PDA

View Full Version : Hoag's Object



RickJ
2007-Aug-03, 04:19 AM
I like to get off the beaten path and image the things few do. For some reason many don't think Hoag's Object is even an amateur object. Least I was told that this when I said it was on my to-do list. The field is very boring so I heavily cropped the image.

Until Art Hoag studied it in the 50's no one was even sure what it was. Hubble's famous shot of it has given it a lot more PR than it ever got before. It's on my retake list under better seeing next year. Maybe then I can resolve some detail in the ring.

14" LX200R, L=4x10', RGB limited to 1x10' each due to weather but it seems sufficient, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

tegwilym
2007-Aug-03, 04:56 PM
Easily mistaken for a little planetary nebula!

Palomar
2007-Aug-03, 06:04 PM
For some reason many don't think Hoag's Object is even an amateur object.

You've proved them otherwise. :)

RickJ
2007-Aug-04, 12:03 AM
You've proved them otherwise. :)

There's very little beyond our small scopes today. We may need a lot more time to get it but little is too faint other than the multitude of fuzzies below magnitude 21 or so. We can certainly go beyond the on-line DSS for instance. This galaxy was easy on those so it went on the target list. Now for some better seeing to resolve some of the odd inward curving star strings in the ring. That's my next challenge.

Siguy
2007-Aug-04, 12:26 AM
That's really good considering that all even the HST could get was a grainy image. Hard to believe that Art Hoag could figure out that it was a galaxy with the technology of the time.

Now you should try for the other, even more distant ring galaxy behind it. :P

RickJ
2007-Aug-04, 01:35 AM
Now you should try for the other, even more distant ring galaxy behind it. :P

Ok that one is beyond me! Actually there is a slight discoloration at that spot but with the weak color data it may be (likely is) just noise.

Since a planetary is a line spectrum and a galaxy a continuous one I'd think the spectroscopes of the time should have easily settled the debate. So why it was even debated has always puzzled me. I was getting started in this hobby back then and while news of things like this were hard to come by. I knew an astronomy prof who kept me up with these things as best as I could grasp them as a high school kid. So this has been an object that has interested me for about 50 years.

JAICOA
2007-Aug-04, 02:42 AM
A very interesting picture and subject. Well done and Clear Skies

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-06, 03:51 PM
I like to get off the beaten path and image the things few do. For some reason many don't think Hoag's Object is even an amateur object. Least I was told that this when I said it was on my to-do list.

I was reading Timothy Ferris's book "Seeing in the Dark . . ." and he states that amateurs are now doing what pros did 20 years ago.

Great pic! Thanks for posting.

RickJ
2007-Aug-08, 01:39 AM
I was reading Timothy Ferris's book "Seeing in the Dark . . ." and he states that amateurs are now doing what pros did 20 years ago.

In some areas that's too conservative. The first planet around another star was confirmed in 1995. Now there are several amateurs who have confirmed other such planets and are actively looking for others. That's only 12 years!

In this case it was just the idea "If Hubble imaged it, it must be beyond my scope" logic that causes Hoag's Object to be so overlooked by imagers. It isn't a difficult challenge at all.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 01:44 AM
It isn't a difficult challenge at all.

Maybe for you. For me, well . . . :)

Bokmakierie
2007-Aug-08, 06:05 AM
Rick, You have another one on Universe Today! This is number 4 I think! Congratulations!

Phil

tvdavis
2007-Aug-08, 04:09 PM
Cool!

Tom

stargazer_7000
2007-Aug-08, 05:22 PM
thanx for this interesting object, I did not know yet.
it is now on my to do list.