|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
I am so happy that I don't share the depressing outlook of the poster
who said " that's at least ONE place man will probably never screw up". Wrap your mind around the fact that a lot of good people do great things every day. Look out into the deep expanse of the night sky, and let your brain be stretched by the magnitude of what you see, instead of concerning yourself with negative thoughts. Tonight, as I held my 2 week old granddaughter, once again I realized why we all have to work together to make the world a better place. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but I felt I had to respond to so much negativity. dave luzius On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:04:57 -0700, "Dave & Janelle" wrote: It's currently stormy and snowy here (USA/CO); observing is out of the question for a while. Here's a fun topic to kick around... what type of observing do you like better - Solar System or deep-sky? I'm a definite Solar System observer. In a very real way, we can divide the Universe up into two pieces: Our Solar System, and everything else. Or, equivalently, stuff that matters and stuff that doesn't. Things outsite our Solar System are interesting only on an abstract, theoretical basis. We won't interact with them in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetimes of my great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids either. I view deep-sky stuff sometimes... like the Andromeda Galaxy. Andromeda is about 2.2 million light-years away - just over 13000000000000000000 miles. But seriously - would it matter so much if there were a couple more zeros in that number? It is *so* far away that it just doesn't matter! And Andromeda is a relatively nearby galaxy. It's a different story in the Solar System. Objects within the solar system are close enough to interact with. They move with respect to background stars. We've sent probes to many places, and we've even sent people to one other place. We can interact with them, we can ponder historical missions, we can dream of going there... (like we should be doing with Mars!). This is why I'm into Solar System observing much more than deep-sky; for me, it is more tangible. I view the planets whenever they're out, and I love seeing how many moons I can spot (currently 16, and I should be able to get to 19 or 20 with current equipment). I'll have to get into Asteroid spotting too, that would be fun. To me, glimpsing these things is cool because they increase my personal connection with them. I know Tethys really exists, not just from Voyager photos, but because I've personally seen it and tracked its orbit. If that sounds excessivly romantic - it is. But, deep down, all amateur astronomers are romantics; if we weren't, we'd stay indoors and download Hubble pictures rather than drag the scope out and look ourselves. IOMHO, YMMV, and all that! --- Dave Boll http://www.daveboll.com/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Dave don't be so quick to dismiss deep sky objects as non interactive. Supernovae change in days. One appearing in M31 or in the Milky way will be exciting indeed. Good point. And as far as deep sky objects go--feast your eye on the star birthing Orion nebula in the next few months... I can never get enough of those photons. Oh, I like the Orion nebula too - always a fav! Everything in the sky is fascinating! Why try to divide it up. For me, things in the sky are fascinating in different ways - I happen to have a preference for stuff that's close. Take an astronomy class at your local university or community college and learn about stellar evolution and some on the physics involved in those deep sky objects... why H-III regions a greater around "O" stars than "B" BTDT - I have a B.S. in Astronomy and Astrophysics. "The more we know, the more we realize we don't know" 8) The Solar System continues to blow my mind - but then, many things do! --- Dave Boll http://www.daveboll.com/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
Dave & Janelle wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Dave don't be so quick to dismiss deep sky objects as non interactive. Supernovae change in days. One appearing in M31 or in the Milky way will be exciting indeed. Good point. And as far as deep sky objects go--feast your eye on the star birthing Orion nebula in the next few months... I can never get enough of those photons. Oh, I like the Orion nebula too - always a fav! Everything in the sky is fascinating! Why try to divide it up. For me, things in the sky are fascinating in different ways - I happen to have a preference for stuff that's close. Take an astronomy class at your local university or community college and learn about stellar evolution and some on the physics involved in those deep sky objects... why H-III regions a greater around "O" stars than "B" BTDT - I have a B.S. in Astronomy and Astrophysics. "The more we know, the more we realize we don't know" 8) The Solar System continues to blow my mind - but then, many things do! --- Dave Boll http://www.daveboll.com/ Excellent! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
"Dave & Janelle" wrote in message ...
