Sunday, May 24, 2015
Going Paper
Which is the opposite of the direction we are supposed to be going
in in amateur astronomy and everything else. We are supposed be going paperless.
However, I am experimenting with that opposite, temporarily at
least. As I said not long ago, I will not give up my favorite applications like
SkyTools, Deep Sky Planner, and AstroPlanner
(more on the latter soon). Still, books appeal to the desire to simplify that
has taken hold in me of late. Also, it is nice not to have to disconnect
the computer and drag it outside.
Why would I have to disconnect a computer to take it
outside? Why not just use my astro-laptop? I lost my desktop, a nice Toshiba
all-in-one, the other day when its hard drive crashed. Should I run out and
replace it immediately? Or just tear it open and replace the failed drive? I
wasn’t sure. To tell you the truth, I am
tired of Windows. Tired of the constant updates. Tired of the frequent
revamps of the o/s. I didn’t much like Windows 8, and didn’t think I’ll like
10, either. I decided I'd use my Win 7 laptop as my primary computer while
deciding what to do.
I’d begun to think my eventual direction might be a switch
to a Macintosh desktop and, when the Toshiba laptop, my astro-computer, dies,
to an iPad or a Macbook for use in the field. But I decided not to do anything right away. It will be a busy
summer. This fall, if everything remains as it is now, maybe I’ll travel to
Huntsville’s Apple Store (we don’t have one here in Mobile) and get a nice
shiny iMac. Till then, I’d use my old Win 7 netbook for astronomy.
Which worked, sort of. SkyTools
and DSP run on the little atom processor powered thing, if not well. Not well
at all. “You know, Rod,” I thought, “there are still these things called ‘books.’”
Books, star atlases, are a longtime fascination for me. I like maps, and thought
it might be nice to use ‘em again for a while.
The only question was "Which atlas?" I've got most of the mainline atlases and decided I wouldn't mind buying one more if I thought something I didn't have would serve better. Buying a book, after all, is much less stressful than buying and setting up a new computer.
The only question was "Which atlas?" I've got most of the mainline atlases and decided I wouldn't mind buying one more if I thought something I didn't have would serve better. Buying a book, after all, is much less stressful than buying and setting up a new computer.
One thing was sure no matter which star atlas I chose, even today "print" has its advantages. You
don’t have to charge a printed book's battery, print atlases are relatively cheap, and they go deep enough for most
purposes depending on the volume in question. Funny thing, too? Despite the supposed
superiority of computer star maps, we are living in a golden age of the
star atlas with more available than ever before. There are a couple of out-of-print
MIAs, but you may be able to get even those from Amazon or Abe’s.
Before we outline what I have used and intend to use and what you might want to use if you decide to follow me,
let’s talk about what we don’t want to mess with. That is 6th
magnitude atlases, whether the original Norton’s Star Atlas, one of its reworked descendants, or any other book that only
shows star down to magnitude 6. These works are OK for 10 x 50 or smaller
binoculars, but that is it. They do not show enough stars to make star hopping
to objects easy—or sometimes possible—even with a 3-inch telescope. Yes, I know
many of us Baby Boom Astronomers have fond memories of Norton’s; it was for
many of us our first serious book of charts. But do you remember how much
easier finding stuff got when you upgraded to Skalnate Pleso (in some sense the antecedent of Sky Atlas 2000, youngsters)?
Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas
This one, by Roger Sinnott, is my current favorite grab and go atlas.
While it’s too large for the pocket of your jeans unless your name is “Incredible
Hulk,” at 6 by 9-inches it is nice and compact and easily stashed. There is a
copy permanently stationed in the top compartment of the fishing tackle box I
use as my small equipment case. Its small size does not mean it is not a powerful
tool, however.
This is a big step past Norton’s.
Pocket goes down to nearly magnitude 8 and includes 1500 deep sky objects. More
often than, not, that is all I need, even with my 12-inch scope. Despite
its compact size, the atlas does not sacrifice readability. The charts are
clear and legible with dark stars on a white sky—which most observers find
easier to read than the opposite under dim red light—and appropriate use of
color. Hard to best this for 20 bucks. Single downcheck? I wish the index of
constellations were on page one. Other than that it is hard to find fault with
Pocket. I love it.
Sky Atlas 2000
 |
| SA2000 Deluxe |
After Skalnate Pleso
came Sky Atlas 2000 by renowned
celestial cartographer Wil Tirion (who I had the pleasure of dining with at one
long ago Peach State Star Gaze). It is much like the old S-P; but has more of
everything. More stars, more deep sky objects, and, importantly, it was the
first widely available atlas for Epoch 2000. As time went on, it was produced
in versions to fit every taste.
