Clustered

This is the second in a planned short series of image-rich posts within which I hope to share my progress in astrophotography; the first, on binary star systems, is here. Although I’ve been a stargazer since my childhood, this more serious-minded hobby started two or three years after I retired and has progressed haltingly in the six or seven years since. Now, as I approach my mid-seventies, I’d like to take stock of what I’ve achieved and there’s nothing like writing about it to sort out one’s thoughts.

The advent of being able to capture images of star clusters dawned when I finally managed to use plate solving methods to find and identify specific targets and then employ guiding to lock onto them for long exposures. Plate solving is, in essence, a little like using the features on a map to help one navigate to a destination; in this case the map is of star positions and it’s my laptop doing all the work. The plate solving software uses an image of whatever the telescope-astrocam is ‘seeing’ and from the relative positions of the stars in that image calculates what bit of sky the telescope must be pointing at. From there it’s a simple task to work out what correction to that direction is needed to get to the designated target. Indeed, within the software I’m currently using (SharpCap – other packages do similar things) it’s then possible to use the correction identified automatically to slew the telescope to the right direction. However, the Earth is still rotating beneath the night sky so our target will progressively drift off centre unless the telescope is moved in the opposite sense. (A setting-up process called Polar Alignment is a prerequisite for all this; the telescope’s mount is tilted to the observer’s latitude and aligned to the Celestial Pole – near Polaris.) This is where guiding comes in. A small secondary telescope and astrocam is used with appropriate software (I use PHD2) that locks onto the position of stars in its field of view and controls the motion of the telescope’s mount such that they stay in the same position: in other words, it ensures that the telescope accurately tracks the stars. Now we’re in a position to capture objects for extended periods of time rather than rely solely on polar alignment and the need to add together (stack) multiple images of only a few seconds duration. I’ve written about these steps in an earlier post, here.

What follows is a set of images showing the star clusters I have imaged thus far. The quality is mixed, to say the least, which is exactly what you’d expect given the continuing – indeed, never-ending – learning curve I’m on. There are two very distinct types of star clusters: globular and open. The names say it all really, globular clusters comprise groups of stars in a spheroidal arrangement – a ball of stars if you will. Open clusters comprise a group of stars with a separation large enough that each of them can be resolved … assuming they are bright enough to be seen at all. The one thing they have in common is that they exist and orbit within the Milky Way as a group; they are gravitationally bound to one another.

On the left is the best I could do with my first telescope – as described in the previous post; it shows the brightest star in the Pleiades and its near-neighbours. I have inverted the image, which is akin to creating a negative of the sort used by astronomers before digital cameras; it can make it easier to pick out the fainter details. The numbers shown refer to the apparent magnitudes of the stars – a term I outlined in the previous post when discussing brightness. On the right is a more recent view of the entire visible open cluster, Alcyone is central and about 1/3rd down from the top. This is high on my list for a return visit when the conditions are right since it’s travelling through a cloud of dust and gas and the cluster’s members illuminate it at a faint level. I have written at length about the beguiling Pleiades in an earlier post, here.

There seems to be nothing astronomers like better than giving particular groups of stars a descriptive name. The tendency began, I suppose, with the classic constellations – most of which comprise stars not actually held together by gravity but merely ‘lined up’ in the view of the observer. Thus, the Pleiades or any of the clusters shown here would be a defined cluster from whatever viewpoint one might have within the Milky Way but the Plough, for example, only has that shape when viewed from our solar system – it is an asterism. Making out why the above open cluster is called the Pyramid is challenging, so I have included an image on the right which might help 😉.

My final open cluster is called the Beehive – a name that continues to evade explanation to my mind. Although not visible to my setup, there are probably about 1,000 stars in the cluster in total. Its more formal designations include M44 or NGC2632. The ‘M’ denotes the eighteenth century astronomical catalogue begun by Charles Messier, who devoted much time and effort in the compilation of a list of ‘fuzzy’ objects which were not comets. ‘NGC’ stands for New General Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars, although the term new is relative since the catalogue and its supplements were put together in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

M56 is an interesting globular cluster in theat the stars have a particulalrly low metallic content (compared to our Sun for example). This suggests that the stars are unusually old: few new stars incorporating the heavier elements released in the death of earlier-generation stars. In addition, the cluster is moving counter to the overall rotation of the Milky Way and that suggests that it might have form outside our galaxy and then been captured at some time in the past.

M92 is a globular cluster which has a mass equivalent to ~330,000 Suns. Like many globular clusters its metallicity is relatively low, leading to estimates of its age in the region of 11 billion years.

M3 has a similar morphology to M92 but a higher mass (~½ million Suns) and although still low by galactic standards, its metallicity is a little higher than M92’s. It sits quite a long way above the plane of the Milky Way, which sets it apart. M3 contains an unusually large number of variable stars.

M13, the Hercules cluster, is arguably the most stunning globular cluster visible from the northern hemisphere. It probably has as many stars as M3, but is far closer to us.

The next post I plan to write in this series considers parts of the Milky Way which require us to go up in scale. Indeed, the targets won't all fit into my expanded field-of-view so we'll be viewing specific regions of them. These are the nebulæ: vast clouds of dust and gas. However, the idiosyncratic naming beloved of amateur astrophotographers will continue unabated.

There are several earlier posts which will give you the 'backstory' to this current short series. They'll be obvious if you peruse the blog. The first one I wrote on this post-retirement hobby of mine was uploaded a little over five years ago and focused on imaging the Moon and planets, as were several that came after. However, an alternative to reading those would be to watch a recording of the talk I gave in January 2025 which summarises the earlier stages of my journey: there’s a link to the YouTube capture in the first paragraph of ‘Climbing over Failure’.