TheSkySearchers

Book Review:
The Cambridge Double Star Atlas: Second Edition

Intro: This is one of the books I purchased when I started my current double star program. I will begin by saying that my views of this book are flavored by my observing style. Another reader may like it more or like it less than I did. I am not that knowledgeable about double stars, so take that into consideration when reading my review. Now that I have that out of the way here are my thoughts:

Pros:
The atlas seems comprehensive. The target list contains 2,500 binary and multiple stars. This makes it extremely valuable to someone diving deep into the study of binaries. The target list I am currently using has only 100 binaries. One might say that I am merely sticking my toe into the waters.

The footnotes on the target list are ample, often giving a lot of extra information. The target list itself takes 76 pages, which indicates how in depth the notes are.

The pages are big and bright and in color.

My favorite part was the introductory material in the first 18 pages.

I like the way the book opens flat at any page.

The star charts are not only good binary charts, they are good star charts for any project down to a magnitude of 7.5.

All in all it is an excellent resource.

Cons:
My cons speak more of me than weaknesses with the atlas. In my earlier days of observing I relied heavily on star charts. Back then I took my telescope with me to the darkest place easily accessible and used star hopping to locate my targets for the night. Today I have a goto mount and Internet in my observatory. Before I search for targets I look them up, both the location and as much information as I can find on them. I may spend 20 minutes are more just reading about each target. I often use Stellarium or Night Safari instead of charts to locate my targets. It is hard for any published atlas to compete with that. I find that my atlas spends most of its time on the table in my warm room, where I consult it when preparing for a night of viewing. My computer or cell phone accompanies me in the observatory.

Concl:
I’m glad I purchased the atlas. If I had it to do over I would do it again. It is a good reference book and companion for my project. If I stay on my current project beyond my original 100 object target list, it will become invaluable.

Question:
That brings me to a question. Are there others who find their atlases to be valuable, but find they don't use them as often as they once did?

Thanks Rob, appreciate your review of the DSA 2nd edition. I on the other hand have the first edition by James Mullaney and Wil Tirion. It is my understanding that in the second edition, Bruce MacAvoy shunned any optical doubles in favor of those that only are true binaries. In the case of the first edition it also includes optical as well as binary doubles. So some may find that either a pro or a con, depending upon their personal opinion. However, there are a lot of interesting and beautiful optical pairs out there, and while excluding them may be true to the science of studying binaries, in my view it takes away a special side of the pursuit of doubles.

I am purely a manual visual observer, so charts are still at the front and center of what I do in the field. The only light I have around is a red light. I almost never research an object before I observe because I do not want any foreknowledge to influence what I may or may not see. Granted, my primary focus is galaxies, which of course is vastly different from double stars. I only share all that because we each find what works best for our interests and methodologies. Ultimately whatever feeds our curiosity and enjoyment of the night sky is the style for us personally. Good luck on your pursuit of "seeing double."

Yes, I think you are correct about deleting the optical doubles. I have never seen the first edition, but after going back to check the author's comparisons they must be very different. Not only did they focus on physical doubles, they deleted 850 systems deemed "beyond the reach of amateur telescopes", and added 1,100 "high probability" doubles and multiples. That would make the two volumes a lot different. That would certainly b a pro or con, depending on what you are looking for. I also like the optical doubles and would consider them a class of doubles.

It is interesting how many different ways we have of observing. I have had a couple of eye surgeries and my eyesight is somewhat limited. I'll probably never be able to tease out quite what others see. I enjoy knowing the history of the target, such as how long ago it was discovered, what role it has played in our knowledge of the universe, and basically everything I can about it, so when I am looking at it all that I have read comes into my imagination. I often take images of my targets. Thy aren't high quality images, but they help me look over the target again for anything I might have missed. Poor eyesight was one of the many reasons I switched from primarily using my 10" dob to using an 11" SCT. I could no longer star hop, even if I wanted to.

I fondly remember the nights when I chased down all my Messiers manually. Back then my binoculars were one of my favorite tools. I agree with you. I enjoy a hobby that allows so many methodologies and feeds our curiosity and enjoyment.

Thanks for the comprehensive review.

I still use atlases, I prefer star hopping with an alt-az, just more relaxing for me.
I have an SE mount which I use for outreach or family and friends, can't beat goto/tracking in those situations.

I will definitely pick it up

Agree that the differences between the first and second edition of the DSA is quite apparent. Each author had their own agenda when they composed their respective editions. But the culmination of them together is a more complete picture of visual pursuit of double stars.

Well I have to say that my optical acuity has definitely declined. I am 69 and over the past ten years I can see things have gotten a little more difficult for me as well. However, that said, I feel my observing skills built up by years of chasing galaxies visually have served me well overall. At this point I still have the ability to pursue galaxies with my 17.5 inch at our dark site property, though admittedly I haven't been able to do really long session in quite some time. About three to four hours is about all I can do any more.

I too really enjoy the historical aspect of the objects I observe. While I rarely look up objects before my observations, I do read about them afterwards while I am compiling my notes. Also, there are times that I pick up details or suspect I am picking up a detail that I then vet later during my post observational research. I truly enjoy the research and historical context, and particularly reading about the numerous errors within the NGC/IC catalogues. I have the upmost respect for the forefathers of visual astronomy. They worked with little to no real understanding of what they were observing and were true explorers of the visual universe.

Both 1st and 2d additions of The Cambridge Double Star Atlas are excellent references for double stars enthusiast. As Rob indicated they are next step from the typical best 100 doubles lists and will keep you busy for quite a while.

I have spent many evenings using them to observe doubles, but now I am using WDS as the reference and SkySafari app to locate those WDS doubles.

Good review and timely! I've been thinking about getting more into DS observing and have been considering ordering a copy. I'd use it as a desk reference since I use SkySafari scopeside which has an option to display doubles.