What I used for years was the Desk Edition. Despite its
name, I found it more useful outdoors than the Field Edition, since it featured
black stars on white sky, the reverse of Field. It was on heavy stock, and was
never harmed by even my heavy dew. The size is generous, 18 x 32, and with a
limiting magnitude of 8.5 and 2700 deep sky objects, this has been my bread and
butter atlas for years. As normally sold, the charts are separate, unbound
sheets (the Field Edition is the same). I fastened mine together with binder
clips which worked fine for years.
Not fancy enough? You can step up to Sky Atlas 2000 Deluxe.
It is (spiral) bound, in color, and for many folks is all they will ever need.
Like Desk, it is white sky/dark stars and is one of the more legible sets of
charts I have encountered.
You can actually take another step up, and buy Deluxe (or
Field or Desk) with laminated charts. Frankly, I discourage that choice. The
normal paper pages are heavy enough that they, as above, have never been harmed
by my heavy Gulf Coast dew. There’s one other beauty of non-laminated. You can
write notes on your charts, a big benefit of paper. You can’t do that
with a laminated copy without resorting to dodges like grease pencils or
erasable markers. My pick is “Deluxe, unlaminated,” which will set you back
about 60 bucks and which is worth every penny.
Uranometria 2000
Mr. Tirion didn’t rest on his laurels after SA2000. In
addition to contributing to other projects, he did the cartography for the next
step up, Uranometria 2000. Tirion, Will Remaklus, and Barry Rappaport’s work was, when
it debuted, one of the most absurdly deep atlases most of us had laid
eyes on. Its stellar limiting magnitude is 9.75, and the DSO count is a full
30,000 for the 18 x 12-inch book (that’s the size of each double page chart).
 |
| Uranometria 2000 |
Is there anything bad to say about U2000? Not really, other
than the fact that at this level of detail you are beginning to push the
boundaries of what is practical with a book. You probably won’t want to use
U2000 by itself. Doing that would involve a lot of page flipping whether you
have the original two-volume edition or the current “pole to pole” one volume
version (my choice). You use it in conjunction with SA2000 or another broad
coverage atlas of your choice for close-ups when needed. 60 dollars will get
you the single volume U2000, and another 60 will get you the companion “Field
Guide,” which contains catalog data and object lists and is somewhat useful.
The Herald – Bobroff Astro Atlas
Flipping between two books, SA2000 and U2000, doesn’t sound
like much fun? There is an alternative, or at least their used to be, the Herald – Bobroff Astro Atlas (1994) from
Australia. It is notable for three things: its large size (12.5 x
16.5-inches), the amount of information contained in its pages; and its inclusion of six series of charts,.
Certainly, being big is a help. This atlas, which, as is
usual for observer’s atlases, has white skies and black stars, is eminently
readable, moreso even than SA2000 Deluxe, and is perhaps the most easily
readable atlas I’ve used. The pages are glossy, heavy, and very dew resistant.
Those big pages are also jammed with symbols that convey a
wealth of information about objects. So much, that you may not normally need
other reference materials. These symbols and labels are easy to read, but their
variety and numbers mean you tend to forget what they are. The H-B does have a
handy card that helps you decipher them, however. When I use the atlas
reasonably frequently, it’s no problem to figure out what it is trying to tell
me.
 |
| Herald-Bobroff |
There’s no denying, however, that the atlas’ big draw is
that it covers the sky three separate times, with each series going into more
detail. For crowded areas like Virgo’s Realm of the Galaxies, there are three
more series. You begin with “A,” which is comparable to Norton’s and is mostly
useful for rough navigation, move to “B” which is your “Sky Atlas 2000,” and
wind up with “C,” which is comparable to Uranometria, all under one cover. When
you need help with difficult areas, the three extra series are there to aid you
(though most of their coverage is invisible to us Northern Hemisphere
observers).
Herald – Bobroff, which I bought not long after it was
published, is my “serious” atlas; it is for those times when SA2000 is not enough.
Unfortunately, by the time I bought it, Megastar has come on the scene and I
was deserting paper. I may use it much more now than I ever have if my present
mood continues (which I believe it will), though.
Can you? Likely not. The original version has been out of
print for ages. It comes on the used market occasionally, but you can bet you
will pay far more for it than its original $90.00 price. Lymax Earth and Sky
sold a reprint in slightly smaller format for a while, but even their version
has been out of print for years. Shame, since H-B is one of the greatest print atlases
every produced. If not the deepest.
