News article on proposed amateur observatory

Mike Simmons wrote:

The Adirondack Public Observatory in upstate New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/...adirondack_sky

What's a little sad about this is that, as you'll can see from the
Clear Sky
Clock Light Pollution Map at cleardarksky.com/lp/AdrnkPObNYlp.html
Tupper Lake is one of the few places in Adirondack State Park that's
*not* truly dark. (The other two concentrations of light are Saranac
Lake
and Lake Placid.) I wonder how much effect the new lighting policy
described in the article will have.

It's true that the proposed observatory is a mile or so out of town,
which
will definitely help. Unfortunately, it's placed so that south is going
to be
the worst direction by far.

Even so, the skies at the observatory should be darker than most
visitors have ever imagined.

- Tony Flanders

wrote

It's true that the proposed observatory is a mile or so out of town,
which
will definitely help. Unfortunately, it's placed so that south is going
to be
the worst direction by far.

Even so, the skies at the observatory should be darker than most
visitors have ever imagined.

Tony, since you've been to southern Arizona, how would you comparatively
rate the two "skies?"

Howard Lester

Howard Lester wrote:

Tony, since you've been to southern Arizona, how would you comparatively
rate the two "skies?"

I assume you mean a dark site in southern AZ as compared to a dark site
in the Adirondacks, right?

It's an interesting question, and one that I'd like to write about at
greater length
when I get the time. As it happens, I don't get to the Adirondacks
often these
days. But I have spent some memorable nights in New Hampshire's White
Mountain National Forest, which isn't as dark as the Adirondacks, but
comes
pretty close (in spots, anyway).

Basically, I'm inclined to agree with Brian Skiff (and many others)
that all dark
sites are equally dark, and it's not all that hard to find places where
light
pollution is a non-issue -- at least, as long as you're observing stuff
well
off the horizon. Obviously, transparency is usually much better in AZ
than
in the Northeast. But we do get our share of nights with excellent
transparency,
especially in the fall and winter. Good transparency *and* good seeing
both
at once -- that's a whole 'nother story. Depressingly common in AZ and
CA
and vanishingly rare here.

Anyway, I find that the esthetic differences between AZ and the
Northeast --
being in the desert as opposed to being surrounded by trees -- are so
big
that it's hard to compare the two objectively. Also, there's the
difference
in latitude. Ten degrees makes a big difference when you're viewing
stuff
down in Sagittarius.

- Tony Flanders

wrote

Tony, since you've been to southern Arizona, how would you comparatively
rate the two "skies?"

I assume you mean a dark site in southern AZ as compared to a dark site
in the Adirondacks, right?

Yes. And not only darkness, but the ability to see deeper due to
transparency. I am guessing that skies comparably dark here (in Arizona) as
there in the darkest sites in New England... one might be able to see deeper
here due to the greatly reduced water vapor. Having lived under the skies
here the last 27 years, and seriously considering moving to New England, I
wonder just how much I'd be giving up! ;-)

It's an interesting question, and one that I'd like to write about at
greater length when I get the time.

I'd look forward to reading that.

Anyway, I find that the esthetic differences between AZ and the
Northeast --
being in the desert as opposed to being surrounded by trees -- are so
big
that it's hard to compare the two objectively. Also, there's the
difference
in latitude. Ten degrees makes a big difference when you're viewing
stuff
down in Sagittarius.

THAT is for sure. And to be able to see the entire sky from a really dark
site here - no trees - is what I'd really describe as awesome. It's almost
frightening.

Howard Lester wrote:

I am guessing that skies comparably dark here (in Arizona) as
there in the darkest sites in New England... one might be able to see deeper
here due to the greatly reduced water vapor.

Probably, but I don't think it's a major issue. The Northeast can get
mighty
clear air when a cold front sweeps in from Canada. I think the best
nights
at the best sites in the Northeast aren't far behind the best nights at
the
best sites in Arizona.

Having lived under the skies
here the last 27 years, and seriously considering moving to New England, I
wonder just how much I'd be giving up! ;-)

Now *that* is a whole different question! Obviously, you'd be giving up
a huge
amount. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky to get three or four
nights of
really good transparency per dark-Moon period. In the last three
months, I've
had a half dozen decent deep-sky nights, and none of those was really
first-rate.
(We've been having an abnormally warm and cloudy winter.)

Moreover, the dark-sky sites in the Northeast are much rarer and less
accessible than the dark-sky sites in the West. I've got a solid
2.5-hour
drive -- in ideal traffic -- to get to any place that could plausibly
be called
dark. And even then, I've got to choose between places along highways
that are plagued by a stream of headlights, places that can only be
reached
on foot, or places with an extremely limited view of the sky.

