Johann Bode's three lost objects

The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode (1747 - 1826) published a list of 75 deep sky objects in 1777 in the "Astronomisches Jahrbuch" for 1779. Five years later, Bode published an updated (but sadly not corrected) list of 110 objects. Simply too many errors remained to make Bode's catalogs a hit like that of Charles Messier's. Luckily, even today some objects, namely M81 & M82 and M92, are still marked as being discovered by Bode. [4]

As with nearly all the deep sky catalogs, certain entries in Bode's catalog are shrouded in mystery, deception and romance. Well, maybe not romance but at least some good old fashioned mystery. Some objects are simply considered lost. The two asterisms in Bode's list are no longer even associated with Bode himself, even though he was the probably the first person to note these at least a hundred years prior to others.

To simplify things, the three objects presented here are marked as Bode 1 – 3.

---

Bode 1 (published in 1777) = IC 1434?

Original coordinates: 03 23 +57 30 (Ecliptic B1780.0)
Precessed coordinates: 22 09 08 +52 54 40 (Equatorial J2000.0)

Bode's first object is most commonly associated with the faint open cluster IC 1434 found at least by reverend Thomas Espin (1858 – 1934) in 1893 and added to the first Index catalog (1895) by J.L.E. Dreyer [1]. According to SEDS.org internet site by Hartmut Frommert and Christine Kronberg the cluster was "independently found by Espin in 1793" [2]. This is obviously a typo as Espin lived in the 19th not the 18th century. Still, no matter how you put it, IC 1434 just does not fit the bill.

Bode's coordinates do match IC 1434 very well. The only problem is how can an observer look for something in this region of the sky, namely Lacerta, observe IC 1434 and completely miss two other brighter and more obvious clusters: NGC 7209 and NGC 7243. Without knowing the specifics of Bode's telescope, apart from the focal length of 7 feet, it is a big guessing game but the aperture might have been around 2.7 inches (7cm). Telescopes during that time commonly had magnifications of over 100 and very poor optics. With the high magnification in mind, one might understand why Bode might have not seen the two NGC clusters. Still, just to loose the few remaining hairs from my head, he rediscovered IC 4665 which basically is as sparse and big as a cluster can get. So anything more we know about his telescope? We can at least compare his notes to those of Messier's:

M29
Charles Messier saw "A cluster of 7 or 8 very small stars"
Johann Bode saw "A nebulous star cluster"

M37
Messier: "Cluster of small stars"
Bode: "A vivid nebulous patch, in which no stars were recognizable" but later on "Around the new nebula there appeared many small stars in the 7-foot telescope"

M38
Messier: "Cluster of small stars in Auriga"
Bode: "A star cluster"

Bode, just like Charles Messier, failed to see individual stars from any of the globular clusters. At the same time, we can see from Bode's sketches he did manage resolved M67 (stars magnitude 9.6 and fainter) and M38 (stars magnitude 8.4 and fainter) [3]. This means his telescope much have reached at least 10th magnitude stars.

So how is it even possible he saw IC 1434? He mentions it as a "star cluster" so it seems he managed to resolve the object, whatever it was he was observing. With the statistics of IC 1434 being 9.0 magnitude and the brightest stars close to 12th magnitude it is fairly easy to say he did not observe IC 1434. Did Johann Bode use a different, larger aperture telescope in his discovery of the first object? Bode was appointed to the Berlin observatory in 1772 and became the director in 1786, so he must have had access to the observatory's telescope(s) if there every was a bigger one. Still, I think it is very, very far fetched to say Bode saw IC 1434 based simply on the fact that his coordinates are close to it. Even if he might have seen it, he probably would have described it as a "a nebula" or "a nebula without stars" rather than a cluster.

So what did Bode see? The only thing in the "tail of Cygnus" is of course M39 but this is already listed in Bode's catalog as number 75 and the location is correctly listed: "West near Pi at the tail of Cyg". With a bit of a reach, one could associate Bode's object as NGC 7243. This is east of Pi Cygni but no where near the tail or even in the constellation Cygnus. It would have probably been listed as "west of Alpha Lacertae" or something similar. Then again, Bode's original coordinates actually are in Lacerta, instead of Cygnus. Bode's own maps show the borders of both constellations nearly in modern form. Best bet in this puzzling case is that Bode independently found M39, poorly marked the position and then later added Messier's M39 in his list as well. Far fetched? Yes. Then it could be that he actually saw NGC 7243 but the coordinates are well off. So this issue will remain unresolved.

