Small Scope Observing/Thoughts

On 16 Nov 2004 07:35:38 -0800, (Leonard) wrote:

Over time the interest in observing planets and the
moon with high quality refractors and reflectors may pick up but it
will never pick up the slack in amateur astronomy that the
incandescent light bulb is slowly killing.

As for actual numbers of amateurs -- that, in all probability will
steadily increase; but the type of person that will become a future
amateur astronomer is quite likely to differ from the type that were
amateurs in the past. Likewise, the way in which the hobby will be
enjoyed will differ. The hobby of amateur astronomy is evolving.
This is partially due to the ever increasing amounts of outdoor
lighting and partially due to technological innovation.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:14:43 +0100, Steve Maddison
wrote:

Personally, I think there's point enough! I for one would be very
interested to see what kind of difference aperture makes, even if
the sketches were made under different conditions than I'm used to.

On second (or third) thought, you're right. There *are* sufficient
reasons to go ahead with this project!

A bit of collaborative effort could however result in a very useful
and valuable guide for beginners and intermediates alike.

While collaboration has its benefits (greater range of optics,
altitude, sky darkness, etc.) it would be better IMO for a single
person to do the whole set of sketches. That would likely be the best
way of ensuring the consistency necessary in order for the sketches to
show only the variations in sky brightness or equipment -- effectively
eliminating the compounding of variables.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

On 16 Nov 2004 20:37:25 -0800, (Gary Barabino
Sr) wrote:

Sketcher,observers like you and I are in the silent minority.My name
is Gary Barabino and I am an observing sketcher myself.I first started
observing and sketching way back in August of 1970 and with small
telescopes ranging from 2" to 4.5".My joy is in the observing and
keeping the sketches over the years.My Vega Observatory Astronomical
Journals which have been done annually date back to 1970,and I do it
because observing is in my blood.Sure I have cameras and all that but
ours is a science that seeing and sketching is in the eye of the
observer.From the New Orleans area,we have no decent skies,and have to
go nearly 200 miles to even find skies 80 % to what you have above
you.Yes amatuer astronomy has changed but for the convenience of
dollars and time.How many observers are out there like you and I?I'm
sure that there are thousands who do it because their eyes can see
more detail in sky objects than does even the most sophisticated of
cameras.My work is based on 98 percent observing with the scopes,and
as I see all this new equipment out there I can sense that there are
some who still like to observe and sketch even through polluted
skies,so keep your head up my friend,maybe we can inspire a new group
of obsering sketchers!! Enjoy your posts! Gary Barabino Sr

Hi Gary, I'm confident that sketching is here to stay (at least for a
part of the amateur population) as long as visual telescopic equipment
is used. I started around the same time as yourself -- 1968 or 69
with some sizeable gaps in my observing and sketching.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a hundred or more 'closet'
sketchers for every publicly admitted sketcher. Visual astronomy
lends itself to record keeping. Once a person starts keeping written
records, sketches often follow.

I spent about one year doing astrophotography -- around 1979, before
concluding that photography just didn't do it for me. I recall
thinking: "I didn't buy all this telescope equipment for a camera to
look through." I became jealous of the camera. I wanted to do the
imaging myself, like I had done before venturing into
astrophotography.

Thanks for the inspiring post! I may need to take a break from saa
(among other things) in order to polish up a large stack of rough
sketches . . .

Take care,

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

Sketcher wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:14:43 +0100, Steve Maddison wrote:

Personally, I think there's point enough! I for one would be
very interested to see what kind of difference aperture makes,
even if the sketches were made under different conditions than
I'm used to.

On second (or third) thought, you're right. There *are*
sufficient reasons to go ahead with this project!

I'm glad you think so!

A bit of collaborative effort could however result in a very
useful and valuable guide for beginners and intermediates
alike.

While collaboration has its benefits (greater range of optics,
altitude, sky darkness, etc.) it would be better IMO for a single
person to do the whole set of sketches. That would likely be
the best way of ensuring the consistency necessary in order for
the sketches to show only the variations in sky brightness or
equipment -- effectively eliminating the compounding of
variables.

Yep, for the sake of consistency that would certainly be ideal.
Either that or some kind of guidelines, which I can imagine most
sketchers wouldn't take too kindly to. The pleasure taken in an
activity is often inverserly proportional to the amount of rules
imposed...

Anyway, keep up the good work - I'd be sketching more myself if my
time at the eyepiece wasn't so limited by the weather!

