Barnard 367 is a dark nebula in IC 1396. IC 1396 is a huge open cluster enveloped by an emission nebula. The complex, nearly 3000 light-years distant in the constellation of Cepheus, is huge compared to my field of view. It is full of dark nebulae like this one. It also is the home of the famous Elephant Trunk Nebula sometimes incorrectly called vdB 142. The latter is a small reflection nebula around a bright star well behind the head of the elephant trunk. In the upper left corner surrounding a bright blue star (a likely member of the star cluster) is part of LDN 1120. Down near the lower left corner is the small dark nebula LDN 1115. Barnard 367 is also known as LDN 1113. The other dark clouds in my image seem to be unnamed. At least I couldn't identify them.
This image is reproduced at 1.5" per pixel rather than my usual 1" per pixel.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10' STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BARNARD367L4X10RGB2X10R1-67.JPG
| Barnard's Star The Movie Now 11 Years in the Making
This is my annual update of Barnard's Star's annual motion through space at about 10.3 arcseconds per year. The images were all taken in the summer, usually July but not on the exact same date though the difference is barely noticeable. Seeing differences are a different story. So is transparency. Some nights were simply better, by far than others. Also when I started it wasn't with a movie in mind so exposure times varied. The image for this year, taken on July 16, 2017, was the best night of the 11 nights and it shows. Both seeing and transparency were much better than any of the other 11 nights. In fact, I toned down the image quite a bit (about 50%) and it is still deeper and sharper than the other nights. The exposure times below are for 2017, I didn't look up the others. Barnard's Star is the bright orange star in the center. It is actually a tiny red dwarf only 0.35% as bright as our sun (including infra red -- it's only 0.04% as bright in visible light) that only appears bright because it is only because it is just under 6 light-years from us. It is getting closer and will eventually be closer than Proxima Centauri is today but that's centuries in the future. Even then it will still be too dim to see without a good pair of binoculars if you know right where to look.
The odd galaxy at the bottom of the image is CGCG 056-003/PGC 061178 at 360 million light-years. Note the faint blue halo around it. I didn't find much on it unfortunately.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BS2007-17.gif
BS2017L4X10RGB2X10R.JPG
| Barnard's Star The Movie Now 11 Years in the Making
This is my annual update of Barnard's Star's annual motion through space at about 10.3 arcseconds per year. The images were all taken in the summer, usually July but not on the exact same date though the difference is barely noticeable. Seeing differences are a different story. So is transparency. Some nights were simply better, by far than others. Also when I started it wasn't with a movie in mind so exposure times varied. The image for this year, taken on July 16, 2017, was the best night of the 11 nights and it shows. Both seeing and transparency were much better than any of the other 11 nights. In fact, I toned down the image quite a bit (about 50%) and it is still deeper and sharper than the other nights. The exposure times below are for 2017, I didn't look up the others. Barnard's Star is the bright orange star in the center. It is actually a tiny red dwarf only 0.35% as bright as our sun (including infra red -- it's only 0.04% as bright in visible light) that only appears bright because it is only because it is just under 6 light-years from us. It is getting closer and will eventually be closer than Proxima Centauri is today but that's centuries in the future. Even then it will still be too dim to see without a good pair of binoculars if you know right where to look.
I normally use my astronomy club's website for the animated GIF image but I was unable to do so for some reason. Instead, this year's image is in a public Dropbox account. This isn't my site but one a book publisher allows me to use. As I have no control it may vanish at any time. Thus I recommend you save this rather than relying on the link forever.