- Tony Flanders

Originally Posted by Chris L Peterson

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:19:36 +0000, nytecam
wrote:

I admire the energy and money expended on these major observatory
projects but you rarely hear of any 'useful observations' coming out of
them..... or have I got it wrong?

This is a public observatory, intended to provide people with an
opportunity to participate in astronomy, mostly visually. Every
observation made that brings pleasure to the viewer is useful. Every
person who goes back to the city with an appreciation of the value of
dark skies is valuable.

Public observatories aren't generally intended to be useful in the sense
of advancing science, it that's what you mean.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Thanks Chris - so if that's visual obs which seems to imply solar system viewing then wouldn't that be served ok with line of modest SCT or is a big scope needed as a crowd puller?

Nytecam

wrote
....
Howard Lester wrote:

Tony, since you've been to southern Arizona, how would you comparatively
rate the two "skies?"

I assume you mean a dark site in southern AZ as compared to a dark site
in the Adirondacks, right?

It's an interesting question, and one that I'd like to write about at
greater length
when I get the time.....

Tony, et al:

I rent a second home on Indian Lake NY right in the center of the
Adirodacks. It is about 3 miles from the Wakely Mt. Deep Sky Clock site,
which is rated Bortle Scale 1. It is *very* dark. M-33 is naked eye and the
only way you know that there are passing clouds is that a patch of stars
disappear. You can't see the bottom of the clouds. It is substantially
darker than say the Stellafane site, and is as dark as I remember west Texas
was when I lived there. The only bad part about this part of New York is
that you are 90+ minutes in good weather from the nearest hospital (or
Wal-Mart or anything but a tiny grocery store). If you have a medical
emergency, you're dead.


Anyway, I find that the esthetic differences between AZ and the
Northeast --
being in the desert as opposed to being surrounded by trees -- are so
big
that it's hard to compare the two objectively. Also, there's the
difference
in latitude. Ten degrees makes a big difference when you're viewing
stuff
down in Sagittarius.

The part about the southern sky is true, but it is dark right down to the
horizon. I set my scopes (Obsession 20 or OGS 10-inch RC Cass on an MI-250)
right on the shore of the lake. Indian Lake is 2 to 3 miles wide and 16
miles long. My view, is due north and south, and across the lake to the
east. While not surrounded by trees, I am, on most summer nights at least,
surrounded by black bears and coyotes. I've had up to 3 bears near by while
observing. But I also have bears and coyotes in my southern NY primary
home's backyard too.

I mentioned the "Wakely Mt. Clear Sky Clock": it's there because there is a
free State primitive camping area there at the end of a 4 mile dirt road. It
is a large open area on the edge of a wilderness lake with plenty of room to
set up a lot of scopes. I'd say that there are 6 or 10 camp sites completely
in the open, each with a table and fire ring. There are twice as many sites
that sit back in the woods. The lake is great for canoeing and swimming.
This camping area is used regularly by a group of amateur astronomers from
Canada. The dirt road continues for 50+ miles thru State land with small
lakes and camp sites, but this section is not plowed during the winter.
About a mile down the dirt road there is a golf course, but, since I have my
own location, I've never asked the very nice owners if I could set up there
at night. It would be a great location since the course is very open. It has
beautiful views of mile high mountains in the distance.

George Normandin

"Rich" wrote
....
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:43 -0800, Mike Simmons
wrote:

The Adirondack Public Observatory in upstate New York......

"Subzero winter nights are particularly good, with low humidity and
clear, magnified skies, amateur astronomer Mark Staves said. That's
when he likes to take his telescope outside in Tupper Lake."

Magnified skies?

Rich,

I hang out a lot at the Kopernik Obs (www.kopernik.org), a similar public
observatory in southern NY. A few years ago our local news paper had an
article on the front page titled: "Kopernik gets new CCD camera to image
three galaxies". I wonder if the donors of the SBIG STL-1301E camera and
20-inch RC Cass realized that we were only going to take three pictures?
What's that: $30,000 per galaxy?

George Normandin

"George Normandin" wrote
I rent a second home on Indian Lake NY right in the center of the
Adirodacks. It is about 3 miles from the Wakely Mt. Deep Sky Clock site,
which is rated Bortle Scale 1. It is *very* dark. M-33 is naked eye and
the only way you know that there are passing clouds is that a patch of
stars disappear.

---------- 8

Thank you, George. All that you wrote is good, useful information.