Any live web-based telescopes out there?

That looks amazing, possibly the answer to all problems I have encountered
trying to observe in the city, and living in an apartment. Thanks!

Gill

"Peter Walker" wrote in message
news:nyQOe.6025$Hi.2745@trnddc04...
SLOOH www.slooh.com

--
Peter
Roanoke, VA USA
37°17' N, 79°57' W

"Matthew Ota" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are you a teacher? If so I can hook you up with a telescope in
Australia or Chile.

Matthew Ota

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:44:22 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

Hi, rather than setting up a telescope I was wondering what web sites
might
offer me a 'live feed' of an object that I wish to look at, in real-time
as
it happens?

Thanks,

Gill

Can I ask why you're interested in a "live feed" rather than the usual
taking an image and downloading it? There is a telescope I know of that's
being considered for this and I'm interested in opinions of having a
video-type "live" view rather than taking images and downloading them to
view and process (e.g., RGB).

There is something indescribably important about seeing something 'as it
happens' rather than and outdated image (even by just an hour).

You know how it's better to watch a live game or TV show as it happens,
rather than recorded on video?

Gill

"Gillian Martins" wrote in message
. uk...

There is something indescribably important about seeing something 'as it
happens' rather than and outdated image (even by just an hour).

Technically everything that you see, happened in the past. Whether it be in
picoseconds, or millions of years.

I think the thrill is in sharing the "first view" of an event.

But it is equally thrilling the first time you see something, regardless of
whether you are seeing it alone or in a group, and regardless of when it was
recorded. For example, some of the football players they show on ESPN
Classic are down right freaks of nature in their ability to perform amazing
feats of agility, speed, and brute force all in one fell swoop covering 10,
20 or even 60 yards. Having not seen them before, for whatever reason, I
find it uplifting to see them in action. That humans can actually do that,
is inspirational, and creates a real sense of pride in our being.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:37:24 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:44:22 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

Hi, rather than setting up a telescope I was wondering what web sites
might
offer me a 'live feed' of an object that I wish to look at, in real-time
as
it happens?

Thanks,

Gill

Can I ask why you're interested in a "live feed" rather than the usual
taking an image and downloading it? There is a telescope I know of that's
being considered for this and I'm interested in opinions of having a
video-type "live" view rather than taking images and downloading them to
view and process (e.g., RGB).

There is something indescribably important about seeing something 'as it
happens' rather than and outdated image (even by just an hour).

You know how it's better to watch a live game or TV show as it happens,
rather than recorded on video?

Gill

Gill,

Since there isn't anything "happening" that is visually observable with
almost all astronomical objects, seeing a cluster, nebula or galaxy in
"real time" isn't different than seeing an image taken some other time. Is
your interest mainly in changing phenomena such as the motion of a planet's
satellites?

What about the effect of atmospheric seeing as viewed in a live image?
It's been suggested that that adds something to the view, as though you're
at the eyepiece. Is that part of the experience you're looking for, as
opposed to better, processed images of the same object (even in objects
that don't change)?

Thanks for your answers.

Mike Simmons

Have her go to www.telescopesineducation.com
The page is outdated, since TIE no longer operates at Mt. Wilson
Observatory.

However, TIE telescopes in Australia and in Chile are still
operational.

If your mother is interested in utilizing these telescopes, she must
contact TIE on a school letterhead.

Matthew Ota

slooh.com

Live feed, cheap. I'm not "wowed by it and won't renew when my year is up
but it was fun for a while....the resolution is way to low for my taste.

Doink
"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:37:24 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:44:22 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

Hi, rather than setting up a telescope I was wondering what web sites
might
offer me a 'live feed' of an object that I wish to look at, in
real-time
as
it happens?

Thanks,

Gill

Can I ask why you're interested in a "live feed" rather than the usual
taking an image and downloading it? There is a telescope I know of
that's
being considered for this and I'm interested in opinions of having a
video-type "live" view rather than taking images and downloading them to
view and process (e.g., RGB).

There is something indescribably important about seeing something 'as it
happens' rather than and outdated image (even by just an hour).

You know how it's better to watch a live game or TV show as it happens,
rather than recorded on video?

Gill

Gill,

Since there isn't anything "happening" that is visually observable with
almost all astronomical objects, seeing a cluster, nebula or galaxy in
"real time" isn't different than seeing an image taken some other time.
Is
your interest mainly in changing phenomena such as the motion of a
planet's
satellites?

What about the effect of atmospheric seeing as viewed in a live image?
It's been suggested that that adds something to the view, as though you're
at the eyepiece. Is that part of the experience you're looking for, as
opposed to better, processed images of the same object (even in objects
that don't change)?

Thanks for your answers.

Mike Simmons

Thanks!

