NGC 6960

NGC 6960 = Veil Nebula = LBN 191
20 45 58 +30 35.7
Size 70x6

13.1": this is the prominent western section of the "Veil nebula" and is 
spectacular with an OIII filter.  Bright, extremely large, very elongated N-S, 
stretches across the entire low power field while passing through the bright 
unequal double 52 Cygni = 4.3/9.5 at 6".  Fans out to the south and splits into 
two delicate branches and fainter wisps.  The bright curving nebulosity N of 52 
Cygni has a remarkable "electric" quality.  It has an abrupt bend about midway 
and then tapers down to a narrow tip towards the north end gently bowing out 
towards the W side.  Fantastic detail using a 20 Nagler and OIII filter.

- by Steve Gottlieb

NGC 6960, NGC 6974, NGC 6979, NGC 6992, NGC 6995, and IC 1340 are all part of
the Veil Nebula, the wonderful supernova remnant in Cygnus.  The various parts
are so large, and most of them so bright, that the generally poor positions in
the NGC don't matter.  Only the position for NGC 6974 (which see) is 
completely off its intended part of the nebulosity.

WH describes his "front-view" (what we now call the Herschelian focus of a
reflecting telescope) in a note to his observation of NGC 6960.  He writes 
that at the Newtonian focus the nebula extended one degree acorss the sky, 
while at the Herschelian focus, it stretched twice as far.  He is clearly 
extremely pleased with the performance of his telescope in its "front-view"
configuration, but I expect that the additional awkwardness in using it drove
him to the Newtonian focus for most of his sweeping.

In the IC2 Notes for NGC 6992, Dreyer paraphrases a short note by Pickering 
(at the end of an article in ApJ 23, 257, 1906) which describes the appearance
of the entire Veil as seen on a 24-inch Bruce plate of 4 hours exposure.
Unfortunately, Pickering chose to not publish the photograph; it would have
made an impressive plate in this early ApJ paper. - Dr. Harold G. Corwin, Jr.

As with all corrections to the NGC and IC Catalogues, there is a certain margin
for error, even though the evidence supporting the correction may be strong and
compelling. It is with this in mind that we ask the user to use this information
as 'Most Probable', but never to assume the correction is 'Absolute'.  All
published corrections are based on an exhaustive 'paper chase' of the historical
record back to the original discoverer's published notes/papers, and are
therefore based upon the historical accuracy (or inaccuracy) of those particular
notes/papers. In short, Caveat Emptor! - Robert E. Erdmann, Jr.