---

Bode 2 (published in 1777) = HD 1825 group

Original coordinates: 29 37 +45 55 (Ecliptic B1780.0)
Precessed coordinates: 00 22 51 +53 57 19 (Equatorial J2000.0)

In Johann Bode's description of Charles Messier's object number 29 on the night of December 5th 1774 he also mentions an object "in Cassiopeia a similar cluster with the stars Zeta and Lambda at the head west of it in an obtuse-angled triangle."

Little north of Bode's coordinates is a bright asterism of 7 stars brighter than magnitude 11. The brightest star is 8th magnitude HD 1825. This is obviously the grouping Bode was talking about and observed. The very same group is currently logged as Alessi J0022.7+5417 in the Deep Sky Hunters database for asterisms.

---

Draco 102 = Bode 3 (published in 1782), Bode's cluster, Kemble 2

Original coordinates: 279 30 +72 10 (Ecliptic B1780.0 and Equatorial J2000.0 for Dec)
Precessed coordinates: 18 19 26 +72 16 47 (Equatorial J2000.0)

Directly east of Bode's coordinates is an asterism some might know as "Mini Cassiopeia" or "Kemble 2". The nickname "Kemble 2" comes from Canadian Lucian J. Kemble (1922–1999) and he is well known by some from Kemble 1 / Kemble's Cascade in Camelopardalis. It is not known to me how this little group got the nickname "Kemble 2" but to be precise, there is no reason to do so. This is an original discovery of Johann Bode circa 1782, two centuries prior to Lucian Kemble. Of course asterisms don't have official names so anyone can call it whatever they want.



References:

[1] NGC/IC observers. Dr. Wolfgang Steinicke. 2010.
[2] http://seds.org/messier/xtra/ngc/i1434.html
[3] http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/foerderkreis/bode/images/atlas/tab30.jpg
[4] http://seds.org/messier/xtra/similar/bode1782.html

TYC 4948-53-1 group - The Virgo Diamond-asterism

Roger Ivester of the LVAS (Las Vegas Astronomical Society) has brought to my attention a tiny but dazzling little asterism in Virgo. Roger told me in an email that the group first made its appearance in an old Sky&Telescope magazine (May 1993) but has apparently evaded proper attention ever since. I usually don't get too excited about asterisms with such few members (they lack the visual impact at the eyepiece) but based on what I've seen so far, I'm sure this will be an exception. Not having looked at this group through a telescope yet, I'm fairly certain you, I or anybody won't be disappointed by its subtle beaty.

To be sure this was just an asterism, I contacted the big kahuna Matthias Kronberger and asked for his expert opinion on it. He used VIZIER for the proper motion data and came to the same conclusion I did using Aladin (PPMX-data). So, the chance of stars simply aligning like this in the sky might seem remote (4% according to Brosch) but none the less the group is, unfortunately, just an asterism despite having similar spectra. A shame!

Virgo Diamond courtesy of The Digitized Sky Survey

The asterism is located between Gamma (Porrima) and Eta (Zaniah) Virginis. The brightest star in the group is 10.7 magnitude TYC 4948-53-1 with other four being magnitudes 12.3, 13.2, 13.2 and 13.7 and respectively. What makes this asterism curious and stand out is the diamond or square-shape and its tiny size (50"). The separation between the stars is - on average - only 30" so good seeing conditions and higher magnification is required to resolve the four main components into individual stars. Seeing the 5th star may also require larger aperture. I'll personally try to observe this grouping over the upcoming weekend - despite the near full moon and medium low altitude of 28°.

On the night of 4th of April I went after the object like predicted. The conditions were everything but favorable: SQM-L showed 16.70 from Virgo (note that the meter most certainly had some interference from the nearby 94% moon) and 17.70 measurements from the opposite direction. Weather conditions were as follows: 70% humidity, air pressure 1022 hPa and temperature -2°C (28F). My trusty old 8" Orion DSE was selected for the task for the obvious reasons. It came as no surprise that the focuser was yet again nearly frozen solid and I'd have to use so force to get the things moving again.

