HOLMBERG III

Erik Holmberg (1908-2000) was a Swedish astronomer who studied galaxies. In fact, he was the driving force behind the UGC galaxy catalog. Oddly 8 of the galaxies in that catalog also are 8 of the 9 galaxies in his Holmberg catalog of galaxies. Why these 8 and no others I've not determined. If anyone knows please let me know.

Of the 9, 5 of them are in Ursa Major. Holmberg III is one of the exceptions though only barely being only a degree north of Ursa Major in the southeastern corner of Camelopardalis less than a degree west of Draco. It is UGC 8303 in his more famous catalog. I should note that while the UGC was all his idea and he verified everything in it, he allowed it to be published under only the name of his student that did most of the grunt work. His study of galaxy interactions was done long before computers yet he discovered some of the major principles of galaxy interaction and a few that turned out wrong once computers could crunch the numbers though he acknowledged those areas as weak due to the lack of being able to crunch enough data. One of his major finds in the 1940's was that most of the tidal distortion happened after closest approach rather than before. Galaxies could look very normal right up to and through closest approach only to be badly torn apart after this time.

But as to why Holmberg III in this image made his list I don't know. One of his 9, Holmberg II made Arp's atlas of peculiar galaxies (#268). Many others are irregular dwarf galaxies which too are very peculiar looking but that's the case with nearly all irregular dwarf galaxies. Then there's Holmberg III which is a very normal looking spiral that doesn't seem to fit the other 8 at all other than it is of very low surface brightness and rather blue. The obvious traits of all 9. But there are innumerable low surface brightness blue galaxies, many nearby, like his 9 that aren't on his list. Of the 9 I can image 8 (VI is too low declination and not all interesting looking). I only have Holmberg yet to do.

Holmberg III is, as mentioned, is a low surface brightness, face on, spiral galaxy with a surprisingly small core. Redshift puts it some 54 million light-years distant while 2 Tully Fisher measurements come up with the widely differing values of 65 and 111 million light-years for an average value of 89 million light-years. Flip your three headed coin on this one! Assuming the 89 million light-year distance it is a rather large galaxy at 86,000 light years. It is only 52,000 light years across if the 54 million light-year distance is used. The larger distance of 111 million light years gives 107,000 light-years making it about the size of the Milky Way but a far dimmer version.

There's very little information available on the field. Only two other galaxies in the image have redshift data. That shows the three are not related to each other in any way. While the center of the poor Abell 762 galaxy cluster is located just below and left of UGC 04883 in the upper left corner, I can't identify any galaxy in the frame that may be part of the group which has no size data and contains less than 30 members. Its distance is listed at 1.69 million light-years which doesn't match anything known in the image. Some rather reddened galaxies are in the area which might be part of the cluster. I just don't have enough information to say. CGCG 332-036 below Holmberg III seems to have a plume to the east where there's a small compact red galaxy. Are the two interacting? Probably not but no way to know with so little information.

One asteroid, (208879) 2002 TF58 did manage to appear in the image. With the luminance frames taken at two different times due to clouds in the middle, right at the meridian, unfortunately, its trail appears in two parts. Color data was taken a different night so there's no color trail for it as it was well out of frame at the time.

The GALEX (GALaxy Evolution eXplorer) satellite reported several UvES objects in the image which could be quasars but without redshift data, there's no way to know. I didn't bother to label them as they look exactly the same as the many blue stars in the image.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=8x10, RGB=2x10' (wanted more but clouds didn't cooperate), STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for HOLMBERG III

