Atlas fu, was MSA fu

Marek, always good for ideas, making up specs for an ideal star atlas, went -

>Somewhere, include a reminder that the NGC numbers increase with
>R.A.! I didn't learn this until David Kingsley told me while were in
>Australia! Why was this kept such a secret by all the atlas
>writers?! I suspect that more people know the nuclear launch codes
>than know that little tidbit about the NGC. Sheesh.

It's just you, m'man. Obvious the first time you look at a star
atlas. NGC numbers go up as you move east. The fact that NGC 1 is
right along 0.00 RA is a dead giveaway. Also, you go down a list of
objects listed by NGC number, and the RA goes up accordingly. Like in
DeepMap, Sky Catalogue 2000, Sinnott's NGC 2000.0 book ... Ah, the
impetuousness of youth.

Marek, you're great. This has been a very satisfying moment here.
Thanks, bud. This is what it's like in a tribe.

Thought number 2 - I don't get why people want to handle star atlases
with kid gloves. My SkyAtlas has gone out with me endless times over
the years, gotten wiped off from dew ad nauseum. It's in fine shape.
Same with UM2000, which gets hauled out and used plenty. Those heavy
pages are durable.

That said, Jay Freeman has a p#ss elegant system for keeping MSA flat
and dry, with a box and piece of plexi. He described it in handy
detail here on TAC lo these many years ago.

3 - I was in love with H-B for about one year. The drill-down format
is great. The BM run of charts, that shows Vm for all visible stars,
is great. The unlabelled objects drove me nuts, esp in the Bowl of
the Dipper when I did a long project there. And maybe someone can use
the complex icon code for galaxies, not me, I tried sincerely.
Jardine has lately been running into editing errors with H-B.

4 - Portuesi might as well have been speaking as my attorney when he went -

>Uranometria goes deep enough for starhopping with a finderscope, and
>the second edition Uranometria actually plots more deep-sky objects
>than MSA. I'm not sure what I (personally) would do with MSA, since
>Uranometria really does everything I want out of a deep-sky atlas to
>use at the scope.

Uranometria is an incredible piece of work. The indexing system is
pure art. The DeepSky Field Guide is accurate at professional levels
for solid data. I still use SkyAtlas as a default, then go to UM2000
for questions and for discoveries (like that little third galaxy in
Eridanus last Saturday week). Must say out loud for folks, though,
that my copy of Edmund's Mag 6 sure got used over years. Took about 4
years to go thru it thoroughly, with detours.

Shameless plug, esp for rookies, there's a thorough guide to paper
atlases on the TAC pages - Your Astronomy Questions ... Beginner's
section - sage advice > Paper atlases
http://observers.org/beginner/paperatlases.html

21 October is the birthday of not only Dizzy Gillespie but Pele.
We're in the presence of genius.
Cheers,
DDK

-- 
Jamie Dillon <mavericks@No-Spam> <*>
TAC, astro anarchy at work  http://observers.org)
"We now know that nobody lives on Mars,
   at least not year round."  Dave Barry