Simeis 147: Supernova Remnant in Auriga/Taurus Border
Credit:Davide De Martin & the ESA/ESO/NASA Photoshop FITS Liberator
I am going to acknowledge up front, that this quest for Simeis 147 was spurred by this post by Rich Jakiel and his observation of Simeis 147 found at this LINK and Jim Shield's Bright Regions of Simeis 147 finder chart located HERE. You should be able to identify the bright regions from Jim Shields post in my sketches. I will be referencing both websites in my observation but will not be posting information from those sites since I do not have permission to do so. I do want to thank them both for inspiring me to achieve this as well. You may also see that photographs of these areas located here LINK . I am of the belief that I have some bleed over from those images to my sketching as I used them as finder charts also. However, I do feel the sketches provide a rather accurate view of what I saw this night. My portions of this SNR are labeld 1 through 4.
Other resources I used for this journey are found in the following links. I used this image capture from Sinbad LINK to help me identify the portions of the SNR that I observed. This astro image LINK I also used to identify parts of Simeis 147 based on my observing and sketches.
1. Simeis 147: January 17th 2017; 8:50pm; FR006 Juniper Grove; Antoniadi I, cold 12 degrees F; 17.5" dob f/4.4; 35mm Panoptic, 26mm Nagler T5; 22mm Nagler T4; 10mm Pnetax XW; Thousand Oaks OIII 2" and 1 1/4" and DGM OIII. Paracorr Type II.
Nebulosity is basically streaky going from star SAO 77322 and going for about 12' to 14' east. Filaments seen south of star SAO 77350 and easy to follow once you capture them. Sketch is too bright for me, the filaments and nebulosity should be fainter.
2. Simeis 147; January 17, 2017; 9:37pm MST; FR006 Juniper Grove; Antoniadi I, clear, cold, 12 degrees F; 17.5" dob f/4.4; 35mm Panoptic; 22 Nagler T4; 26mm Nagler T5, 10mm Pentax XW; Thousand Oaks and DGM OIII Filters 2" and 1 1/4". Paracorr Type II
I believe this is the best portion of the SNR to observe. Filaments are easily observable (relatively speaking) and are observed with the OIII and pop out. Averted vision brings out more to my eye. There are several criss cross patterns that when put together form a box shape or square shape. Averted vision needed on the fainter portions of this region to get details. Lots of stars and I spent almost an hour after acquiring it observing the region. Very similar to me to the parts of the Veil or perhaps Sh 2-91.
3. Simeis 147; SNR in Aurgia; January 17th, 2017; FR006 Juniper Grove; 10:30pm MST; Antoniadi I; 12 degrees F; 17.5" dob f/4.4; 35mm Panoptic; 26mm Nagler T5; 22mm Nagler T4; 10mm Pentax XW; Thousand Oaks & DGM OIII filters 2" and 1 1/4" and Paracorr Type II.
This portion to me was very faint, very, very faint, and far fainter than my sketch. I believed I show in the sketches nebulosity and filaments brighter than they appeared. Probably the fault of the light. filaments running ENE to WSE between stars SAO 77354 which is about mag. 6.0 and SAO 77381 mag. about 7.0. Some filaments had what appeared to be fiber structure, much like the outer edges of the Veil Nebula in Cygnus, but not as much as number 2 above. This portion really did remind me of Sh2-91 in Cygnus. That is a good prep for observing this portion of the Simeis 147.
4. Simeis 147; January 17th 2017; 11:05pm MST; FR006 Juniper Grove; Antoniadi I, clear, cold 10 degrees F; 17.5" dob f/4.4; 26mm Nagler T5; 22mm Nagler T4; 10mm & 14mm Pentax XW; Paracorr Type II; Thousand Oaks and DGM OIII Filters 2" and 1 1/4"
Faint nebulous quarter moon shape with faint nebulosity in the center. There is almost a small open cluster in this region. Nebulosity is held with direct vision in the brighter portions and with averted in the the fainter parts of the region, averted not always needed. I did shake the scope and that helped to define the edges for me. Fun to observe and sketch, a challenge as all are.
I compared the sketches to the photographs of them I posted above, and the images are much brighter than the sketches. I actually like the actual sketches more. I think simulate port of what I saw, and I filled in what I thought I observed or what was hinted at.