Here's my January list of extended deep-sky objects situated between 4 and 6 hours of right ascension.

Forty-five deep-sky objects for January: M36, M37, M38, NGC 1664, NGC 1778, NGC 1857, NGC 1893, NGC 1907, NGC 1931 (Auriga); Kemble 1, NGC 1501, NGC 1502, NGC 1569 (Camelopardalis); NGC 1532, NGC 1535 (Eridanus); IC 418, M79, NGC 1964 (Lepus); B33, Collinder 70, IC 434, M42, M43, M78, NGC 1662, NGC 1977, NGC 1981, NGC 2022, NGC 2023, NGC 2024, NGC 2112, Collinder 65 (Orion); NGC 1491, NGC 1499, NGC 1513, NGC 1528, NGC 1545 (Perseus); Melotte 25, M1, NGC 1514, NGC 1587, NGC 1647, NGC 1746, NGC 1807, NGC 1817 (Taurus)

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

What is ur conclusion for those Objects above? M36, M37 and M38 those are my favor Messier Clusters ^^...Open Cluster.

all are very nice indeed

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Spectroradiometry Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Hi,

What kind of 'scope do you use Dave? I got an 8" Dobsonian, just recently, although I've been observing for some years with other scopes. Just wondered which of your object list you would expect to see in an 8" with suburban type light pollution.

Thanks!
Moose
:P

I currently own 8 telescopes (and am in the process of grinding a mirror for another) ranging from 80mm to 12.5 inches. In addition I regularly use a 17" classical Cassegrain at a club observatory. I have friends and acquaintances that own scopes as large as 32 inches that I get to use from time to time.

Very few of the objects on my list are "challenge" objects. (The Horsehead Nebula, B33, is an exception on this month's list.) They are culled from various DSO lists including the Messier Catalog, the Astronomical League's Herschel 400, the RASC's Finest N.G.C. Objects List, the Vic Menard 400, the SAA 100, and others.

Most of these objects should be visible through an 8 inch aperture under reasonably dark skies. (Some of the galaxies may be tough.) A few are large enough that a binocular or rich-field telescope is necessary for a complete view.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Wow ..I'm having Telescope Envy! Sometimes I think I'd be better of using my binoculars instead of my telescope. A small 3" newtonian celestron ... anything beyond planets (and basically the two big planets) and the moon isn't very interesting.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

In that case I might give them a go ... pending permission to completely rip off your list of course!!

thanks for the reply!

hey josh - get into double star observing .. there's hundreds of them in the reach of your scope, and you can observe many different types with many characterisitcs .. think:

1) colour of components
2) separation (distance and angle)
3) star field the double is set in
4) the difficulty of the split

there are many things that you can say about doubles, and the more you see the more you will learn about them! I had a small scope for several years, and double stars (plus star clusters) was about the only thing I was able to observe :-)

Cheers
Moose