Affiliation
American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Sun, 06/23/2024 - 16:59
The star at this location appears to be in outburst on DSLR patrol images obtained on June 5 and June 16, 2024. It has not moved, and I have no images prior to the ones showing the outburst. GAIA 2055947866179206272 is listed as mag. 14.53. The star is approximately mag 10 on tricolor digital images. VSX has several variables in the field, all far below mag. 10.
I've submitted a request for AAVSOnet observations. I'm also going to be trying for additional photometry with my own equipment as weather permits.
Anyone interested is welcome to help identify and observe.
PKT
Sounds interesting…
Hi John,
Sounds interesting! I would love to check this star out under suitable conditions, but unfortunately, I cannot find it in the catalogs. Are you sure there is no error in the designation, or perhaps it would be better if you gave coordinates or an alternate designation?
Kind regards,
Nikola
RA 20h 27m…
Coordinates are
RA 20h 27m 57.12s
Dec +33 deg 32 m 10.7s.
I’ve generated a quick B chart in VSP that has some brighter comparisons. Input chart ID
X36730BZT
Thanks!
PKT
Thank you! I've added it to the list. Unfortunately, bad weather is looming next week, but if a clear window opens up, I'll check it out.
There is no star at 20 27 57.12 +33 32 10.7 (J2000.0).
And there is no Gaia ID similar to the one you quoted ("GAIA 2055947866179206272", the release number has to be included in the name, e.g. "Gaia DR3...") around the specified position.
Searching by the ID Gaia DR3 2055947866179206272, I get the following coordinates: 20 26 59.71 +33 27 24.6 (J2000.0)
So identifier and coordinates are not consistent with each other.
However, I think I know what is happening.
Gaia DR3 2055947866179206272 is a V= 14.56 mag. star that has a very close very bright V= 9.96 mag. star only 4" to its ESE. It is GSC 02689-00444 (Gaia DR3 2055947861881425536).
You probably can't split the 10th mag. star from the 14.6 mag. star and thus you thought that the faint obect was the bright one.
Maybe you clicked on an image in some planetarium software closer to the position of the faint star, and since you did not see the faint object, you just assumed there was only one star and just took the information corresponding to the other one.
So it is a good time to check how you identified both your object and its coordinates so you can improve your procedure :)
Cheers,
Sebastian