WoW! I had a great time at Fremont Peak on Saturday night!

It wasn't because of the meteor outburst though. I considered it to be a dud. I was observing from 7:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and only saw about fifty meteors - total! Most of them were magnitude +4 or +5. Only two were from the 103P / Hartley 2 "outburst." About twenty were from the Taurids, and the others were sporadic. It sounds like I should have joined my friends for great meteor viewing! :-(

Dave Holman and I were the only ones there for the campaign. I did have fun learning a lot more about meteor recording. At the Perseids, I only plotted the trail on the star map, and recorded the time and magnitude. I only recorded information for meteors +1 or brighter. The constructive feedback was that I recorded the magnitudes about one unit too bright and the trails too long. Dr. Peter determined this by comparing my data with the photos.

This time I was asked to do a full report. I plotted the trail and recorded the time and magnitude as before, but this time for all meteors (except sporadics). In addition, I recorded the degrees per second, degrees from start point of the trail to the horizon, and degrees from the endpoint of the trail to the radiant. I don't think I am very good at all that yet, but I'm trying! ;-)

I like the star map that I use for plotting because it has star magnitudes. I spent a lot of time trying to see the dimmest star possible. Dave suggested that I pick the constellation directly overhead, which was Andromeda. So I started with a 6.0 near M31 - very easy with averted vision. Then I looked for a 6.2 that is between M31 Pegasus - very difficult with averted vision, but definitely there. I was stopped by a 6.3 near the tail end of Andromeda towards Perseus. I probably spent more than a half an hour searching for that star.

What do you think is the best way to compare magnitudes at various sites? I like Mike's idea of using the little dipper because it is always visible. It makes sense to use the same constellation every time. But I also like Dave's idea of using the constellation at the zenith, because the north may be a dark spot for one site, but bright for another. I am interested to hear your opinions.

Now to the fun part of the night! I already wrote a lot, so I try to make this short. Ron was running the 30". I think he was in a very generous mood because it was the last night of the season. By the time I came over, Jupiter had already set, so I drew a beautiful picture of Saturn. The seeing was pretty bad though. The wind was whipping the cloth on the scope and Saturn was jumping around.

A while later, after the wind died down a little bit, I looked at the Trapezium. Would that be an asterism? I saw a lot of stars, but I didn't know which ones I could count, so I just drew them all. Later, Jack from SJAA (who was there with his 6" AP) told me I could count everything in the dark hole. Ron was nice enough to turn the scope and show me again. I thought I could see ten stars in the dark hole. However, after studying one of Mike's books later in the week, I determined that I actually saw stars A-F and a bunch of other stars, but did not see stars G or H. Next time I will know where to look.

Ron also showed NGC 2261, Hubble's Variable Nebula. We all thought it looked like a comet! Interesting that Hubble didn't discover the variable star or the nebula, but he did discover that the nebula is variable. It doesn't have a regular pattern, and it does not vary in sync with the variability of the star. I think Scmidt discovered the variable star and Herschel discovered the nebula. It was very beautiful in the 30". I will definitely try to find it on my own some time.