what type of observing do you like better - Solar System or deep-sky? I can't say that I like one more than the other. The only practical differentiation I make between them is that I tend to look at more deep-sky objects on dark, clear nights, saving Solar System objects for when the Moon is up (especially helpful when viewing the Moon ;-) ) or the seeing is unusually steady. Then again, I'd violate these guidelines any time I feel like it. Overall, I probably spend much more time viewing deep-sky objects because there are more of them, and some of them can take longer to find. Conversely, I usually spend more time on each viewing of the planets, due to the variability of seeing conditions, and because I can see more detail under light pollution. Dark skies would skew my viewing time heavily toward deep-sky objects. Probably nothing I've said would come as a shock to anyone. I'm a definite Solar System observer. In a very real way, we can divide the Universe up into two pieces: Our Solar System, and everything else. Or, equivalently, stuff that matters and stuff that doesn't. Oh, really...in that case, terrestrial observing should matter the most! Just kidding, I know what you meant. Everyone is different, but I think that most amateur astronomers like to observe very distant objects precisely because they're far away. For some, the greater the distance, the better; others, such as yourself, may prefer things that are far away in human terms, but still within our reach. I guess it depends on where we draw the line in our dreams about far-off places. Neither point of view is more valid than the other. Things outsite our Solar System are interesting only on an abstract, theoretical basis. We won't interact with them in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetimes of my great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids either. All I'm sure about is that we won't know whether we could reach beyond the Solar System unless we look beyond it. To me, everything in the sky is pretty far away, and I'm grateful that we're able to capture photons emanating from much of it. To me, glimpsing these things is cool because they increase my personal connection with them. I know Tethys really exists, not just from Voyager photos, but because I've personally seen it and tracked its orbit. What you're saying here could also be applied to deep-sky objects, albeit on a different scale. Just remember that long before the so-called "Space Age," there were people who looked toward the heavens in wonder of that which they could never touch. If that sounds excessivly romantic - it is. But, deep down, all amateur astronomers are romantics; if we weren't, we'd stay indoors and download Hubble pictures rather than drag the scope out and look ourselves. There are the powerful psychological factors of the experience of viewing celestial bodies with our own eyes, of course, but I think that the views I get from looking directly through optics or with no optical aids at all is fundamentally different from what we see in photographs. Could an image on a computer monitor or photographic print replicate the experience of looking directly into the Sun? (do NOT try this at home--it's just an example! ;-) ) Obviously it can't, nor can images captured by CCDs or film emulsions replicate the experience of viewing the delicate, sparkling beauty of star clusters, to name just one example. Not that I'm disrespecting astrophotography, which gives us beautiful images that our eyes could never produce on their own. It's just different, and can't be directly compared. I'd like to get involved in this aspect of the hobby someday myself, but not for a few years yet. But I digress. I agree with you on the romantic aspects, and for some people, even a sense of nostalgia might play a role, as we discover these objects in much the same manner as our predecessors. IOMHO, YMMV, and all that! That's right, and I certainly didn't mean to pass judgment with anything I said above. We all have our preferences, but I guess that mine aren't terribly strong--it's ALL good! :-) - Robert Cook |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
On 11/23/03 04:04 +0900, Dave & Janelle wrote:
It's currently stormy and snowy here (USA/CO); observing is out of the question for a while. Here's a fun topic to kick around... what type of observing do you like better - Solar System or deep-sky? I'm a definite Solar System observer. I am, too, basically because the views tend to be more impressive with a small scope under light-polluted skies. In a very real way, we can divide the Universe up into two pieces: Our Solar System, and everything else. Or, equivalently, stuff that matters and stuff that doesn't. Oh, I don't know. In some way, perhaps, the sun, moon and planets are more tangible than faint fuzzies, but it /all/ matters. either. I view deep-sky stuff sometimes... like the Andromeda Galaxy. Me, too. There's something special about viewing another galaxy. Doing so evokes so much awe in me. I can't help but imagine some being in a corner of Andromeda staring at the dim smudge of the Milky Way off in the distance and wondering about some life form there looking at Andromeda. Galaxies put my place in perspective. They also are a clear reason for participating in SETI@home -- I returned my 11-thousandth work unit a while ago. sounds excessivly romantic - it is. But, deep down, all amateur astronomers are romantics; if we weren't, we'd stay indoors and download Hubble pictures rather than drag the scope out and look ourselves. I completely agree. trane -- //------------------------------------------------------------ // Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. // http://mp3.com/trane_francks/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
My observing reports from the past year or so clearly show my