The odd galaxy at the bottom of the image is CGCG 056-003/PGC 061178 at 360 million light-years. Note the faint blue halo around it. I didn't find much on it unfortunately.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME
Link to the 11-year animated GIF
https://www.dropbox.com/s/isgywiu85sznweh/BS2007-17.gif?dl=0
Rick | 
BARNARD_STAR_2018L4X10RGB2X10.JPG
BS07-18.gif
| Berkeley 9 is an open cluster in Perseus. It is a very old cluster, as clusters go. Most are torn apart before they are even a million years old but Berkeley 9 has managed to hold together to reach the grand old age (for an open cluster) of nearly 4 billion years. That means all its bright young blue stars are history with only white to red stars remaining plus a few red giants in their death throes. It is said to be about 2,700 light-years distant. Also, it is listed as reddened by 0.79 magnitudes so even white stars will be somewhat red due to intergalactic dust and gas. Same as dust and gas in our atmosphere turns a setting or rising sun red by scattering away the bluer light. The cluster is listed as having a maximum diameter of over 14 minutes of arc though most of its stars are confined to a diameter of about 2.4 minutes.
I noticed near the right edge below center a group of stars. After a bit of searching, I find that is Czernik 9. Only open cluster nerds are likely familiar with these clusters. I find its size is listed at a maximum of 6.6 minutes meaning I likely captured most of it. Its core is only 1.6 minutes across. How that is defined I don't know as I see no grouping of that small of a size. It is listed as being 5,400 light-years distant twice as distant as Berkeley 9. Its age, however, is quite a bit younger at 630 million years old. That explains the higher count of blue stars. Though it too is reddened by 0.79 magnitudes indicating there is little dust and gas in the 2,700 light-years beyond Berkeley 9.
Due to my everpresent clouds this winter (2017-2018) I was able to get only one blue and one green frame rather than my usual 2 but thanks to no satellites in either and sufficient signal in the frames I believe the color reasonably correct.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' R=2x10' GB=1x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERKELEY09L4X10R2X10GB1X10.JPG
BERKELEY09L4X10R2X10GB1X10CROP.JPG
| Berkeley 11 is a young open cluster in Perseus. WEBDA puts its age at only about 52 million years meaning many of its hot blue stars are still around though the brightest have since died or turned into red giant stars. The cluster is about 9,400 light-years distant. It is closer to the center of our galaxy than we are. This often puts a lot of dust and gas between us and a cluster. That is quite true in this case with the cluster reddened by 0.947 magnitudes. Even so, most of its stars are blue thanks to its young age allowing the blue stars to still exist. They are so blue they are able to still be blue even after nearly a full magnitude of reddening.
On the east side of the cluster is a faint red emission nebula. At first, I thought it a reflection of some bright star but it is real. It is Sh2-213 also known as LBN 731. Some sources say it might be a Stromgren sphere around a B4 star in Berkeley 11. If so that would put it at the same distance as the cluster. But where's the B4 star? The two faint stars near it are both too red and too faint. Is it the blue star to the southeast. If so why isn't it in the center instead of well outside of it? Might be I'm only picking up the brightest part and missing faint parts all around the star. A lot of H alpha time may help. So what is a Stromgren sphere? The most famous one is the Rosette Nebula. A very big brother to this faint nebula. At least its forming stars are obvious and in the center.
If I'd realized it was there I'd have used some H alpha to help bring it out. Maybe next time.
Since the above was written I've added 2 hours of H alpha data to help bring out SH2-213. The nebula is no longer very faint and I find some of what I thought was very faint nebula was noise. Also I see now that the bright part of the nebula seems to be an oval with a darker center. This doesn't really fit the Stromgren sphere idea any more than what I had originally. But then I'm not much of an expert on them.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERKELEY011Ha4X30L4X10RGB2X10R-CROP.JPG
BERKELEY011Ha4X30L4X10RGB2X10R.JPG
BERKELEY011L4X10RGB2X10ID.JPG
| BERKELEY 23 is an open cluster between the feet of Gemini. I found two schools of thought on it. WEBDA says it is 22,550 light-years from us, 800 million years old and reddened by 0.4 magnitudes. A paper on it doesn't give its distance from us but only from the core of the galaxy. They give that distance as 43 to 46 thousand light-years. It goes on to say it is 1,600 to 2,000 light-years above the plane of the galaxy. The paper gives an age of 1.1 to 1.3 billion years for the cluster.