TYC 4948-53-1 group with 8" Orion DSE @ 200x (6')

Anyway, finding the correct position using Uranometria was not difficult but seeing something was. I had to wait closer to midnight for Virgo to rise high enough for me to finally give the asterism a real go. At first I only noticed a fairly faint star in the correct position using Baader Hyperion Zoom @ 16mm (75x - 54'). This was no doubt the combined glow of the stars in the tiny asterism. Zooming in more, @ 8mm (150x - 27') I noted two stars very close together and then a few times now and again - with optimal averted vision - I could see the two fainter stars come out of the shadows and just as quickly vanish back there again. I had the similar effect using the 6mm Baader Ortho eyepiece providing 200x (6'). Seeing two 13.2 magnitude stars under such abysmal conditions was a great victory and the asterism reminded me of Theta 1 Orionis cluster (Trapezium) buried inside the hazy heart of Orion nebula. This object is surely worth a visit and has a calculated total magnitude of (using NOMAD data) 10.4.

Deep sky observers DOs and DON'Ts

DOs

1. Eat healthy...

Nobody likes a guy who's eating Dinky Donuts for breakfast like there's no tomorrow. "I eat 10 carrots a day. Does this mean I can see better than the rest?" How often does this come up in astronomy forums? We all know that vitamin A is something we basically need to keep going as the retina needs it for scotopic and color vision. Simply eating a carrot (β-carotene) a day keeps you fit and well supplied with vitamin A that is enough for your body functions. Eating more than what your body needs isn't necessary. The body takes what it needs and discards the rest. So, no matter how many carrots your eat, it won't improve your night vision beyond the normal point. This same goes for bilberry, blueberry and whatnotberry.

It is also important to remember that for example fatty tissue (if you have any you big playboy!) in your body has reserves for vitamin A for many months. Interesting enough, eating too much of "pure" vitamin A (A₁) can actually cause overdose leading to liver damage amongst others. And vitamin A or β-carotene taken from supplements is never as good or safe as what mother nature can produce.

Also while observing, keep your body hydrated and blood pressure up by eating at least once every 3 hours. This keeps you sharper and is something you'd do when doing a lot of exercise or something similar during the day.

Stay in shape & use sunglasses!

2. ...and keep fit

Being in good shape helps you keep going, lowers your heart rate and keeps you in a more relaxed state. Hitting the gym a few times a week for a basic upper body workout and going for a run can help a lot when observing late at night. Doing some sit-ups and back extensions keeps your back in shape so you won't feel like you slept on the floor after your observing session. Remember to relax your eye while observing too. It is essential during longer observing runs.


3. Avoid sunlight exposure

Simply put, keep your eyes shielded from the sun - always use sunglasses when the weather so demands. Too much light in the eye during the day can impair night vision for up to two days. Your eyes also get tired a faster at night when spending too much time - unprotected - in the sun.

---

DON'Ts

If drunk, try to appear sober.
Image courtesy of Iiro Sairanen. 2008.

1. Alcohol

Truth is, no serious, hardcore observer drinks alcohol while he is observing. We all know alcohol slows you down, specifically slowing down your brain functions which is something you don't want when you're supposed to be using your eye(s). Even small amounts of alcohol in your blood are known to lessen the muscular control of your eye affecting night vision, color perception and peripheral vision. So don't drink and observe and most importantly do not try to tell jokes when intoxicated. They usually suck. Bad.

2. Tobacco

It is a good day when you can complain about smoking. For a start, recent studies have shown that tobacco increases your chance of getting one of those very nice diseases caused by smoking for example AMD (Age related Macular Degeneration). Then there's nicotine. The nicotine from the tobacco you're sucking down is one of the least favorites of your optical nerve. In fact, continuous use of nicotine is actually so nice to your little eye that is actually slowly destroying your optical nerve. And that's not all. Nicotine slows down the production of rhodopsin (visual purple) and blood circulation which is vital for your body in general and especially your eyes. Smoking also reduces your color perception (especially green and red). The last one is a good one if you're all about the ego. 2010 study on more than 20 000 Israeli soldiers concluded that smokers have a lower I.Q. than non-smokers. So, stop smoking if you want to appear smart and all knowing in public and star parties!  And if you HAVE to smoke, do it in private - most of us don't want to be passive smokers.

Catalog of Galactic Asterisms and Concentrations of Stars

Who amongst us hasn't noted an asterism or a lovely little concentration of stars while running around the sky with our telescopes. I'm no different. Safe to say after 15 years I've seen and marked down many objects, some nice and some not so much.

Many of the objects discovered during those years have found their way to published papers and catalogs. Tens of asterisms and concentrations I've noted during the loooooong years of observing, are now under the names of ASCC, Alessi, Teutsch and Kronberger to name a few and are surprisingly real open clusters - not just asterisms.

