Please do not join the British Astronomical Association

This has been very hard for me as I had been a member of the BAA for about four years now but I have had a very unpleasant experience with them just over a week ago and it convinced me that it was no longer worth my being a member. The problem started when I decided, for the first time, to write something for the BAA to be published. This was an article for the Venus section newsletter, the Messenger. I sent this to the director of the section on the 5th December last year. This had taken me quite a bit of effort and I had been assuming that they would only be too pleased to have someone new contribute to their newsletter (I will publish the article here in full, at some point). What went wrong is the following:-

• After I had emailed the director with my article I introduced myself to him, in person, after a meeting in London on December 6th 2025 but I really felt like he gave me the brush off and had no more time for me than to acknowledge who I was (this wasn't the first time I had an uncomfortable encounter with this person - at a Winchester weekend some years before I had been shood away from joining him and some others at a dining table which was very embarrassing).
• The director didn't get back to me about my article until April 10th and then only a six days before he was going to publish Messenger - so very late.
• He then wanted me to make some very large last minute edits which would have meant I would have lost about half the article (the discussion).
• The reason first offered for this major edit was that he thought something was incorrect, without giving any explanation of why he thought it was so. This is very intimidating. Just try to imagine what this would be like for a person who is a new to the subject and an amateur. I didn't believe there was a mistake.
• I had to defend myself by saying that I had a BSc and PhD in astrophysics and he back-tracked and said that he thought the discussion was going over material that was historic. This was true, but I was mainly counter-acting a throw-away comment that the director himself had made in the BAA journal. It felt to me that he was editing this out because he didn't like me contradicting him.

I then went on to tell him that I thought that his approach and that of the BAA wasn't very caring of amateurs who are trying to contribute to the BAA. It felt like I was being treated as if I was a professional astronomer and had to pass their stringent vetting. I admit I was pretty cross about how I was being treated and told them a home truth - I find a lot of the published output of the BAA to be pretty tedious and mind-numbing.

I decided to take my concerns to the BAA president to get their view on all this and I took my time to explain how I felt and how I thought I was being treated. I tried to appeal to her as someone who was finding it hard, as an amateur, to navigate the BAA. I was even more shocked by her response as it seemed, rather than take on board anything I said, the BAA closed ranks on me:-

• I addressed the president using her first name as I have met her at a meeting but she addressed me suddenly as Mr Hale-Sutton as if I had suddenly stepped over some boundary. Not only that, she referred to the Venus section director as Dr. so and so, but having become formal didn't address me as Dr Hale-Sutton even though I had explicitly said I had a PhD. This seemed cold and insulting to me.
• She referred to my article as 'research' and claimed that articles for the journal and section newsletters needed to be refereed as such. I never claimed my article was research. She also said that "In your case I am aware that several other experienced observers in the field also concurred in the opinion that some more work would be necessary." This is incredibly intimidating and shows how they have closed ranks on me.
• She didn't address the issues of how I had been treated in person, but reflected on how the section director had responded to me in his emails, completely missing the point.
• I had the tables turned on me suggesting that I had not been kind for not understanding the personal issues of the director.
• She missed my point that new amateurs to the subject often can't spend a lot of money on equipment as it is very expensive and therefore it is hard for such amateurs to contribute to the BAA. What it means is that it is a barrier to taking part. 
• There was not one bit of trying to see things from my point of view. I had tried to be reasonable and explain how I felt, but the BAA was stiff and formal. They may have thought I was being deliberately insulting but I was telling them the truth.

This all goes to the heart of the matter. As my friend said to me "he was never sure what the BAA were for." On their web title heading they say "Supporting amateur astronomers since 1890". But they aren't supporting amateurs if they think that all their output is for professional publication. There are enough professional bodies to do this - the Royal Astronomical Society for one. Why don't those who want to do this in the BAA go and join the RAS! It makes the BAA elitist and not open to everyone. They can't satisfy the two at the same time - supporting amateurs whilst trying to be a professional organisation. The trouble is they do neither well - they aren't kind to amateurs and the professional stuff they produce is a bit humdrum and unexciting. No wonder they keep losing their members. Well, they have lost this one for sure!

