the horse head nebula

[lesbehrens]

hi. i was thinking of buying a 16 .i was wondering if i would be able to see the horse head nebule with this scope?
would i see this nebule like most other nebs through a telescope?
thanks.
les:thumbsup:

[Blue Skies]

No. The Horsehead is difficult even with a 16", a dark sky and the appropriate filter. I've only glimpsed it a couple of times, once in a 16" with the H-beta filter and once in a 17.5" without a filter but a good image of the nebula and surrounding stars on hand as a guide, and even then it was a good case of 'averted imagination'.

Some people seem to see it very easily, I've heard stories of complete novices seeing it clear as day (no preconceptions, I suppose) but I'm an experienced observer and I have always struggled with it. I've also heard stories of people seeing it in smaller scopes.

But whatever you're like, I don't think I'd be buying a 16" just to see the Horsehead (although I could think of plenty of other reasons to do so....)

[seeker372011]

quite frankly even with a 24 inch and a H beta filter and from a really dark site-I couldnt see the Horsehead-visually

I have imaged it though with a 70 mm scope (no filter)-from suburban Sydney

Phil Harrington seems to have seen the Horsehead with a 10 x 25 pair of binos..but really it is visually a very very challenging taget... and ridiculosly easy in comparison for imagers

[Argonavis]

Les.

Some have claimed to see the horsehead with a 4 inch telescope. At this aperture it would appear as a small notch in the dim grey barely detectable mist of IC434. The Horsehead is a dark cloud highlighted(?) against the background glowing emission of IC434.

What you really need to visually detect B33 is pristine skies - very dark, low humidity and few dust particles. A hydrogen beta filter is almost essential.

I have only ever seen it through 18, 20 and 25 inch telescopes, but I see no reason it would not be visible in a 16.

As to why you would want to see this dark neb, is another issue. If the image of this object did not appear in almost every astronomy book, I suspect it would be ignored by most amateurs. It would be in the same obscure category as Be146/ngc5367. Like many celebrities, B33 certainly doesn't look anything like the photos in real life.

For some background on the Horsehead Nebula, go to
http://home.earthlink.net/~astro-app/horsehead/B33_2.htm
I believe this is an article written for Astronomy magazine, but never published. The author appears puzzled by this, but I suspect that the editors of Astronomy magazine read the article and decided that most of their readers would not find this interesting. I certainly found it fascinating.

[§AB]

I've seen the horsehead with ease from a moderately dark site with a H-beta filtered 18" obsession. To be 100% honest, it was very easy.

[Ric]

Hi Les, the HH can be a tricky neb to observe visually but I can't see why it could not be found in the right dark sky with a 16"

There are also a lot of other great sights to be seen as well that are well within the reach of a 16"

Cheers

[GrahamL]

thats a good link and a great read :)

I've had a good look at IC434 once in my 12" from home.. seeing fell away the next night with any chance of B33 gone with it...and that was it ... one night in a season...its a challenge alright.:)

[glenc]

I have seen the HH nebula from here with my 12" Dob, but only the head not the chin. I saw it really well from the SPSP with a 25" a few years back. Will (Argonavis) mentioned NGC 5367.
NGC 5367 is easier to see than the horse head and NGC 2626 is fainter than NGC 5367, both were found by John Herschel with an 18.5" that was about equivalent to a modern 16.5" newtonian. His father William found IC 434 in 1786 with the same telescope.

[Blue Skies]

:( It's comments like these that make me wonder why I struggle to see it. Hard for many, easy for some, with no apparent rhyme or reason. It's got me beat. :shrug:

[Kevnool]

Have seen the horsehead with my 10" lightbridge and h beta filter as described in this link.....cheers Kev.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=27585&highlight=horsehead

[lesbehrens]

well its seems its good for some harder for others. its worth a try. i had a go with my 10" dob but had no luck., buyng the 16" still will be a good scope to get. thanks for the help.;)

[Blue Skies]

Well, I should have read this earlier. Very interesting, indeed (read on from this link to other pages on the site where he discusses what it takes to see it). Stephen Waldee has put a lot of time into investigating this particular object. But I'm still a little puzzled as to why I have had so much trouble seeing it. He says that aperture is no barrier to observing it but clean optics, good sky transparency and the object near the zenith is important. The H-beta filter is useful but not always essential. However I do wonder if some of the ease he reports on is from familiarity of the size and position of the Horsehead.