There may be salvation at hand for those of you who want
Herald-Bobroff. It’s the somewhat similar German atlas Interstallarum. It doesn’t feature H-B’s
series paradigm, but it goes deep, down to magnitude 9.75, is large, and is, like H-B, packed with informative symbols, maybe even
being an advancement over Herald-Bobroff in that regard.
The Millennium Star Atlas
Millennium is and will likely remain the penultimate
non-photographic star atlas. How could it not? Roger Sinnott and Michael
Perryman’s atlas, based on the catalog produced by the ESA’s Hipparcos
satellite, contains 1548 charts showing one million stars and some 10,000 deep
sky objects. These charts are contained in three fat volumes, and the
white-sky/black-star charts are printed on (necessarily) rather thin stock.
 |
| H-B Legend |
The physics department where I teach astronomy owns a copy
of Millennium, so I can use it whenever I choose. Alas, those times are rare. The scale of the atlas is 100-arc seconds
per millimeter for the entire sky, not much different from the view in a C8, but it turns out that is too much.
For me, Millennium's small scale makes it too
confusing to navigate with under dim red light. Yes, the pages show the field visible in the C8, but it is mirror reversed,
naturally, from what I see in my SCT—no print atlas can help with that. Even
with a larger scale atlas to assist, it is not overly pleasant to use
Millennium. The atlas’ thin pages stand up surprisingly well to dew, but to say
they are as dew resistant as those of the inexpensive SA2000 would be wrong.
Most of you won’t want to take the Millennium plunge anyway. It is currently
out of print, and used copies can sell for over 1000 dollars.
Semi Print Atlases
Finally, we have semi-print atlases. They are not usually
available for purchase printed, but can be downloaded as .pdf files and printed
by you. Most are also free. The most outstanding one so far is
probably TriAtlas by Jose Torres. It is certainly ambitious, going to freaking
magnitude 12.5 and is packed with 11,000 DSOs. While its computer generated maps
certainly don’t rival those of Tirion, it is very clearly plotted and if
you don’t mind printing hundreds of pages, might be just the thing.
There is an even deeper one by Martin Meredith, an insanely
deep one, one that goes down to magnitude 18, for God’s sake. However, with a
scale of 14-arc seconds per millimeter it is not designed to be printed out (the
full set of charts would cover an acre and you would still need a magnifying
glass to read them), and not printing out kind of misses the point here, doesn’t
it? Still, this might be nice for someone who wants the depth of a modern
computer atlas without running a computer program to get that.
So what will I use? I won’t always use a print atlas, even
when I’m exploring the sky in my new-found simplistic matter. I will usually be
back to Skytools, or Deep Sky, or Deep Sky Planner, or AstroPlanner.
However, for those fairly frequent occasions when I foresee I will want to
forego the silicon sky, I will likely use Herald-Bobroff. I think so, anyway.
We’ll take a few test runs to see if I need to fall back on the even more "simple" of Sky Atlas 2000—stay tuned.
Comments:
Uncle Rod, It's always been fun and interesting to read your blog...I'm always learning something. Your latest entries concerning visual observing and hardcopy sky atlases are great. It's been my objective and passion to promote "old fashioned" visual observing for many years also. About 25 years ago, it occurred to me that I needed more than just going outside, observing, and the next day having nothing to show for my hours out with the telescope. I started taking copious notes, but after a while, I needed more, and began sketching all of my objects with nothing more than a No. 2 pencil and a blank 5 x 8 notecard. My amateur astronomy took a great leap, and for the first time, I felt a purpose in what I had been doing since I was 12 years old. I try to make all of my sketches as accurate as possible, with no embellishment, but attempting to accurately to portray what I saw through the eyepiece. No rendering of a "Hubble" Telescope image! I then needed an outlet to share my work. I started a very simple astronomy blog a few years ago: www.rogerivester.com however, before that I co-founded the Las Vegas Astronomical Society, Observer's Challenge monthly report. www.lvastronomycom/observing-challenge It is an international observing project that allows any serious amateur the opportunity to share their observations with others, and the report is posted on the LV site and several others, including my blog. We recently celebrated our 75th consecutive monthly report. I see my work now as something of value to amateur astronomy, mostly in an attempt to get folks to enjoy what many of us did during the age of the space race. I could go on and on. The days when we would wear out those little Edmund Scientific catalogs, and dream about having one of those big and beautiful reflectors, made by Cave Optical. Unlike today, when most kids are only interested in a smart phone, video games and social media, and waiting "with baited breath" for that next text message. Uncle Rod....thank you so much for your incredible blog, and sharing with the amateur astronomy community. What a great contribution you provide, not only with your blog, but with your books, articles and other. Thanks for allowing me to share. Roger Ivester...living in the foothills of North Carolina with my beautiful wife, dachshund, and Persian cat. Life is good!