The cluster is about opposite the core of the galaxy so given we are about 25,000 light-years out and WEBDA puts it 22,550 light-years from us that would make it about 45,000 light-years out from the core allowing a bit for the alignment not being perfect. A pretty good agreement with the paper. The problem comes with its age which the paper puts at 300 million to 500 million years older than WEBDA's estimate. The paper admits they had a hard time separating true cluster member from field stars. I'd assume whatever source WEBDA used had the same issue. How each dealt with it may have something to do with the difference. Also, I didn't find any reddening estimate for the paper. From their methods used I doubt that they needed to estimate that for their age determination. In any case, it is a middle age cluster as many are already disrupted by even the time of the earlier age estimate. But being so far out it wouldn't be subject to strong tidal forces. It likely can survive several billion years more unless it makes close passed by the galaxy's core.
Being seen through the distant Milky Way, dust and gas limit the galaxies in the field. Few studies are made of galaxies in this area. Still with only 0.4 magnitudes of reddening distant galaxies are visible in the image. All are from the 2-micron survey which can see through our galaxies dust and gas. Only galaxies rich in the IR wavelengths of the 2-micron survey were picked up. None had redshift values so normally I'd not even annotate them but there were so few I decided to do so anyway, including their long positional names as none overlapped. Many more are seen in the image. They apparently don't have the required IR emission to make the 2-micron survey and no others were listed at NED covering the area.
The night this was taken was so cold when I turned on the camera it reported the chip was already at -39C! I set cooling for -45C and turned off the unneeded fan. Cooling power was never more than 5%. I was tempted to see what the camera did at say -75C but not having and darks for that temperature I didn't try it.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERKELEY23L4X10RGB2X10.JPG
BERKELEY23L4X10RGB2X10ID.JPG
| This is another twofer image. I had both Berkeley 26 (west) and Berkeley 27 (east) on the to-do list. I discovered I could catch both in one image. I also caught some nasty reflections. Normally I move the scope a bit and they vanish. Didn't help as there were several. I'd get rid of two and another appeared. I gave up and put it back to between the two clusters and tried to clone out the reflections. It's sort of obvious but with star clusters not too distracting. I've never mastered cloning out defects as large as these. One was as large as Berkeley 26 that was just to its west.
WEBDA says Berkeley 26 is a very old cluster, as clusters go. They show its age as just under 4 billion years. Most clusters are torn apart even at a third its age. Also, it is quite distant, some 14,000 light-years beyond the sun. That makes it nearly 30,000 light-years from the galaxy's core. This means it spends most of its time on the outskirts of the galaxy where tidal and ram pressure forces are low. This is how it has survived so long. But its bright stars that make cluster's sparkle have long since died leaving a dim cluster. Also, it is reddened by 0.75 magnitudes. This further reddens its remaining stars.
Since Berkeley 27 is brighter and somewhat bluer I expected it to be younger and closer. It is younger at 2 billion years of age rather than 4 but it is more distant at 16,400 light-years. Even more surprising is that it is reddened by only 0.05 magnitudes. I notice even field stars are fewer in the lower right quadrant than the rest of the image though I don't see any reddening. Is this dust cloud to blame? The younger age helps explain why it is bluer and brighter as its F type stars are still around.
The field is 4.75 degrees west of the Rosette Nebula, an area known for dust. I just expected it to be more evenly distributed across my small field. At 17 degrees below the ecliptic, it isn't too surprising I didn't pick up any asteroids.
While a few faint galaxies can be found in the image none have distance data and most are very faint so I've not prepared an annotated image.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME
http://www.mantrapskies.com/image-archive/OTHER/BERKELEY026-BERKELEY027/BERKELEY27-27L4X20RGB2X10-67.JPG
http://www.mantrapskies.com/image-archive/OTHER/BERKELEY026-BERKELEY027/BERKELEY27-27L4X20RGB2X10.JPG
| 
BERKELEY27-27L4X20RGB2X10.JPG
| Berkeley 29 is considered the most distant known open cluster residing nearly 72,000 light-years from our galaxy's core. Most cite a size of 100,000 light-years for the galaxy but it really is much larger as this cluster indicates. It's located in southern Gemini some 50,000 light-years from us. I measure its size at about 3 minutes of arc though defining it is pretty fuzzy at best. That would make it some 40 light-years across. That's pretty large for an open cluster. Apparently, only its great distance makes it looks so compact.