Perhaps I should have a go with my 8" some day...

[ausastronomer]

It's comments like those that have led me to not even waste my time posting here any more. That just gives people the whole wrong idea about the difficulty of observing it.

I have observed it countless times in telescopes from 10" to 25" and to say "it was very easy", is just plain misleading. To make that as a blanket comment without qualification is so misleading it isn't funny. The difficulty with which it can be seen can change dramatically in the space of hours and also from individual to individual. You can take it to the bank that while I have observed it in scopes down to 10", it is a very difficult target in any scope under 16".

For starters, some people are in fact not even observing the Horsehead (B33), they are observing The Flame Nebula NGC 2024.

However, let's assume the observer has the right target. The ease with which it can be seen are dependant on many things:-

1) How dark the skies are.
2) How transparent the skies are.
3) How clean the optics in the scope are
4) How well baffled the scope is. This has a major effect on contrast.
5) How good are the optics in the scope. High grade optics yield better contrast than low grade optics, making it marginally easier to see.
6) Did the person use an eyepiece yielding a suitable exit pupil? 3mm to 5mm is ideal as this effects contrast and target luminosity
7) Did the person use a high quality eyepiece with good light throughput and contrast.
8) Did they use a filter. A H-Beta filter helps enormously and a narrowband or UHC filter helps a lot.

and last but not least and by far the most important.

9) How sensitive to RED light are the individual observers eyes? A very significant portion of the light emitting from the background emission nebula IC434 is at the red end of the spectrum and observers with eyes that are less sensitive to red light will simply not see it irrespective of the conditions, because they cannot see the background emission nebula very well.

I have observed it on countless occasions in my 18" Obsession and on some occasions felt that it was easily visible "to me" . I have then moved aside and let someone else have a look and the person cannot see it. Some of those have been exceptionally experienced observers. A beginner has then followed and seen it easily.

In a nutshell, sometimes it's easy, many many times it isn't so easy. It depends on many things.

Cheers,
John B

[AlexN]

I've looked for it in a few scopes.. spotted IC434 through a 16" with a UHC and 13mm TV Nagler, but couldnt make out B33... Through my 8" with a UHC and a 15mm plossi, I looked, and saw squat.

both observations on the same night, perhaps 10 minutes apart, dark dark skies, above average seeing and transparency...

Thus proving 2 things.. Aperture Rules! and quality optics are essential.

[Argonavis]

It all comes down to the sky conditions - good seeing and a transparent dark sky are a must. They also tend to be somewhat rare, when you consider that if you work in the city and only have the weekends to get away to a dark sky, and you only get one weekend a month around new moon, and the weather and seeing has to co-operate, the number of ideal observing opportunities gets somewhat limited.

[Argonavis]

John B - Thank you for a comprehensive post. I think we are all entitled to our opinion. You list forgot one thing - a good star chart. You cannot find B33 without a chart. You need to become familiar with the stars in the area to locate this object. In my experience and opinion, you cannot find it otherwise. It is really faint.

[glenc]

At the last Qld Astrofest some guys told me they had seen the HH nebula with an 8" and it was easy.
I think they were talking about M42.:)

[CoombellKid]

I observed it once from Coombell back a few years ago after a long spell
of crap weather using my 8" f/6 with a GSO 30mm. There was a general
discussion about it on a yahoo group where some really nice charts were
being past around the group. And I'll stand by that claim, however I never
been able to able to observe it since on the many other attempts except
the odd time where I couldn't say yes or no. I've always put it down to
sky conditions. From memory it appeared like a very faint shadow of
someones thumb and not a horse head.

regards,CS

[lesbehrens]

hi. is anyone going to the qld astrofest?
maybe some one could show me there??
since i had my scope i havent cleaned or sharpen my optics mabye i should do this and have better luck.
small eye pieces are esentual 4 -3 mm??
i have also read somewhere that using a uhc filter is a better filter to use because it is not as strong to to filtering the wave length of light to the h-betta filter, so i could be filtering to much light so i have troube seeing it?
thanks for the info.;)

[ausastronomer]

Will,

You are correct. If you haven't found it plenty of times before and know exactly where it is, a good chart is necessary.

