Comet McNaught C/2006 Q1

[Ric]

Hi all, I finally got some good clear skies for imaging tonight and while taking my darks my Star Atlas Pro indicated that I was almost pointing at one of Rob McNaught's discovery's C/2006 Q1 listed at mag 9.0.

I've never imaged a comet this faint before so I thought I'd have a shot at it.

This image was taken through the LX200R (ACF) with the DSI II Pro and a f/3.3 focal reducer in Alt/Az mode.

Images were 20 x 30 second subs for a total of 10 minutes and slight processing of the levels was done to bring it out a bit more.

It the fuzzy spot in the middle.

Cheers

[iceman (Mike)]

Nice going Ric, what mag is it?

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Ric

...Star Atlas Pro indicated that I was almost pointing at one of Rob McNaught's discovery's C/2006 Q1 listed at mag 9.0.

Originally Posted by iceman

Nice going Ric, what mag is it?

Hi Ric

It's always an exciting event when you capture a comet; seeing the fuzz ball in the frame transports me back to the times of Charles Messier on one of his comet hunts.

Good shot and Mike, it looks around Mag 9.0 to me!

Cheers

Dennis

[abellhunter]

Hey Ric,

looks like a buncha Comets in the Sky this month!

Aloha, Lance

[Matty P (Matt)]

Great shot Ric, you can definately see it.

Well done.

[RB (Andrew)]

Great work there Ric !!
Very nice capture.

Originally Posted by iceman

Nice going Ric, what mag is it?

Originally Posted by Dennis

Mike, it looks around Mag 9.0 to me!

I'd say it's around Mag 9.0 as well........

[Ric]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

As I mentioned this was the first time I've chased a faint fuzzy so I wasn't sure what to expect but I am quite pleased with the results and shall hunt around for a few more in my viewing area.

Cheers

[Outbackmanyep]

It's supposed to be around mag 12.0, nice stuff!

Tuttle is around mag 8, i doubt this is 9. If you actually defocussed a mag 12 star to the size of the coma of Q1, a defocussed mag 12 star should have same surface brightness as the comet in focus. According to the ephemeris it should be 12-ish.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by iceman

Nice going Ric, what mag is it?

Originally Posted by Dennis

Hi Ric
Good shot and Mike, it looks around Mag 9.0 to me!
Cheers
Dennis

Originally Posted by RB

Great work there Ric !!
Very nice capture.
I'd say it's around Mag 9.0 as well........

It’s a real worry isn’t it Andrew – how does he manage to run such a terrific site and produce those stunning photo’s with the concentration of a gnat!

Cheers

Dennis

[Ric]

Hi OBMY, I usually get my magnitudes through the Star Atlas Pro updater of comet data which comes from the IAU minor planetary centre.

At the moment they are listing McNaught as m = 8.98 and Tuttle as m = 7.96

Which Ephemeris do you use, I think it would be interesting to compare some magnitudes.

Cheers

[Karlsson]

Originally Posted by Ric

Hi OBMY, I usually get my magnitudes through the Star Atlas Pro updater of comet data which comes from the IAU minor planetary centre.

At the moment they are listing McNaught as m = 8.98 and Tuttle as m = 7.96

Which Ephemeris do you use, I think it would be interesting to compare some magnitudes.

Cheers

This has been puzzling me for a while - I use Star Atlas Pro as well as Cartes du Ciel and from what I can see they use the same source for their comet data:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/Ephem.../Soft00Cmt.txt

Yet SAP sometimes comes up with 'Estimated Visual Magnitude' substantially different from 'magnitude' in CdC... for C/2006 Q1 McNaught SAP mag = 8.98 and CdC mag = 11.9 as we speak.

Any ideas how come?

[Outbackmanyep]

Hi guys, i use SkyMap Pro, and i download the ephemerides from CBAT, and update it all the time, according to my charts it's supposed to be 11.9.
I will check with ASV Comet Section for an updated visual obs.

I have visually estimated Tuttle, and my last obs was around m1= 8.1

I tried to visually locate Q1 with 10" dob which proved to be fruitless.

Cheers!

[Ric]

I suppose the estimated visual magnitude is really only a guide to get you in the ball park and a visual estimation as OBMY does is no doubt the best and most accurate way.

I'll have to get some practice in by observing some variable stars as I am very rusty at this.

Cheers

[Karlsson]

Originally Posted by Ric

I suppose the estimated visual magnitude is really only a guide to get you in the ball park and a visual estimation as OBMY does is no doubt the best and most accurate way.

Guess you're right - I do visual estimates too and then compare with the IAU reports... often find CdC's estimates closer to the mark than SAP. But I wonder what the algorithm is that calculates Estimated Visual Magnitude to two decimals and then is off by about 3...