HOLMBERG IV

Holmberg IV is a barred irregular galaxy of the Magellanic class that is considered to be a member of the M81 group. Though it is located only 1.5 degrees west-southwest of M101. Redshift puts it about 13 million light-years distant which is about right for the M81 group. However, Tully Fisher measurements put it half again as far at 21 million light-years. This is more in line with the distance to M101. Holmberg did apparently consider it part of the M81 group. Wikipedia considers it part of the M81 group as well. Though I found SEDS considers it part of the M101 group as did one paper listed in the notes at NED. For now, I'll go with its location and non-redshift distance that put it much closer to M101 than M81 both as we see it projected in the sky and as it really is in 3D space if the non-redshift distance is more accurate. Redshift is usually very inaccurate for close in galaxies like this. While Tully Fisher measurements are open to several interpretations they tend to be more accurate at close distances than redshift. To argue the other side; if it is 21 million light-years away its size is a bit over 25,000 light-years. Toward the large end of dwarf status. Moving it to only 13 million light years puts it at 16,000 light-years more typical of a dwarf. But if it is part of the M81 group it lies a minimum of about 7 million light-years from M81 given its distance of 30.6 degrees from M81. That's too far in my opinion to be part of its group. It is a minimum of 477,000 light-years from M 101 assuming the same distance or about 2 to 2.5 million light-years assuming M101 is 23 million light-years away and it is 21 million light-years distant. Thus I'm back to saying it belongs to M101, not M81. If the closer redshift distance is right then it may belong to neither being too far from both.

The galaxy is of low surface brightness so made the DDO catalog of such galaxies as entry DDO 185. NED classes it as IB(s)m. Most sources consider it a dwarf galaxy. It is very blue so contains a lot of relatively new stars. A possible indication of interaction with another galaxy in the recent past. I'll pick M101 as the likely culprit. The galaxy has no obvious nucleus that I can see. Though there is a very minor condensation toward the middle of the galaxy just down from the northern, rather bright amorphous region that might be a core. Radio observations indicate it is likely a disk galaxy tilted rather close to edge on. Apparently, its star formation has used up most of its dust with the portion not turned to stars being ejected by the interaction. At least that's one way to interpret this galaxy.

For some reason, redshift data is available for only parts of my image. Much of the lower left has no redshift information and other regions have very little. So the annotated image appears rather odd with those blank areas. While some faint fuzzies around 86 Ursa Major at the lower right were lost in processing out the halo (see below) I was surprised that all with redshift data survived surprisingly unhurt including one that is listed as fainter than 21st magnitude and 5 billion light-years distant. Apparently, my technique worked better than I thought except for exceeding faint fuzzies.

This is another object in which I collected the luminance on a night of not awful seeing but the color data was collected on a night with poor seeing. I'd hoped the color data would have been usable but it seems to be only barely usable. Seeing varied so much the stars took on rather bloated and slightly randomly distorted shapes that were different on every sub. This caused some color flare issues when a flare was especially strong. A problem I've been fighting thanks to the horrid imaging skies we've been having. Also, the bright star to the lower right is 86 Ursa Majoris, a 5.7 magnitude A0V star. It created a bad reflection that covered a good quarter of the image. These apparently come from the corrector plate. I spent a lot of time removing it. In doing so some of the faint objects in its area suffered. My normal methods of subtracting the halo out by using a halo made by aligning the halos of several similar stars then combining with data rejection so the other stars all vanish leaving just the halo didn't work. For reasons I don't understand the halo contained a partial image of the internal baffle in the scope. Something I couldn't recreate. So I had to do the job manually. I'm not any good at that. I had to call in my wife who has a bit more artistic ability to help. Now she expects I owe her big time in chores for her. It might have been easier to have retaken it with the star out of the image and the galaxy low in the frame. But with the rotten weather that might never happen.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for HOLMBERG IV

HOLMBERG V

Phillip Holmberg studied galaxies. Nine of them in enough detail they have since been named after him. Eight are far enough north I can reach them from 47N. All were put on my to-do list. I've managed to get a few of them; II, IV, VIII and IX and now V. The first 4 were all dwarf galaxies as are most of them. Holmberg II made Arp's list as #268 on his list of peculiar galaxies. Of the 9 the most "normal is this one, Holmberg V. It is a rather normal SAB(rs)c spiral galaxy. The surface brightness is lower than normal but not to a great extent. It does have an odd straight arm segment south of the core that runs nearly due east before curving into a normal looking arm. Arp did have a category for this type feature. Apparently, it didn't make the cut. Why it attracted Holmberg's interest I haven't determined.

It does have a small apparent satellite dwarf galaxy, SDSS J134039.25+542053.6. With no redshift data, I can't be certain it really is a companion. It is aligned with the minor axis of Holmberg V. Holmberg had the idea that such galaxies tended to align with the minor axis of their galaxy. I assume this means they orbit around the galaxy at a steep angle to the plane of the galaxy to hold this alignment. The problem is others can't seem to confirm this as a real situation. http://www.astro.yale.edu/vdbosch/align.pdf Was this galaxy one he used to try and support his idea? I just can't track this down as yet. Considering how different this entry is compared to the other 8 I have no other idea as to why it made this very short list.