bias for deep-sky. Of course, my reports also indicate one of the reasons I do that - my routinely poor seeing, which takes most of the fun out of the planets and even the Moon. I used up my lifetime quota of 2+ arcsecond resolution views of the Moon and planets with a 60mm refractor when I was a kid. But, it's also the case that I have usually had reasonable access to dark skies over the years. I also like the fact that there are so many deep-sky objects, especially galaxies, even though all faint galaxies look more or less the same. I'm very much into the "thrill of the hunt" aspect of seeing faint objects, although the same could be said for certain aspects of solar system observing. It is not clear in my mind whether there is some intellectual bias that has led me to deep-sky observing. I'm an astronomer by trade, and study stars and the clouds of gas and dust near and between the stars. I guess I should like double stars, open clusters and diffuse nebulae, but I actually prefer galaxies. Certainly the pictures sent back by Pioneer and Voyager spurred an interest in astronomy when I was a kid, but by the time I was in college studying astronomy, I wasn't particularly interested in planetary science. In any case, there are also a couple of more objective practical considerations. Unless you are observing asteroids, you are constrained to certain times of the night, month, and/or year when there happens to be a planet (particularly Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) or the Moon favorably placed. The same thing applies to the Sun; most people work during the day. There are *always* deep-sky objects available at any time of the night on any night of the year, in virtually every part of the sky. Also, high-constrast observing is much less forgiving of less-than-perfect optics. While mediocre optics or poor collimation will degrade some deep-sky objects, you can still get away with a lot more imperfections than you can for observing planets or the Moon. That's where money can come into the equation. Having said all of that, if my circumstances were different, I might be majorly into solar system objects. Frankly, I've never had a really good view of any solar system object except maybe the Moon! (My one good session with Mars this summer did come close.) If by some miracle I can ever exploit the full resolution of even my 6" scope on say, Jupiter, let alone the putative 10" scope I'll probably own a year from now, I'll be thrilled! Brian Rachford |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:30:16 +0200, "Ioannis"
wrote: Indeed. Because if man manages to "go there", he will probably **** up the places, in exactly the same way he has screwed up this planet. We still have a long way to go. Ah, one of those people who thinks the presence of sentient life counts as "****ing up". I suggest you get rid of yourself immediately. It can be done with a bare bodkin, to quote Shakespeare. -- "Sore wa himitsu desu." To reply by email, remove the small snack from address. http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Everything in the sky is fascinating! Why try to divide it up. That's a funny way of putting it. From my perspective, things *are* divided up, and it is we who confuse them. We lump together things that are just 50 miles away (aurorae and meteors), 250,000 miles away (the Moon), and billions of light-years away (quasars and some galaxies). In fact, the Moon is right next door -- you could walk there if there was a good road. And objectively, studying the Moon has much more in common with studying the rocks in your back yard than with studying galaxies. Likewise, it is pretty entertaining to think that comets and galaxies are linked by the equipment and skills that we use to observe them, when you consider how profoundly different they are. - Tony Flanders |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
From my perspective, things *are*
divided up, and it is we who confuse them. We lump together things that are just 50 miles away (aurorae and meteors), 250,000 miles away (the Moon), and billions of light-years away (quasars and some galaxies). A different perspective: Those things are probably those distances. But at the most basic level, as an Amateur astronomer, I am observingt some light that came from those objects and that light is all right there in the eyepiece of my telescope. The intellectual process of considering where that light came from and using someone else's measurement to divide things up certain can be part of the observing experience but is not necessarily so. Consider watching a bird. The first question one normally asks is: What sort of bird is that? It is nice to have a handle for that bird: I think that is a Spotted Towhee. Get out the book.... On the other hand, one can observe the bird, watch it, see what it is doing, what it is eating, what colors its feathers might be etc and make good observations of that bird without knowing exactly what other people have called it. So, my point, the level of intellectually overhead one puts on observing the night sky is up to the individual and may or may not enhance the experience. Personally I find that observing targets that are relatively non-descript like faint galaxies are more interesting when I know more about them, shadow transits are enhanced by knowing that they are caused by a little moon blocking the light of jupiter. But the Orion Nebula stands on its own. It is just amazing to look at anyway you cut it. Yep, its all just light .... jon |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
On 11/23/03 21:20 +0900, Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:30:16 +0200, "Ioannis" wrote: Indeed. Because if man manages to "go there", he will probably **** up the places, in exactly the same way he has screwed up this planet. We still have a long way to go. Ah, one of those people who thinks the presence of sentient life counts as "****ing up". I suggest you get rid of yourself immediately. It can be done with a bare bodkin, to quote Shakespeare. Do you actually read what somebody has written or do you choose to just make up your own story as you go along? If you think mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet, I suggest you open your eyes WIDE. trane -- //------------------------------------------------------------ // Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. // http://mp3.com/trane_francks/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
NASA Wants You to be a Solar System Ambassador | Ron Baalke | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 12th 03 01:32 AM |
ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 27th 03 12:29 AM |
ESA Sees Stardust Storms Heading For Solar System | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 20th 03 08:10 PM |
Chiral gravity of the Solar system | Aleksandr Timofeev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 03 04:14 PM |