TYC 2698-688-1 group in Cygnus

To commemorate my ever fading interest to visual astronomy, I've decided to publish a list of 95 asterisms I've either marked down to my old Uranometria (= visually discovered) or noted from the Digitalized Sky Survey plates over the years.

All of the objects have been named after the brightest member in the group in this catalog order: HD, PPM, TYC and GSC.Objects already "known" to the public have been automatically cropped. The entire table has been compared to data (jan-26-2012 version) visible in the "OPEN CLUSTERS AND GALACTIC STRUCTURE" website maintained by Wilton S. Dias and to avoid any possible duplicate objects. Duplicate objects can be, however, found from the DSH (Deep Sky Hunters) database mainly for two reasons. First, it does contain several of my own objects and second some of the objects have been independently found by me prior to my involvement with the DSH. So few duplicate items might be found but not many. For visual observers only a few of the objects will prove worthy at the eyepiece - unfortunately. The current version of Catalog of Galactic Asterisms and Concentrations of Stars is February 2012. The list will be updated if new objects are discovered.

As a real life update, I'm currently working with my bachelor's thesis so I'm ashamed to admit I haven't had much time to do observing. My latest work will, of course, be uploaded to my website on a regular basis. I'm also honored to be contributor in LVAS Observers Challenge monthly column so be sure to check it out as well (and more specifically NOT for my work but for the great other contributors out there).

The Hidden Deep by Stephen O'Meara Review

Deep-Sky Companions: The Secret Deep by Stephen O'Meara
Cambridge University Press (August, 2011)
498 pages
http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item5979249/Deep-Sky-Companions:-The-Secret-Deep/?site_locale=en_US

So I finally got around to writing a short, simple and silly review of this book. I really don't get the name "The Secret Deep" but then again I'm not the brightest of the bunch am I. Without further insults, let's get it on shall we?

+ O'Meara's writing is something you either love or hate. Most - like me - do like it but after four nearly identical books it is getting a bit old. Most will probably say "don't change anything; keep at it!" but for me it might be a good time for a different/new approach.

+ The objects selected for the book are good ones (apart from NGC 5195). The point is: anything that steers the novice observers / photographers away from the regular Messier/bright NGC fodder is always good. Are ALL of the object choices good? It is, of course, impossible to argue with that since it is one man's list and if YOU don't like it... you can always make your own one! As a note, there's nothing "new" in the selection of objects. Most veteran observers have already observed these objects many times over.

+ The science behind the objects is top notch as good, up-to-date information on the objects always comes handy. The research and digging around AXirv.com in this scale is always honorable.

+ Generally the images of objects are quite good.

+ And how can you really hate something where you're quoted...


- In a book like this, all of the images should be of good quality. O'Meara drops the photography stuff to this some guy - Mario Motta - and after 4 pages we know all about him: world renowned cardiologist, member in this and that astronomy club and his "dreamscope". Don't get me wrong, this guy probably is twice the man (boy) I am but seriously, surprisingly many of the photographs by Motta are sub par. The main problem is that they're poorly tracked and it shows.

- I never though the day would come when I'd have to say something negative about the sketches but that day is here. Despite O'Meara's best efforts to and I quote "hold the detail for reproduction" and "to enhance the beauty of the subtle view" something has gone terribly wrong here. The drawings don't look good anymore. In fact, the sketches now look more like a computer generated image and miss that "smooth" look that is so apparent at the eyepiece and should be so on paper as well. Some drawings show far too much contrast and some far too little. The individual stars also look like they were made in Photoshop. We sketchers know that making, scanning and prepping sketches in a bitch but this isn't the way to go Stephen!

- This (like everything else I write) can be argued but why the upgrade to a bigger scope? For me, that additional inch of aperture makes the telescope that of medium aperture; no longer a small aperture one. And the telescope cost 7000$? Wow, that's about the same amount of money I've made in the last 3 years. Of course, O'Meara got the scope more or less for free - all the advertisement and all.

All and all, the book is still a good read but the new "improvements" have actually made the book worse. As with most sequels the idea and the general concept of the book is starting to get old. It might be time for O'Meara to look in to something else in the writing field. Messiers and Caldwells are now done. With the "Hidden Treasures" and "The Secret Deep" out there let's hope the next book won't be named "The Hidden Pirate Deep".

8/10 for O'Meara fans
7/10 for a regular geezer.