Re: (IAAC) Obj: Jonckherre 320 - Inst: 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain equatorial mount
You're the second person who has said that the Footprint doesn't look
stellar. When I said that it was the most stellar of the bunch, I was
referring to the fact that I passed it over on two different nights with my
10" scope at 219x. Then I looked up some information about the Footprint,
found out that it was very small, and decided t try it with higher
magnifications. It turns out that I had observed the Footprint on both
previous occasions, but had mistaken it for a star.
Here is my logged observation from when I finally saw it through the 10" at
319x and 394x: Can just tell this nebula is non-stellar at 319x. It is
clearer at 392x, but the seeing begins to blur the stars. The nebula is
tiny, fairly bright, slightly oval, with an even smaller, fainter, roundish
patch close to the SE. 9.8 magntude star preceding. At low powers the
Footprint looks like a star.
The other three nebulas that I mentioned did not require such high powers to
pick them out.
Clear skies, Sue
From: Lew Gramer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Internet Amateur Astronomers Catalog - Discussion
Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: (IAAC) Obj: Jonckherre 320 - Inst: 17" f/15 classical
Cassegrain equatorial mount
>I'd have to agree with Owen that Minkowski's Footprint (M1-92) is not
>really stellar - in fact, at 360x in the 20" for me, "small but diffuse"
>might be a better description.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'netastrocatalog' lists, use the Web form at: