Computers versus star charts

The "How hard is it to find objects" thread is getting a little long and off topic, but an interesting discussion has come up regarding whether it is better to use a planetarium program with a laptop or a printed chart/atlas.

I have plenty of uses for both. But for simple star hopping of decently bright objects, I find a good old SKy Atlas 2000 a lot easier to use than a laptop.

....I can hold a printed atlas over my head to line it up with the stars I can see. I suppose I could hold the laptop up, but I would not be as comfortable.

...the scale of the printed atlas is a lot easier to adjust to than the variable scale of my laptop. I know, I could adjust the scale on the laptop, but I still find it easier to distinguish the signposts and patterns I need on the paper map rather than the laptop.

...the size of the atlas pages, and the corresponding area of sky covered, allows me to get a better picture of where the objects of my desire are. (Maybe this is just another way of saying the last paragraph. But I do find it easier to see what I need.)

Any other advice for the beginners? (Or your opinion on what I offered?)

Alex

I find the laptop useful for setting up astro images, since I can compare the FOV, and for when I want to see a large swath of sky....

But, as I said, for the average star hop, the atlas is a lot more convenient.

I don't want anybody to think that I won't use a laptop, or that the star charts meet all my needs. But, this is a beginner's forum, and I think it important to say that the tried and true bright star atlas meets most of one's in -the-fields-needs.

Alex

Any other advice for the beginners? (Or your opinion on what I offered?)

Alex
====

Just to put in my two cents for using a handheld. Certainly star charts are a viable solution, but I think there are several ways to skin this cat...

Some of the advantages of the handheld:

1. Lots of information in a small package and fully customizeable for the individual situation. Holding a handheld to the sky is easier than a star chart... Right there in my shirt pocket is a data base of the entire sky down to about magnitude 11 fully accessable without getting up from my chair.

If I want to look at double stars instead of DSOs, the information can be right there with up to date information on separations...

2. Presents in the alt-az mode correctly oriented with the current horizon. For a beginner, figuring out the proper orientation of the star chart as well as "when and where to look at what" is an extra step or two.


3. The ability to zoom in and out is important. There are 3 scales and magnitude limits one is using: the naked eye, the magnifying finder and the telescope eyepiece. A computer/handheld can easily move back and forth between all three.

If I want to find the major guide stars, I might look at a 30 or 45 degree FOV... Then to the finder and I might want 10 or 15 degrees, onto the eyepiece and 2 or 5 degrees allows me to see the close in guide stars.

As far as the "light pollution" goes. I use a red screen night mode and the screen brightness is adjustaable, red stars and writing on a black background is quite faint. This fall along the Utah-Arizona border, using the Handheld to starhop did not seem to affect my ability to detect faint fuzzies like Stephen's quintet...

This is what works for me... I got my Clie and I am set...

------

I think the important thing to stress here is that there is no one "right solution", there many alternatives, many different choices.

Most experienced observers have discovered what works for them. For some it is a GOTO mount, for some it is a star chart, for some it is a computer or handheld...

The important thing is to discover what works for you and your personal observing style...

For me, it's the CLie in the pocket...

Jon

<>

I'm with you!

For those just beginning and want a tool for at the eyepiece:

http://www.willbell.com/atlas/atlas1.htm


Highly recommended!