"Matthew Ota" wrote in message
oups.com...
Have her go to www.telescopesineducation.com
The page is outdated, since TIE no longer operates at Mt. Wilson
Observatory.

However, TIE telescopes in Australia and in Chile are still
operational.

If your mother is interested in utilizing these telescopes, she must
contact TIE on a school letterhead.

Matthew Ota

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
Gill,

Since there isn't anything "happening" that is visually observable with
almost all astronomical objects, seeing a cluster, nebula or galaxy in
"real time" isn't different than seeing an image taken some other time.
Is
your interest mainly in changing phenomena such as the motion of a
planet's
satellites?

There is an interest in watching changes such as a moon orbitting a planet,
but also even a stationary object is somehow more interesting if viewed
live. It's not something that's easy to give a reason for, other than the
'live TV' reason I gave you. I suppose it may be to do with knowing you are
up-to-date, not behind the times. You are really 'there' in a sense. Like
watching a postcard with a picture of a beach on is not the same as watching
the beach itself in real-time. I hope you get the gist!

What about the effect of atmospheric seeing as viewed in a live image?
It's been suggested that that adds something to the view, as though you're
at the eyepiece. Is that part of the experience you're looking for, as
opposed to better, processed images of the same object (even in objects
that don't change)?

Yes, that too. Processed images just seem pointless. Which would you
prefer -- to look through a telescope at Mars as it is that very minute, or
to look at a postcard of Mars?

Thanks for your answers.

Mike Simmons

No probs.

Gill

Gill,

Thanks very much for you answers. Yes, I do get the gist. I would make
some choices differently than you would but that's exactly why your
explanations are useful to me! They actually support someone else's
argument for converting a large telescope to a live video feed. The
biggest problem is that it might mean making the telescope unavailable for
visual observers actually at the eyepiece, and THAT'S where I always prefer
to be. I understand there are many more that don't have the opportunity,
though.

Best regards,
Mike Simmons

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:41:16 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
Gill,

Since there isn't anything "happening" that is visually observable with
almost all astronomical objects, seeing a cluster, nebula or galaxy in
"real time" isn't different than seeing an image taken some other time.
Is
your interest mainly in changing phenomena such as the motion of a
planet's
satellites?

There is an interest in watching changes such as a moon orbitting a planet,
but also even a stationary object is somehow more interesting if viewed
live. It's not something that's easy to give a reason for, other than the
'live TV' reason I gave you. I suppose it may be to do with knowing you are
up-to-date, not behind the times. You are really 'there' in a sense. Like
watching a postcard with a picture of a beach on is not the same as watching
the beach itself in real-time. I hope you get the gist!

What about the effect of atmospheric seeing as viewed in a live image?
It's been suggested that that adds something to the view, as though you're
at the eyepiece. Is that part of the experience you're looking for, as
opposed to better, processed images of the same object (even in objects
that don't change)?

Yes, that too. Processed images just seem pointless. Which would you
prefer -- to look through a telescope at Mars as it is that very minute, or
to look at a postcard of Mars?

Thanks for your answers.

Mike Simmons

No probs.

Gill

No worries. When you get it up and running please e-mail me:

gill at the-simpson.tv

Thanks and good luck!

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
Gill,

Thanks very much for you answers. Yes, I do get the gist. I would make
some choices differently than you would but that's exactly why your
explanations are useful to me! They actually support someone else's
argument for converting a large telescope to a live video feed. The
biggest problem is that it might mean making the telescope unavailable for
visual observers actually at the eyepiece, and THAT'S where I always
prefer
to be. I understand there are many more that don't have the opportunity,
though.

Best regards,
Mike Simmons

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:41:16 GMT, Gillian Martins wrote:

"Mike Simmons" wrote in message
...
Gill,

Since there isn't anything "happening" that is visually observable with
almost all astronomical objects, seeing a cluster, nebula or galaxy in
"real time" isn't different than seeing an image taken some other time.
Is
your interest mainly in changing phenomena such as the motion of a
planet's
satellites?

There is an interest in watching changes such as a moon orbitting a
planet,
but also even a stationary object is somehow more interesting if viewed
live. It's not something that's easy to give a reason for, other than
the
'live TV' reason I gave you. I suppose it may be to do with knowing you
are
up-to-date, not behind the times. You are really 'there' in a sense.
Like
watching a postcard with a picture of a beach on is not the same as
watching
the beach itself in real-time. I hope you get the gist!

What about the effect of atmospheric seeing as viewed in a live image?
It's been suggested that that adds something to the view, as though
you're
at the eyepiece. Is that part of the experience you're looking for, as
opposed to better, processed images of the same object (even in objects
that don't change)?

Yes, that too. Processed images just seem pointless. Which would you
prefer -- to look through a telescope at Mars as it is that very minute,
or
to look at a postcard of Mars?

Thanks for your answers.

Mike Simmons

No probs.

Gill