Richard Crisp writes (on another thread which I am trying not to continue):
> And how many can
> say that when you are seeking out an object to observe through an eyepiece,
> that you have not looked at an image of it ahead of time to know what the
> beast looks like so you will know you are on-target?
Really, do most people do this? I don't (usually). Even if I did,
I'd probably forget which object looked like what before I finished
setting the telescope up.
Fun observing project: find an object without knowing anything about it,
its size or brightness or shape or even type (though that last is
difficult since basically all star atlases use different symbols
for galaxies, nebulae, etc.) Observe the object carefully and try
to figure out as much as you can about it. Make a sketch or a note
of its shape. Then later, look it up and see how close you were,
how good your observation skills were.
There's a similar game with planetary moons. You can study ahead of
time and figure out exactly where that faint moon should be, then say
"Um ... I think I see it"; but I don't entirely trust myself not to
imagine things, so I prefer to make a sketch showing "I saw one object
here and maybe a second one here", then check afterward and see if one
of them was the moon I was looking for. (Even better, with Jupiter,
try to figure out which Galilean is which without looking it up first.)
If you know ahead of time what you're looking for, that can bias your
observation and lead you to "see" more than you really see. Of course,
it can also help in seeing really elusive detail -- like studying the
Horsehead or the faint galaxies near M13 every time you go out, getting
familiar with the area so that when you hit that super-transparent night
you'll be ready. That's fun, too.
...Akkana (in case anyone wants to talk about observing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 11:35:57 MST