The other thing I forgot to mention which is also very important, particularly if your scope is a borderline job, is that you need to push "Alnitak" just out of the FOV. This reduces glare and scattered light within the field of view, greatly increasing the contrast and brightness of IC 434.

Cheers,
John B

[jjjnettie]

Lesley,
You'll need to use a 10 or maybe 12mm ep. Any smaller and you'll be losing a lot of the light needed to see it.
You've got to come to Astrofest. Lot's of IISer's will be there. It's terrific to put faces to names.
You can book here www.qldastrofest.org.au
Cheers,
Jeanette

[ausastronomer]

Hi,

I mentioned that you needed an EXIT PUPIL of 3mm to 5mm, as ideal. I think you are confusing this with the eyepiece focal length. You get the eyepiece exit pupil by dividing the eyepiece focal length by the F-Ratio of your telescope. Assuming your 10" dob has a focal ratio of between F4.5 and F5.5 ideally you should look to use an eyepiece having a focal length between 15mm and 25mm with about 20mm being ideal. If your scope is a 10"/F5 scope, a 20mm eyepiece gives a 4mm exit pupil which is perfect.

A UHC filter will certainly help a lot.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Is there another object in the whole sky that evokes so much emotion and passion than this really quite small, faint poor object? Perhaps "The Pup" (Sirius B) is the only one that comes close.

If the shape of the dark nebula (B 33) didn't so closely resemble the outline of certain chess piece, there'd be a lot, lot less fuss over it -- really who'd bother? If fact I'd wager that but for the Horsehead, they would sell very, very few H-Beta filters.

Fact is, rightly or wrongly it is just one of those "gateway" objects that people just have to see -- kind of like a ticket to membership into some special club. I know whenever I'm with others and it's in the eyepiece and I say "Would anyone like to look at the horshead?" -- people come running. Its a strange thing.

Sadly, I think it is this iconic status it holds that causes so many "questionable" claims about who, when, where and with what optical aid it can be seen. I have been waiting for someone to claim to have seen it naked eye (with or without filter).

I can only speak for myself (a reasonably experienced observer with pretty good eyes) and my own experience, but I've never seen it in any aperture less than 10". In my old 10" f/6 is was very difficult in excellent conditions both with and without a UHC filter. I never saw the chin - just an ill-defined dome-shaped dark intrusion into IC 434. With 30cm it was a bit easier but by no means simple or easy.

In comparison to smaller apertures, with 18", excellent conditions _and_ a H-Beta filter, for me it is a pretty simple object. I can see the "chin". Without the filter the whole thing is somewhat less distinct.

Based on what _I_ can see and _my_ experience, I would treat with considerable scepticism, any report of observing it in apertures less than 15cm -- no matter what. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can only say what I think based on what I can see. That's not to say they're lying -- I'm just very sceptical based on my experience.

The most important factors to get in your favour (as John B said) are dark (read pristine or almost) skies, clean, contrasty optics, 4-5mm exit pupil, aperture and (for apertures over 10") a H-Beta filter. In the absence of a H-Beta, a UHC or narrowband filter is helpful, but the H-Beta is clearly a much superior filter on this object. Keep Zeta Orionis out of the FOV!!!

The other important factor to take into account is _experience_ -- an experienced observer is much more likely to know what to look for and is therefore more likely to see it an a given aperture compared to inexperienced eyes.

To answer your initial question Les, yes a 16" will show it. If you get all the above factors going in your favour, your chances will be significantly improved. Best of luck with it!

Hmmm ... I think this deserves an article somewhere soon.


Best,

Les D
Contributing Editor
AS&T

[JethroB76]

So very true Les, its almost like some mythical creature




yes please

[jjjnettie]

I can see the Horse Head Nebula live in real time on the small screen using my Gstar-Ex camera and a 100mm lens.
No filters needed.
This camera is a real boon for those of us with poor eyesight.