My computer problems ended when my wife Debbie said...Hey...we're going to get a MacBook Pro. That was three years ago. Being a person who never likes to change anything, I reluctantly went kicking and screaming to the Apple Store. Maybe this is the reason I could never go beyond astro-sketching with a No. 2 pencil. No I love sketching and notes. Back to computers: It took both of us a couple of months to really get used to the new system, but when we did....wow! what a revolution. Our previous and latest two "big name" Window notebooks, seemed to last only two or three years each, with tow many problems to list. With the Macbook Pro... no more virus problems, no more....every time we seemingly opened up our Windows units, it was time to update the virus protection. Another beauty is the integration between a Macbook or iMac, an iPhone, and an iPad-mini which we like much better than an iPad, due to the more convenient size. Never would I have thought I would want to go MacBook. I known "too" many of my friends and others that can share a similar experience to what Debbie and I have experienced. Singing praises for an Apple. Our seemingly daily computer problems ended three years ago when we changed to a MacBook Pro. BTW, Uncle Rod, I know you are an Engineer. I'm a retired Textile Industrial Engineer after 30 years. Roger and Debbie Ivester
<< Home
I find Sky Safari Pro on my iPad Air to be the best atlas ever. Put the iPad on Airplane mode and the brightness down to minimum and the battery will last several nights. Sky Safari is like a more easy-to-handle H-B with nearly infinate zoom; and in Sky Safari, zooming in means the magnitude threshold changes (you set how you want that for stars and DSOs separately in the Settings). For star hopping, I don't consider this setup to be a computer but rather a back-lit atlas, because that is how it behaves.
Interstellarum (new) may be the best yet! But you're right, the Pocket Sky Atlas is the one that should always be in the equipment case. It's like the road map in the glove compartment of the car. Even if you're not planning to need a map, you may see something, and it comes in handy.
# posted by 
: 12:44 PM
: 12:44 PM
Dear Uncle Rod,
I'm glad to hear that you are going back to visual observing. My favorite atlas is the "S&T Pocket Atlas" and find that it works just as good as my much larger ones, I'm just a humble backyard observer, and have never advanced beyond a No. 2 pencil, and a 5 x 8 blank notecard.
Roger Ivester www.rogerivester.com
I'm glad to hear that you are going back to visual observing. My favorite atlas is the "S&T Pocket Atlas" and find that it works just as good as my much larger ones, I'm just a humble backyard observer, and have never advanced beyond a No. 2 pencil, and a 5 x 8 blank notecard.
Roger Ivester www.rogerivester.com
# posted by : 5:22 PM
: 5:22 PM
After reading your recent post on going back to simplistic observing, I too started using my print atlas for visual stargazing with my C8 on Orion VersaGo III mount. Good to see that my choice SA2000 got a mention!
I also like my Pocket Sky Atlas. I also use a couple of iPhone apps: StarMapPro and SkyWeekPlus, alson with StarSeek Pro controlling my 'scope. These "atlases" DO fit in my pocket, LOL !!!
- George
- George
Rodster, I wouldn't be without the Pocket Sky Atlas however I'm beginning to feel the same about the new Interstellarum atlas. It's just the right size for use at the telescope and is easy to navigate. Will it replace Sky Tools? Probably not. I plan to use both.
