Quote:
Originally Posted by glenc
I like the article in the latest AS&T that objects to the use of Caldwell numbers Things get confusing if we renumber objects. Caldwell 74 is NGC 3132.
|
Having used the LX200 menu for the first 18 months of my observing, I became very accustomed to using the Caldwell catalogue. I found it much easier to remember 2 digits, rather than 4!
The NGC is a very imposing catalogue for those new to astronomy. I think catalogues like the Messier, Caldwell and Bennett have an important place in amateur astronomy. I have found it very enjoyable working through these catalogues systematically to savour some of the highlights of the sky. It has certainly made observing far more accessible to me than had I tried to wade through NGC or IC.
Perhaps "things get confusing" for those long-term observers who did not grow up with the Caldwell catalogue, and who are used to the NGC designations. For those new to astronomy there is no "renaming" as the Caldwell number may be the first number we have learnt.
We all develop our own preferences over time. The Messier catalogue itself it an example of this for more long-term observers. Messier's catalogue is quoted extensively in professional and amateur literature, even though its objects are also in the NGC.
To my mind what ultimately matters is that the nomenclature that we use assists us in our task of locating and enjoying objects. The Caldwell catalogue continues to be very helpful to many in that regard.