jason Newquist
    Santa Clara, California



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 20 2001 - 08:00:50 MST


    The Astronomy Connection -- Mailing List Archives