# posted by : 9:06 AM
: 9:06 AM
I second your opinion on the Triatlas. When I first looked at it I thought it was Uranometria put into an App....Dwight
Uncle Rod, It's always been fun and interesting to read your blog...I'm always learning something. Your latest entries concerning visual observing and hardcopy sky atlases are great. It's been my objective and passion to promote "old fashioned" visual observing for many years also. About 25 years ago, it occurred to me that I needed more than just going outside, observing, and the next day having nothing to show for my hours out with the telescope. I started taking copious notes, but after a while, I needed more, and began sketching all of my objects with nothing more than a No. 2 pencil and a blank 5 x 8 notecard. My amateur astronomy took a great leap, and for the first time, I felt a purpose in what I had been doing since I was 12 years old. I try to make all of my sketches as accurate as possible, with no embellishment, but attempting to accurately to portray what I saw through the eyepiece. No rendering of a "Hubble" Telescope image! I then needed an outlet to share my work. I started a very simple astronomy blog a few years ago: www.rogerivester.com however, before that I co-founded the Las Vegas Astronomical Society, Observer's Challenge monthly report. www.lvastronomycom/observing-challenge It is an international observing project that allows any serious amateur the opportunity to share their observations with others, and the report is posted on the LV site and several others, including my blog. We recently celebrated our 75th consecutive monthly report. I see my work now as something of value to amateur astronomy, mostly in an attempt to get folks to enjoy what many of us did during the age of the space race. I could go on and on. The days when we would wear out those little Edmund Scientific catalogs, and dream about having one of those big and beautiful reflectors, made by Cave Optical. Unlike today, when most kids are only interested in a smart phone, video games and social media, and waiting "with baited breath" for that next text message. Uncle Rod....thank you so much for your incredible blog, and sharing with the amateur astronomy community. What a great contribution you provide, not only with your blog, but with your books, articles and other. Thanks for allowing me to share. Roger Ivester...living in the foothills of North Carolina with my beautiful wife, dachshund, and Persian cat. Life is good!
# posted by : 8:36 AM
: 8:36 AM
If you want to get a Computer with Windows 7 on it, you should check out TigerDirect. I purchased a laptop there for my Astronomy Club's Treasurer. It came with Win 7 with an upgrade to Win 8, which our Treasurer will never install.
Terry
Terry
Thanks, Terry...but I don't believe I really want a computer with any sort of Windows on it anymore. I am thinking iMac for my desktop.
My computer problems ended when my wife Debbie said...Hey...we're going to get a MacBook Pro. That was three years ago. Being a person who never likes to change anything, I reluctantly went kicking and screaming to the Apple Store. Maybe this is the reason I could never go beyond astro-sketching with a No. 2 pencil. No I love sketching and notes. Back to computers: It took both of us a couple of months to really get used to the new system, but when we did....wow! what a revolution. Our previous and latest two "big name" Window notebooks, seemed to last only two or three years each, with tow many problems to list. With the Macbook Pro... no more virus problems, no more....every time we seemingly opened up our Windows units, it was time to update the virus protection. Another beauty is the integration between a Macbook or iMac, an iPhone, and an iPad-mini which we like much better than an iPad, due to the more convenient size. Never would I have thought I would want to go MacBook. I known "too" many of my friends and others that can share a similar experience to what Debbie and I have experienced. Singing praises for an Apple. Our seemingly daily computer problems ended three years ago when we changed to a MacBook Pro. BTW, Uncle Rod, I know you are an Engineer. I'm a retired Textile Industrial Engineer after 30 years. Roger and Debbie Ivester
# posted by : 7:49 AM
: 7:49 AM
Despite being a high-tech software developer, I'm surprisingly old-fashioned in other areas myself. I don't worship technology -- I only use it when I find it useful. And I agree that the continual Microsoft/others software/OS upgrades that complicate my life and provide very little new value for me are not necessarily a 'good thing' in my book.
Out under the stars, I don't yet use a computer. Visual only. Though I am currently trying a (non-computer) dual-Mallincam setup that does add a lot of value but unfortunately at a serious complexity cost too.
My own primary tool is the S&T Pocket Sky Atlas. It's cheap so I buy a bunch of copies of it, and then customize a copy for each of my observing lists, marking up each page with the list items on that page. Then i'll work through one or more pages in a given observing session. I've got a little plastic envelope I keep the atlas in while observing. However it's a slow process customizing the S&T atlas, because ink dries very slowly on those semi-water-resistant pages. You mark up a page, trying real carefully not to smear anything, and then set it aside to dry for 30 minutes or so, before you can move on to the next page.
Post a Comment
Out under the stars, I don't yet use a computer. Visual only. Though I am currently trying a (non-computer) dual-Mallincam setup that does add a lot of value but unfortunately at a serious complexity cost too.
My own primary tool is the S&T Pocket Sky Atlas. It's cheap so I buy a bunch of copies of it, and then customize a copy for each of my observing lists, marking up each page with the list items on that page. Then i'll work through one or more pages in a given observing session. I've got a little plastic envelope I keep the atlas in while observing. However it's a slow process customizing the S&T atlas, because ink dries very slowly on those semi-water-resistant pages. You mark up a page, trying real carefully not to smear anything, and then set it aside to dry for 30 minutes or so, before you can move on to the next page.
# posted by : 3:46 PM
: 3:46 PM << Home