Holmberg V seems to be a rather lonely galaxy but for the possible companion. No other galaxy in the frame comes within 740,000 light-years. I didn't check for companions out of the frame.

The field contains an above average number of quasars, 9 of them. I wonder if Arp knew about this? He had a wild idea that quasars were ejected from peculiar galaxies rather than being distant massive black holes as we know them today. This high number around a rather normal looking galaxy (but for that straight arm segment) might have been a serious problem for his idea.

There are two galaxy clusters in the image. One attracted my interest. It is close at only 1.8 billion light-years. Above its bright cluster galaxies is a group of galaxies (and 2 stars) that make a nice "V" shape pointing to the upper left. Are these part of this cluster? I found no redshift data for any of them. They seem too small and dim for the 1.8 billion light-year distance to the cluster and are well off center from the bright cluster galaxy below them. Still to get to the 17 members mentioned by NED they would need to be included. Below the two galaxies with redshift data is a third bright one with a large halo. It has no redshift data but certainly appears to be a disturbed member of the group that that large, apparently tidal halo that seems to merge with the much smaller halos of the other two. Though its largest extent seems to go to the southeast, away from the other two.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for HOLMBERG V

HOLMBERGVII

This is another twofer image. Both NGC 4532 and Holmberg VII were on my to-do list. If I'd not been around to override the system it would have taken two images centered on each galaxy. Fortunately, I caught it and saw I could put both into the same field saving me imaging time which with the cloudy weather we've had that is very hard to come by. SIMBAD classifies both as "Interacting Galaxies" But does this mean they are interacting with each other? SIMBAD is moot on that. As there's nothing else in this part of Virgo (the field is south of the center of the cluster) I assume that is what they are saying. The distance to this pair is also a bit vague. Redshift puts them almost 110,000,000 light-years distant. But most papers say these are members of the Virgo Cluster. If so they must be about 60 million light-years distant +/- about 20 million light-years. Non-redshift measurements of NGC 4532 put it 44 million light-years distant while Holmberg VII had only two such measurements, one put it about the same as the redshift distance while the other agrees rather well with the consensus for non-redshift distance measurements of NGC 4532. Most papers go with the non-redshift measurements as the redshifts of true Virgo clusters very widely. If the two are interacting and it's an ongoing interaction then the two might reasonably be expected to have similar redshifts right or wrong. Both are classified as irregular Magellanic type galaxies. If the redshift values are right they are 50,000 and 100,000 light-years in size. Large for this class of galaxy but not impossible. If the non-redshifts are correct then they are 20,000 and 40,000 light-years across. More typical of their class but this isn't definitive. The HST apparently hasn't taken these. It should be able to help answer this question if and when it does.

There are a lot of galaxies in the image with a distance of 1.05 to 1.10 billion light-years. I suspect they are related. I didn't check very far outside the field but didn't see any cluster in NED to match.

There's one very bright asteroid in the image and a faint one. The bright one is named for Vivian Hoette. The naming citation reads: "Vivian Hoette, an educator at the Yerkes Observatory, holds astronomy workshops in the Midwestern U.S. She also contributes internationally by means of a live show between Yerkes and the Science Museum in Tokyo, where an afternoon audience in the latter can see the Yerkes night sky."

This image was taken on a night of an unusually high background brightness which limited how faint I could go. I had to omit many galaxies I'd normally see clearly.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME





http://www.mantrapskies.com/image-archive/NGC4532-HOLMBERGVII/HOLMBERVIIL4X10RGB2X10.JPG
http://www.mantrapskies.com/image-archive/NGC4532-HOLMBERGVII/HOLMBERVIIL4X10RGB2X10CROP125.JPG
http://www.mantrapskies.com/image-archive/NGC4532-HOLMBERGVII/HOLMBERVIIL4X10RGB2X10ID.JPG

Related Designations for HOLMBERGVII

HOLMBERGVIII

Holmberg VIII/UGC 8303 is a companion to the far more famous NGC 5033 to the north out of my field of view. It is located in Canes Venatici. Distance measurements for it range from 54 million light-years by redshift to 66 by a Tully-Fisher measurement. But as it is considered a satellite galaxy of NGC 5033 the distance to that galaxy must be considered. That covers an even wider range with APOD and a couple other sources settling on 38 to 40 million light-years. NGC 5033 is considered to have two satellites much like we have the two Magellanic Clouds. They are Holmberg VIII and UGC 08314 also in my image to the upper left of Holmberg VIII. NGC 5033 is also considered to have been affected by NGC 5005 which I've not yet imaged. Which, if any caused the strong warp seen in NGC 5033 I wasn't able to determine.