WEBDA gives an age of just over 1 billion years for the cluster though a 2004 paper http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004MNRAS.354..225T puts the age at 3.4 to 3.7 billion years. In either case, it is quite old for an open cluster. Usually, tidal forces rip clusters apart rather quickly but residing so far out it may not see those forces very often. I don't know if its orbit is known. It may never come close in to experience such forces. The age makes it possible the orange stars seen it are red giant members. It also explains why most of the stars are white, rather than blue. The blue ones have lived their lives and are gone leaving only older stars. The red main sequence stars are too faint for me to pick up leaving white as the color I'd expect for a cluster of this age at this distance.
Being deep in the Zone of Avoidance none of the many galaxies seen in the background have redshift data at NED so I didn't prepare an annotated image. None even made the PGC except for the cluster itself. I can't explain it but the UGC, MCG, CGCG, UZG (Updated Zwicky Catalog) and PGC all list this cluster as a galaxy. Even my The Sky shows it as a galaxy rather than an open cluster. There must be an interesting historical reason for this but I was unable to find it. If anyone knows please let me know.
To keep the file size down with all the Milky Way stars and because there's really nothing to see but for stars, I cropped the image but it is reproduced at my normal 1" per pixel. I actually had seeing making this reasonable for a change.
With reasonable transparency and no satellites, I took only one color frame rather than my normal two.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=1x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERKELEY29L4X10RGB1X10.JPG
| Berkeley 30 is a rarely imaged open star cluster in Monoceros. WEBDA puts it at a distance of about 15,600 light-years. They give an age of 300 million years with 0.5 magnitudes of reddening due to dust between us and the cluster. It seems to have a lot of red giant stars. Seems many of its massive stars are about the same mass so entering the red giant stage at about the same time. Other sources seem to disagree. I find distance estimates of 7600 light years and an age of 900 million years in one paper for instance. This shows the difficulty of studying these objects.
There are quite a few galaxies in the image if you look very closely, three on the east edge of the main part of the cluster for example. None, however, have any redshift or other distance data so I've not prepared an annotated image. I'll let those interested hunt up these very small faint fuzzies.
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=1x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERK30L4X10RGB1X10-67.JPG
| Berkeley 34 is a distant, faint open cluster in Monoceros. It's brightest star is about magnitude 13.5, next brightest 14.1. Most are magnitude 16 through 18. I suppose a large Dob will show a glow with a half dozen of stars on top of it. WEBDA puts it at a distance of 24,000 light-years and gives it an age of 2.8 billion years. A paper on it, however, says it is only 2.1 to 2.5 billion years old. The cluster is located about 180 degrees from the center of the galaxy. That puts it on the outer edge of the galaxy. While there's not a lot of dust that direction but at its distance, it is estimated to be reddened by about half a magnitude. Its age plus the reddening accounts for its lack of blue stars. Only the brightest, 13.5 magnitude star shows blue. The rest are white to red. This makes me question whether that star is a member or just a foreground star.
While there are a few background galaxies in the image, NED had no distance information on anything in the field so I didn't make an annotated image. Most of the background galaxies weren't listed in NED, not even as an ultraviolet source.
The weather was lousy for this image with clouds passing by continually. I saved the green data to last due to clouds getting worse and green being the least important color. I only took one of each color due to incoming clouds. Things were so bad I limited the green frame to 5 minutes rather than my normal 10 and the last 30 seconds of that were lost to clouds that never cleared. I decided to see if I could make it work. It turned out easy as the red and blue frames had so many clouds they were a pretty close match. Clouds make for halos around bright stars that are a pain to deal with. I was only partly successful dealing with them.
The paper on the cluster, as well as two other similarly located clusters, is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.3684.pdf
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RB=1x10' G=1x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME | 
BERKELEY34L4X10rRB1X10G1X5.JPG
|