[renormalised]

Of course I've seen it with my own eyes, unassisted. But then again, I did have my left eye replaced after that horrific crash I had in that experimental rocket plane I was flying that day:D:P:P:D

[§AB]

I'm surprised that NGC 1999 isn't more "famous"! That T-shaped dark cloud is quite visible even under my suburban skies. I'm sure under dark skies it would be a striking sight - a hell of a lot easier than the Horsehead!

Lots of interesting challenges here for those dark sky observing opportunities...

Barnard's Loop, Witch Head nebula, Cone Nebula, Seagull Nebula and Sharpless 2-264.

[PhilW]

The problem NGC 1999 has is it sufferrs from the "worse house in the best neighbourhood" syndrome. Look at what's just around the corner from it...

[§AB]

Suppose so. Much like how NGC 3576 suffers from it's proximity to the Eta Carina nebula.

[koputai]

Great post John, just the sort of thing relative newbies like me are after.
With respect to point 7 above, what type of eyepiece is best for throughput and contrast? Personally I love Naglers and Pans, but sureley there's too much glass in them? Would an orthoscopic be better? Or even a Plossl? Something obscure?

Regards,
Jason.

[PhilW]

My best views of it have been with a borrowed Zeiss 25mm aspheric, aka the "magic nebula eyepiece". This same eyepiece has also given me the best views I've had of the Rosette nearby in Monoceros. It has just three elements. Also it produces a 5.4mm exit pupil in my scope, which is an important consideration (point 6 on John's list of Horsehead prerequisites).

ps as per your categories below: I think this eyepiece could safely be classed as "obscure".

[ausastronomer]

Hi Jason,

Certainly the philosophy that less elements is better for contrast and throughout holds true. The eyepiece Phil mentions, the Zeiss Aspheric as well as Zeiss orthos, Zeiss Monos, TMB Monos etc are the premium choice, but not really necessary. The point I was trying to make is that something like a $20 plossl isn't going to help your cause by comparison to a decent eyepiece like a UO HD ortho, Televue Plossl or Tak LE for instance. Similarly a 20+ year old Meade S4000 UWA or 13mm Nagler T1 isnt going to cut it by comparison to say a 14mm Pentax XW or 13mm Nagler T6 with newer coatings and glass types. The difference between simple eyepieces and multi element widefields, that existed even just 20 years ago, has been dramatically narrowed with modern glass types and coatings. Recent manufacture high quality widefield eyepieces like Pentax XW's and Nagler T5's and T6's are not far behind the high quality simple eyepieces. By comparison the modern Pentax XW's and Nagler T5's and T6's are a noticeable step ahead of the early Naglers, Panoptics, Televue Widefields and Meade S4000 UWA and SWA's due to modern coatings and glass types. Years ago, the difference between a widefield erfle for instance and a high grade ortho or plossl was enormous. Today the difference while still there, has narrowed a lot.

Don't feel handicapped with a top grade widefield. It isn't far behind a top grade simple eyepiece.

Cheers,
John B

[glenc]

This image shows the HH well.
http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/99310264
Look for the right angle triangle of faint (mag 13) stars next to the HH when viewing the nebula.
One star is just to the left of the chin, one 2.3' above that and the 3rd star above the right edge of the nebula.

[Argonavis]

Glen

Now we are talking maps - attached is the one I use to locate B33. The star pattern points directly at the object of interest.

[Argonavis]

the detail in a high quality image is astounding.

makes me want to give up visual observing.

[glenc]

The three stars in a right angle are at the top of the image Will just posted.

[tnott]

With a UHC filter and a 24.5mm Meade SWA eyepiece I have seen the horsehead many times in the 16" as a subtle darkening of the field if you knew where to look. Not worth writing home about:P. A borrowed H-beta filter brought it out much better though. Sky conditions and how high it was also made a big difference. Something like Thor's Helmet or NGC3199 with an OIII is a much more spectacular object visually.

I would also add support to the idea that top modern wide field eyepieces with their multicoatings would only lose an imperceptible amount of light compared to those with less elements.