Holmberg VIII is classed by NED as IAB(s)m while UGC 08314 is listed as Im:. UGC 08314 has a redshift distance of 54 million light-years, same as Holmberg VIII. Since it is closely tied to NGC 5033 out of the image which many sources say is 40 million light-years away that is more likely the correct value. It has an odd vertical structure in the middle and then a large very faint western half. The eastern side has more bright areas and a small dim one to the northeast. A very unsymmetrical galaxy indeed.

A bright blue blob inside of Holmberg VIII is identified by NED as SDSS J131318.46+361210.6. While listed as a separate galaxy it looks to me to be just a star cloud in Holmberg VIII. I've listed it in the annotated image. It does show a very slightly smaller redshift but I don't see that as sufficient to call it a separate galaxy.

It seems every field I image has some discrepancy when I dig into my research. This one is especially surprising. To the west of Holmberg VIII is the galaxy group SHK 248 with 9 members at a distance of 3.15 billion light-years. The problem is a possible member on the western side. NED shows two designations for it. SDSS J131210.13+361112.1 is at the right position showing a distance of 2.32 billion light-years. Too close to be a member. It's magnitude is in close agreement to my measurement, 18.6. NED also lists 4" of arc to the northwest at a position where nothing is seen, even on the Sloan survey image, 2MASX J13121012+3611117 a galaxy at magnitude 19.4 at a redshift distance of 3.15 billion light-years, correct for the group. It's position is listed with an error circle of 1", insufficient to overlap the only galaxy in the area. I tend to believe the Sloan data placing it too close to be part of the group.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for HOLMBERGVIII

HVN12 26 2017

The text below is only slightly modified from the January 2017 image.

Hubble's Variable Nebula aka NGC 2261, is a highly variable nebula in Monoceros. Famous for being the first light image of the 200" Palomar Telescope in 1949 taken by Edwin Hubble himself. Movies of the nebula show it varies quite a bit over only a couple days time. Unfortunately, all my attempts to catch this have failed due to horrid weather and my failing to keep trying as my to-do list beckons strongly. So I've settled for once a year. Even then variable seeing and transparency make for a difficult comparison. It was discovered not by Edwin Hubble but by William Herschel on December 26, 1783. It is in the second Herschel 400 observing program. Hubble did discover the nebula itself varied in 1916 though the variability of the illuminating star, R Mon had been known since 1861.

I've included my annual (and twice annual from the winter of 2013-14) images since 2011. The color of the 2011 image is highly suspect. Exposure times vary as does my processing so these aren't usable for scientific comparison. This year conditions were good but cold. When I turned on the camera it was nearly -40. I had to set it for -45C and the fan off to get 3% to 5% cooling power and hope that was enough to keep the temperature regulated -- it was.

Note that not only does the nebula change above the illuminating star but the faint hook-shaped piece of nebulosity south of the star also changes. Being faint some of this is likely conditions. In 2011 it was rather obvious but then it faded. Last few years the part of the hook coming back north is getting stronger but the down-stroke is virtually gone. North of the star the main changes are on the east side though the dark band crossing the lower part of the nebula that was strong a few years ago has vanished in 2015 but seemed to be returning in 2016 only to vanish the last two winters. The current image makes it look a bit fatter than the January 2017 image. I expect there were lots of other changes I missed due to the very long time between images. The color in the 2011 image is somewhat suspect as my attempts at color balance were primitive back then. Likely it is redder than it would have been if processed today. I suppose I should go back and redo it.

