Hi Darius,  I think this data was taken before I was a member, so I can't comment on the quality.  But with an RA=20hr, I would have thought that it has gone for the year.   On another matter, your LDN998 observation appears to have missed the area, normally imaged for this object (along with a lot of other in the same area) - see my post in the lounge area.  Was this deliberate? CS Brian

Hi brian, according to stellarium LDN 1082 can be photographed well in the first half of the night.  I thought if I want the object in the center of the image, I don't need to give coordinates. That's why I didn't give any for LDN 998. According to the plate solving of Astrobin LDN 998 is still well recognizable: https://astrob.in/ig9irh/0/ CS Darius

Hi Darius, good observation on LDN998. I was just distracted by other images on Astrobin which put LDN998 off-centre to get the bulk of the dark nebula (and a couple of emission/reflection nebulae) in the same shot.  On LDN1082, my response was predicated on the advice from the Roboscopes team that they preferred objects to be submitted that were rising - and certainly not past the meridian at the start of the night. But since you had already submitted the target, I guess that may be an exception.  A question to the Roboscopes team - I presume that as a new syndicate member I would have access to any new data on this target, but not to the old?  Regards Brian 

Brian You would be 100% correct, as I said our time machine for data goes back only 28 days, after that it is no longer available To touch on your other note Brian Yes, rising plans in different quadrants as well as objects not rising until a future time wherever possible make this system more efficient and in turn productive for member as we have the software setup to work this way. Not to mention chasing stuff that's setting for us is a PITA  and liable not to complete the whole data set  So if all members wherever possible do this then you will get more data I assure you Steve

Hi Darius RE  LDN 1082 It is up to you as the members how you choose objects and times on this pier but my only comment is this system is F/2.8 and in my humble opinion another 12hours would seem a tad excessive considering the speed of the system and I doubt the seahorse needs 18hours of imaging time  However this is only my advise as I know my systems pretty well, between you I am sure you will sort it out HTH Steve

Hi All, I also checked Stellarium, as I would love to get an image of the Seahorse.  For me, 9-12 hours would be ample (noting I don't have access to the first six!).  Given the need to go faint, I would imagine that this object really needs the moon down - and the object relatively high in the sky, at least above 40 deg  altitiude?.   That actually doesn't happen now until last quarter/new moon at the end of the month.   LDN1082 would be above 40 deg altitude for the first three hours of each night, so 12 hours of data could be done in 4 clear nights.    I would support getting at least 9hours on it.  I can't comment on whether it would be worthwhile getting 18hours on it, since I will only ever see this additional daa.. So I would (selfishly) support getting any data on it, but realistically I also think it is pushing things a bit from the observability side.   Other members of the syndicate who had access to the first six hours of data should also comment.   Brian 

Hi All, I also checked Stellarium, as I would love to get an image of the Seahorse.  For me, 9-12 hours would be ample (noting I don't have access to the first six!).  Given the need to go faint, I would imagine that this object really needs the moon down - and the object relatively high in the sky, at least above 40 deg  altitiude?.   That actually doesn't happen now until last quarter/new moon at the end of the month.   LDN1082 would be above 40 deg altitude for the first three hours of each night, so 12 hours of data could be done in 4 clear nights.    I would support getting at least 9hours on it.  I can't comment on whether it would be worthwhile getting 18hours on it, since I will only ever see this additional daa.. So I would (selfishly) support getting any data on it, but realistically I also think it is pushing things a bit from the observability side.   Other members of the syndicate who had access to the first six hours of data should also comment.   Brian 

Hello all, I agree to collect another 12 hours. So that the new members also get enough data. I personally do not mind having too much data. I generally prefer to have too much than too little. CS Darius

Brian As I said I am only here to help and I hope offer constructive advice, I do agree on the whole the seahorse could easily be slain with 6/9 hours of data using pier 5 but like you say if you don't have access to the old data i understand why you would also with to put it back in. There are not many jobs in the pier and what jobs are in to be fair its chewing through them quite quickly at present so I doubt its a big deal whatever any of you want to do. Your idea of moon down will push the data acquisition back a little allowing the pier to grab extra data on other projects in the mean time Steve

Steve/Darius I leave it to Darius (as the instigator of LDN 1082) to submit the formal request.  I would support 9+ hours of 300s subs with moon down at the same field centre.  After reviewing the latest data release, I plan to make a couple more suggestions.... Brian