Norton's Star Atlas and Reference Handbook (20th Edition)

User Review: - Reverse title
Don't buy this for the "STAR ATLAS", but only as a "REFERENCE HANDBOOK." As a good overall guide to astronomy this is very useful. But the star maps are deficient...Look @ the slip cover...white stars on dark blue sky, however the maps are black stars on white background...But the real problem for me is the charts themselves...For example Chart 14 find M7 & M6...Now never having learned my Constellations, I would just go out in the summer look south and find the "teapot" and there to the right is M7 & 6...However on Chart 14 ONLY the handle of the teapot is printed, three stars, the top and spout are missing! So how useful can this chart be? Much more helpful are charts by Tirion in such books as A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets, a bit small but wonderful detail and scale. I bot Norton's used and as such would again, but would't pay even discounted new price. Rate 5 for reference and 1 for as Star Atlas

---

User Review: - Update to Norton is a winner
This is close to the ideal beginner astronomer guide. No, it isn't "Sky Atlas 2000.0", but it's not meant to be. Most beginners would be totally confused by SA 2000.0's detail.

Norton's Atlas has large swaths of sky covered in each map. The most important objects are clearly marked and the reference material associated with the maps helps new observers get the most out of them.

However, Norton's Atlas is not just an atlas. It also contains much reference material to help the beginner understand the hows and whys. Norton may be the ideal beginning observer's guide and atlas.

Note: Make sure that you order the latest edition, which is the 20th edition.

---

User Review: - Better options
Most people who buy a star atlas are just getting to know the heavens, probably with a telescope and lots of enthusiasm. I would fit this description, so it is appropo that I review the two atlases I have used recently. I compared the "Collins Atlas of the Night Sky, 2005" to Nortons 20th ed, 2004.

After the first few weeks I found myself using the Collins choice more often. Norton's is the granddaddy, of course. But sometimes up-and-coming authors try to raise the bar, and this seems to have happened here. I like the color coding and the superior layout of Collins, And I especially like the section #2, where magnified maps alphabetically listed by constellation are presented. When you see something in the sky you want to identify, you usually think "it's in Orion", and want to flip to that page. Easy. You don't think, "it's at about RA 05h, dec +7 deg.

Norton's, on the other hand, has an introductory text of basic astronomy tagged on. If you don't already have an astronomy text it might add something, but most of us already have one. I liked the descriptions of stellar time, tropical vs siderial vs synodic months.

The biggest knock on Norton's, however, is the star charts aren't as easy to read, especially in the dark. I found a few errors as well. For example, the entire chart #13 has no dots to indicate where the stars are under the overlay of the Milky Way. Evidently the printer forgot to make the shading of the Milky Way transparent on that page, so all stars in that area are erased. The labels are present but there is nothing to show the star's exact location, it's visual magnitude, whethere it's a double or variable, etc. This is a huge gaffe! The binding of the Norton's text is also weak, starting to come apart after only a month. I find it hard to pick out nonstellar objects as easily.

I'll still keep my copy of Norton's, as a reference, but if I had to do it again I would buy only one.

---

User Review: - Fairly good but not the first choice
Updating a classic work is a balancing act between maintaining tradition and keeping up with the times. The editors of the venerable Norton's have succeeded in some areas and not others. On the good side, revisions have adopted contemporary symbols for non-stellar objects and incorporated new astronomical information while keeping the traditional format and feel.

The curvature in the charts is well planned to minimize the distortion that occurs over areas as wide as these. In an age when other atlas compilers condemned their users to fumbling back and forth between charts and the index page, Norton was a pioneer in placing the numbers of adjacent charts at the edge of each of their charts. In this respect, Norton's is still ahead of atlases like the Cambridge.

Worth a mixed response is clarity of charts: they are better than some in this price range and worse than others.

Norton's contains lists of interesting objects, information on various celestial objects, and advice on observing. However, on the minus side, the lists were not as well updated as some other parts of the book and emphasize targets--double and variable stars--more typical of observers decades ago. The greater number of galaxies and nebulae accessible to modern telescopes and filters is scantily covered.

Also, it extends to only 6th magnitude, which limits its usefulness for searching in the field. Finally, the book should be more rugged for field use.

In the market of combined sky guide and 6th magnitude atlas, Norton's is in the middle of the pack, better than the Bright Star Atlas but not as good as Levy's Skywatching. Rather than a book in this category, I would recommend the 7.6 magnitude Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas and a separate guidebook such as Skywatching or Celestial Sampler.

---

User Review: - Outstanding hardcover nightsky referance
Very well organized referance to the nightsky. Easy to use and follow charts and graphs. A must have for the amature astronomer.

  Next page of reviews >