The long overdue Mount Pinos Writeup.........and a bonus shootout between my two most used scopes: Celestron-Vixen C6 on Porta Mount and Celestron Costco nexStar 102GT

It has been a while since I posted about my pure visual observing stints and scope shootouts on my blog site so I figured I should write something. I have been busy with my green card application as well as stuff at work so I have not had that much spare time to write. But I have been doing astro stuff on the side to unwind and chill. I visited Mount Pinos twice in the span of 2 weeks. I was out there on the 14th of June, as well as on the 31st of May. Both were in-promp to sessions that did not occur around the time of the new moon! The last session had a "not quite first quarter moon", and the session prior to that was during the last quarter moon. I tried to do some CCD imaging but was thwarted by breezy conditions. In fact I tried to image on the 31st of May but gave up. Some objects I tried for included M66 in Leo, M27, the Dumbbell Nebula in Vulpecula, M8, the Lagoon Nebula  and M17, the Swan Nebula in Sagittarius. All objects turned out really blurry and I got really frustrated. I decided right away that I was just going to do just pure visual work if it were breezy, and I enjoyed my session much more. No point in getting all frustrated when all wanted was to be relaxing out under the stars. Both sessions were colder than I expected so I did not enjoy myself as much. I made a mental note to myself not to even try imaging if there was a hint of breeze. Mount Pinos is just too darn breezy for imaging. My most productive imaging sessions so far have been from my light polluted playground in Culver City!

While imaging was a bust, visual observing was great. The skies are definately darker than from my regular site at Solstice Canyon in Malibu. The milky way was visible stretching from the southern end of the sky to its northern counterpart. The center of our galaxy was literally blazing forth. Driving out there under the stars (I have been starting out later to avoid heavy traffic on the 405 and I5 and usually leave home at about 9pm and get there just after 10pm). I had with me on both occasions my trusty Celestron Nexstar 102GT, which has now become my most used scope since I do so much CCD imaging. I also had with me my former most used scope, my trusty Celestron-Vixen C6 6"f f/5 newtonian on Vixen Porta mount (only end of May session). Since CCD imaging was out of the question, I had both the C6 and the 102GT side by side for a mini shootout. Objects on the list included galaxies, nebulae, planetary nebulae as well as globular clusters. Some of the objects scrutinized in both scopes included, in order of objects viewed, galaxies M81 and M82 in Ursa Major, M51 in Canes Venatici, M64 in Coma Berenices, M65 and M66 in Leo, M95 and M96 in Leo, NGC 2903 in Leo, M104 in Virgo, M83 in Hydra, as well as nebulae, M8/M20/M16/M17 in Sagittarius, planetary nebulae M57 in Lyra and M27 in Vulpecula and finally globular clusters M22, M28 in Sagittarius, M10 and M12 in Ophiuchus, M13 in Hercules and M4 and M80 in Scorpius. Here are my comparison notes:

• M81 and M82 in Ursa Major: Both galaxies showed similar level of detail in both scopes. It was amazing how similar they looked, even in terms of brightness. The dark lane in M82 was readily visible in both scopes.
• M65 and M66 in Leo: Again there wasn't much of a difference in detail. The galaxies were easier to see in the C6, as was its third member NGC 3628. The running theme seemed to be the brighter the object, the less obvious the differences in the 102GT versus the C6.
• M95 and M96 in Leo: Same as the above. I am amazed that the 102 is keeping abrest of the C6.
• NGC 2903 in Leo: Not much detail in either scopes. Slight difference in brightness. You have to look to notice.
• M104 in Virgo: Looked identical in both scopes. Dark lane evident in both.
• M83 in Hydra: Pale imitation of its southern visage. Not much visible here. The added aperture made it easier to see through the muck. Galaxy looked like a grey smudge in both scopes with no hint of spiral structure. I have seen the spiral structure in my C6, but that was in Leyburn, Brisbane, Australia when the galaxy was much higher in the sky.
• M51 in Canes Venatici: C6 gave better views here. I though I could make out hints of the spiral arms with averted vision in the C6. In the 102GT, both components were visible, but no hints of spiral arms.
• M64 in Coma Berenices: C6 again came out tops again. Black eye dark dust lane much more obvious in the C6 than in the 102GT. 
• M8/M20/M16/M17 in Sagittarius. All of them appeared equally bright, with the possible exception of M20, the Trifid Nebula. Lanes were more obvious in the C6.
• M57 in Lyra: Ring more obvious in the C6 although it is also visible in the 102GT.
• M27 in Vulpecula: The dumbbell stood out better without the NPB filter in the C6. The brightness improvement was small though. The superior contrast in the 102GT made up for its lack of light gathering ability.
• M22, M28 in Sagittarius: This is where the added two inches makes a difference. M22 was fully resolved in the C6. By contrast the views in the 102GT left me wanting more.
• M10 and M12 in Ophiuchus: Same as the above. Looks like the added aperture made a big difference on globulars. As mentioned previously, its only in the 6" class of scopes and above where globulars get interesting and look different.
• M13 in Hercules: C6 wins again as the resolution was heaps more evident in the C6 (fully resolved with direct vision) as opposed to the 102GT (averted vision required for resolution of most of its stars).
• M4 and M80 in Scorpius: Bar more obvious in the C6. No resolution in M80 in both. Only my 10" starts to break M80 down.

So there you have it the verdict. The 102GT is a brilliant scope for visual as well as CCD imaging. It it not very far behind in terms of object resolution and brightness in comparison to the C6, which has an extra 2" of aperture. Most people would be happy with the views in it. I guess it all depends on what you want to view. Since I love globular clusters, I would choose the C6 over the 102GT any day since the C6 makes most globulars look interesting due to the resolution of its starts. brighter galaxies also show more minute detail in the C6. Also another thing to note is the pathetic excuse of a mount for the 102GT NexStar. Its only good in very light breezes. At Mount Pinos, that had winds gusting between 15 to 30 miles and hour, I found it extremely difficult to get good views. By comparison the C6 on the Vixen Porta mount was rock steady. I would probably still bring both scopes with me, but if the winds kick up, its bye bye NexStar. Of course the ultimate is my 10" f/5 dob, but I am at this moment too lazy to make more than two trips down two flights of stairs to get the dob in the car. And that is just part of the trip. There is still the unpacking. So till we meet again next time.......