R Mon, the variable star at its base, illuminates the nebula. It is a brand new star just exiting its birth cocoon. It is thought dust clouds from this cocoon are still orbiting the star casting various shadows on the nebula causing the variations in its details and color. In animations taken only days apart, it appears illumination of the nebula flows upward from the star hitting more distant parts of the nebula over time. This gives an illusion of material moving but I am quite certain this is more like shining a flashlight beam around on a mostly stationary object. The first animation link is from a University observatory, the second is by amateur Tom Polakis in Tempe, Arizona where clear skies are much more common than here.
http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/astronomy/cbrown/imaging/hvn/hvnanimation.html
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o9/64/297864/1/163069532.N1hWgJJX.ngc2261_200_crop.gif

The small faint reddish nebulae above Hubble's Variable Nebula is HH 39. It has 6 parts A through F. Sharp-eyed viewers may spot a small galaxy a bit less than halfway between Hubble's Variable Nebula and the left edge. It has a vertical oval envelop around a star-like core. It is 2MASX J06393966+0846004.

Data for my December 26, 2017 image (UT)
14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for HVN12 26 2017

IC0010

IC 10 is a dwarf irregular galaxy and likely a member of our local group. Located in Cassiopeia it is heavily obscured making it difficult to get a good distance for it. I found distances of 1.65 to 5.85 million light-years at NED alone. APOD on January 4, 2012, said 2.3 million light-years. It was discovered by Lewis Swift on October 8, 1887.

I took this image in late 2007 but somehow forgot all about it. Could be that dealing with all the dust caused me so many issues with color balance I just gave up and forgot about it. I see I also only got one round of color. 10 minutes per channel is sufficient for brighter objects but not heavily obscured objects like IC 10. Looking at online images I find no agreement as to its color. So I throw this out as yet another attempt to determine its color but highly suspect as my color skills in 2007 were not very good. Interestingly NED classifies it as an irregular dwarf and a BCD galaxy. BCD stands for Blue Compact Dwarf so I'd expect it to be quite blue though it is often depicted as having no blue at all as in this NOAO image that is said to be "true color". https://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/html/im1097.html Many papers consider it a starburst galaxy as well. Though these often hide their new blue stars behind curtains of dust so aren't necessarily blue.

Someday I'll try again to get better data but for now, this 2007 image will have to do.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=7x10' RGB=1x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for IC0010

IC0039

The Flying Fish Galaxy?

As you've likely figured out I love the strange and different. Typical looking objects don't interest me. Though I take them from time to time mainly because everyone expects me to. With this one, I return to my love of the very different.

IC 39 aka NGC 178 is considered part of the NGC 210 group and is located in western Cetus about at my southern declination limit. Fortunately, I had better than normal seeing though poor transparency the night I took this image. NGC 178 was discovered by Ormond Stone on November 3, 1885, but he got the coordinates wrong, especially the Right Ascension value. Apparently, he was rather known for this type of error. Due to the error, Stephane Javelle found it on August 26, 1892. Not realizing it a duplicate it was included in the IC catalog as entry 39 with the correct coordinates.

While its discovery is confusing its nature is even more confusing. It is classified by NED as SB(s)m. Various papers indicate it has likely been involved in an interaction, is now interacting with a galaxy and what we are seeing is a double galaxy or is the result of a merger. Flip your three sided coin and pick one.

Redshift puts it 52 million light-years distant while a single Tully estimate puts it 60 million light-years away. Rather good agreement. The arc of blue knots on the right side is considered to mark a spiral arm. What all the reddish knots in the upper central part are I couldn't discover. The split tail may indicate stars ripped from a galaxy it interacted with, or maybe two of them? I find this one hard to understand. To me, it looks like a galactic fish flying straight up. As usual, I put north at the top.

To the east is IC 41 which is over three times as distant by redshift measurement. It appears to me to be a sloshed spiral. Below it at the same redshift is NGC 207. Could it be what sloshed IC 41? It seems too small though it too looks somewhat disturbed.

Further east is a knot of distant red galaxies, two of which appear to be interacting. Except for being listed in the 2MASS catalog by position, there's nothing on this group, not even a designation of it being a group. I expected it would at least make the SHK catalog of galaxy groups but it's not there. Even further east is LEDA 087754 an edge on spiral at 300 light-years. It's northwestern side being much brighter than the southeastern side. Is that just due to dust obscuring it or is that arm shorter and less dense with stars?