--Steve

"Sketcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:38:49 -0500, "Stephen Paul"
wrote:

It's a done deal.

1) Planets and moon are not subject to light pollution, and make the
perfect
target for a nice refractor on a traditional GEM with RA drive.

2) For deep sky there's GoTo and CCD.

and therein lies the 'bright' future of amateur astronomy.

I certainly am among those who wish it weren't so.

-Stephen

Sketcher wrote in message . ..

What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when sky
conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to another
person's 8-inch views? Seriously, I think it would be a disservice
particularly to newbies who have no idea how good (or more likely, how
bad) their skies really are.

There's quite a lot of value -- but it's important to realize that
sky brightness is as important as aperture in how an object appears.
Really, you need a two-dimensional matrix. Because just as no amount
of aperture will allow you to see the outer disk of M33 at full Moon,
just so no amount of sky darkness will allow you to resolve individual
stars in M13 with a 2-inch scope.

And, of course, one has to provide some way for inexperienced people
to estimate the quality of their skies. A tough problem, but not
utterly intractable.

Most people, amateur astronomers included, live in cities.

On the contrary! Most people live in suburbs. Cities are as much
an endangered species, if not more so, than rural areas.

My views from rural Montana are obsolete, outdated, unrealistic.
They no longer reflect what most others might expect to see.

That sounds too romantic to me. Yes, only a small part of the
population of the industrialized world lives in rural areas --
which has been true since World War II or before, and has
been overwhelmingly true since the 1950's.

Because of hard economic realities, jobs are overwhelmingly
concentrated in urbanized areas -- which in many ways is a
good thing for dark skies. If that weren't true, light
pollution would be spread uniformly across the country,
instead of leaving huge dark areas, as there are now.

For most people, seeing dark skies is going to require travel.
But as people get more prosperous, travelling to dark skies
becomes ever more practical. So I would argue that access
to dark skies is actually increasing, not decreasing.

- Tony Flanders

On 21 Nov 2004 08:28:43 -0800, (Tony Flanders)
wrote:

Really, you need a two-dimensional matrix. Because just as no amount
of aperture will allow you to see the outer disk of M33 at full Moon,
just so no amount of sky darkness will allow you to resolve individual
stars in M13 with a 2-inch scope.

I've arrived at a similar conclusion and have been waiting for the
next full moon; but the 'cleanness' of the sky will have a huge impact
on what can or cannot be seen in bright moonlight.

On February 7, 1998 I observed the Crab Nebula when a gibbous (9 day
20hr 54min old) moon was 5 degrees 40 minutes distant from M1. The
Crab was visible with 20x80 binoculars as well as with a 25cm
Newtonian stopped down to a 4 inch aperture. This was from a rather
clean, rural Montana sky. Of course, a full moon is brighter than
even a gibbous moon . . .

Years ago I took some time out for some deepsky observing during a
full moon with an 8 inch SCT from the top of Blue Mountain -- near
Missoula. I recall being surprised at how well the DSOs showed up!

On the contrary! Most people live in suburbs. Cities are as much
an endangered species, if not more so, than rural areas.

I forgot about suburbs. That's a word I've rarely (if ever)
encountered in Montana.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

Sketcher wrote in message . ..

On February 7, 1998 I observed the Crab Nebula when a gibbous (9 day
20hr 54min old) moon was 5 degrees 40 minutes distant from M1. The
Crab was visible with 20x80 binoculars as well as with a 25cm
Newtonian stopped down to a 4 inch aperture. This was from a rather
clean, rural Montana sky. Of course, a full moon is brighter than
even a gibbous moon . . .

Yes, a full Moon is at least 3X brighter than a 9-day gibbous Moon --
a huge difference! On the other hand, the sky 6 degrees away from the
Moon is many times brighter than the sky 90 degrees from the Moon.
Oh yes, and there's about a 30% difference between a perigee full
Moon and an apogee full Moon.

As a rule of thumb, figure that the zenith is about as bright in the
country at a full Moon as it normally is in a typical densely populated
suburb, or a sparsely populated city. (Almost all western cities count
as sparsely populated.) If you're right near a car dealer, a prison,
or a poorly lit shopping center, the sky may be much worse, regardless
of population density.

A typical dark suburb is about one magnitude darker than that. At
that level, a 50% illuminated Moon has only a very minor additional
effect on the sky brightness, unless your target is right near the
Moon.

I certainly can see M1 in my 70mm refractor from here in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and to me it's not even all that hard, but I'm sure
it would stymie almost all beginners.

- Tony Flanders