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2026 

 

Galaxy pair NGC 3718 and NGC 3729

Monday night, the 6th April 2026, clear weather returned to our skies with the waning moon (between full and last quarter) not rising until after midnight. I was looking for something to photograph and settled for the pair of galaxies NGC 3718 and NGC3729 in Ursa Major. They sit just below the bowl of the dipper. Here is what I obtained after 327x15s exposures on the Dwarf 3:-

 

NGC 3718 is the larger of the two galaxies in the centre of the image. NGC 3729 is its neighbour. I used a gain of 70 in the Dwarf and the astro filter. The final image was processed in Stellar Studio (auto settings) and has been binned x2. The saturation and sharpening have been increased in Photoshop. The first frame was taken at 21:28 BST and the last at 23:20 BST, midpoint 22:24. There is another prominent galaxy that can be seen at the far left of the frame and this is NGC 3756.

A portion of the full frame around the central pair is shown below:-

 

This shows how NGC 3718 has been distorted by gravitational interaction (possibly with NGC 3729 as they are roughly at a similar distance - 3718 is at 14.7 Mpc and 3729 is at 20.2 Mpc) and the spiral arms have been drawn out into an extended "S" shape. However, note also that there is a dark dust lane running through the centre of the galaxy so we are seeing it edge on with the arms having been drawn out above and below the plane. This galaxy appears in Arp's catalogue of peculiar galaxies as Arp 214. NGC 3729 is a barred spiral galaxy. Strangely enough, just to the right of the tail of stars in NGC 3718 is another group of interacting galaxies and this is Arp 322 or Hickson 56. These galaxies are much farther away at about 130 Mpc.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2026 

The Rosette Nebula

Two days later on 20th March 2026 (one day after new moon) were were continued to be blessed with clear skies and I was able to observe the large Rosette Nebula in Monoceros. This lies a little below (i.e. south) of the Cone Nebula and Christmas Tree Cluster I had observed a few days before. This is what I obtained after 272x15s (68 minutes) on the Dwarf 3:-

 

The first frame was taken at 20:58 UT and the last at 22:56 UT (midpoint 21:42 UT). Here the gain was 60 and duo-band filter employed in the Dwarf 3. Processed in Stellar Studio (auto settings). The image has been binned x2 and the gain and saturation have been increased in Photoshop. 

In the centre of the nebula is a young cluster of stars (NGC 2244, also called Caldwell 50) and these bright stars are illuminating the surrounding nebula (NGC 2239, Caldwell 49). UV light from these stars is ionising hydrogen gas in the nebula and causing the atoms to emit a prominent red line (H alpha) on recombination.  Also seen in this image are denser areas of dust and gas silhouetted against the brighter nebula. These are called Bok Globules and these can be sites where new stars are in the process of being formed.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2026 

Hickson 44 (Leo Quartet)

On the same evening I observed M81 and M82 (the 18th March 2026), I had a go at observing the Hickson 44 galaxy group (also known as the Leo Quartet). These galaxies also appear in the Arp catalogue as Arp 316. What I hadn't anticipated was how small a group these galaxies appear as. Here is the result of 237x15s of observation (just short of an hour) with the Dwarf 3:-

 

The group can be just about made out in the centre of this image. The first frame was taken at 20:36 UT and the last at 21:51 UT. The gain was 60 and the astro filter was employed. Auto settings were used in Stellar Studio (you can click on this image to obtain a larger view). The image has been binned x2. Here is a cropped version of the full size image showing the galaxies in more detail:-

 

Here I have increased the colour saturation and sharpened the image in Photoshop. Moving from left to right we have; the elliptical galaxy NGC 3193 which looks rather stellar like; then the larger edge on spiral galaxy NGC 3190 with its warped central dust lane; above this is the smaller NGC 3187 where again gravitational interaction with other galaxies has stretched its spiral arms into tidal tails; and finally at the bottom right is the barred spiral NGC3185.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2026