The only other galaxy in the image I annotated lies to the northwest of IC 178 and is the most distant that I found a redshift for. It is only listed by its coordinates in several catalogs and unclassified though appears to be a spiral.

Other than two asteroids that barely made it through the gunky low skies there was nothing else worth annotating in the image. While seeing was well above normal at this low altitude transparency was very poor and the skies very bright. Both of which cut into my signal to noise ratio.

For those interested in more on the story of how IC 39 got two designations that are discussed under their entries at the NGC Project. I mentioned it is considered part of the NGC 210 group. I posted that one back on September 28, 2010. It is out of the field to the upper right. I could have just fit them into one frame but both would have been right at the edge. Since the two overlap only slightly at the corners I didn't mosaic the two images. My image of NGC 210 is at http://www.spacebanter.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3160&stc=1 I need to reprocess it as my toolkit for processing these has improved greatly since then.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for IC0039

IC0043

IC 43 is a nice face on spiral with some odd arm structure. It is located in Andromeda a bit south-southwest of Delta and is about 210 million light-years distant. At that distance, I measure its size as about 94,000 light-years across. To the north is UGC 00449, a near edge on spiral and likely companion to IC 43. It has what appears to me to be its own possible companion hanging off its southwestern arm. Yet nothing I found mentions it as a separate galaxy. It isn't mentioned in NED but then many bright galaxies aren't mentioned in NED including one to the southwest that UGC 449 seems to be pointing to. Still, I find it odd that being so close to UGC 449 it isn't mentioned in any literature I found. The galaxy UGC 00449 is pointing to that is marked by a question mark in the annotated image appears "sloshed" in that its core is very off center. That makes it interesting to me but I can't find anything on it. It was discovered by Guillaume Bigourdan on November 15, 1889.

To the northeast of IC 43 is the location of IC 45. This one is either non-existent or is the pair of stars I point to in the annotated image. The NGC Project has an interesting history of this lost object.

The field is poorly researched. Only 3 galaxies in the image have redshift data. What few are even listed in NED come from the 2MASS deep IR survey and have little information. One of those is from the 2 micron flat galaxy catalog Most aren't listed at all. A couple are so star-like I couldn't even see them as galaxies on the Sloan image of the area. One, 2MASX J00430635+2946551 is a very thin red galaxy that to me fits the 2 micron flat galaxy catalog but apparently didn't make the cut. It is mostly hidden between two bright stars toward the upper left of my image.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' RGB=2x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Related Designations for IC0043

IC0059

IC 59/LBN 620 (top) and IC 63/ Ced 4b bottom are not long for this universe. Gamma Cassiopeiae is rapidly eroding them. Red H alpha emission at their bow shock regions toward Gamma with the area behind being blue reflection nebula makes for a quite colorful image. Many image these using H alpha for the luminance channel. That tends to play down the reflection nebula portion. I used luminance data with only H alpha added for the bow shock region to preserve the reflection nebula areas as well as star color. Besides, the two IC nebulae, there's another cloud toward the upper left of my image. Simbad says this is [FT96] 124.0-1.8. The tiny nebula around an orange star above center is Ced 4a. It never seems to get any respect so I had to mention it. It has an orange color so I assume it is reflecting the star's light. Being the color of the star it is probably behind the star. I wasn't able to determine if it is in any way connected with IC 59-63.

The IC 59-63 complex is Sh2-185. This includes Gamma and hints of nebulosity on the opposite side of Gamma. Both IC nebulae were discovered by Max Wolf on December 30, 1893. Isaac Roberts had photographed the field on January 17, 1890 but didn't pick up the nebulae

The Sharpless catalog puts the distance to it at 210 parsecs (680 light-years). Wikipedia puts the distance to Gamma at 190 parsecs (620 light-years). I will split the difference and say a round 650 light-years for its distance. Gamma itself is an irregular long period variable varying over many years from 2.15 to 3.4. Is this seen in the nebula? If so what's the time lag? Wish I knew. Nearly every time I do a bit of research on objects I find more questions than answers.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10'+Ha=1x30' R=2x10'x3+Ha=1x30' GB=2x10'x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME
Ha added to L and R channels using lighten mode with it limited to the shock front areas.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10' HA=1x30' GB=3x10x3

Related Designations for IC0059