|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
"This club doesnt need go to".
"They should learn astronomy the way I had to _ the hard way". "We already invested $1500 in a conventional scope and Go To wasn't in the plan ............. in 1986". "Screw ___________ and those other trouble makers who want the easy way." AAVSO Oldtimer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
On Oct 2, 11:53 pm, Goto is Bunk wrote:
"This club doesnt need go to". "They should learn astronomy the way I had to _ the hard way". "We already invested $1500 in a conventional scope and Go To wasn't in the plan ............. in 1986". "Screw ___________ and those other trouble makers who want the easy way." AAVSO Oldtimer "I remember when...cough, cough." Old people are KILLING the hobby. Being exclusionary is a hallmark of the breed. Read anything written by a club, you'll find all sorts of sad pop-culture references having their origin in the 1960s and 1970s. No wonder young people avoid the hobby. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com... On Oct 2, 11:53 pm, Goto is Bunk wrote: "Screw ___________ and those other trouble makers who want the easy way." AAVSO Oldtimer "I remember when...cough, cough." Old people are KILLING the hobby. DAMN! All this time I thought it was light pollution. Guess I need to refocus my attention on getting old people to take up other interests. -- Rick Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 04' 35.3" Lat +42° 11' 06.7" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
WELL, when I was a boy, all WE had were big rocks set in circles, and we
were THANKFUL for it. whippersnappers... Marty |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
Hello, everyone.
As someone who got interested in amateur astronomy during the Sputnik era, I'd say that we can have a happy balance of the old and new without excluding anyone. The fact that I like starhopping in light-polluted skies, and using sidereal time as a navigating aid to help determine what I am likely to see through a rather constrained observing window, doesn't mean that you can't use a go-to or computerized push-to arrangement, or manual setting circles for that matter. Mutual appreciation isn't the worst approach. Thus the fact that I have a commercial scope doesn't stop me from appreciating all the ATM folks who indeed have an understanding of the craft in ways I do not, and helped to pave way for all the commercial Dobsonians (i.e. Newtonian reflectors on Dobsonian mounts) including mine. Club newsletters should ideally reflect the mix of readers, young and old. Please let say that what we older folks have to share can be a treasure; but there needs to be space for young people, and newcomers to our pursuit of all ages, to have their say. There's a lot of humor on Usenet about passionate allegiances that people have to a given computer operating system or programming style, and I guess that amateur astronomy can be similar. This kind of enthusiasm can have great charm when exhibited by the right person in the right way, like our SCT maven Unk Rod. However, a lot of choices can be by circumstance and happenstance. I wonder if I would be so happy with "navigation by meridian and sidereal time" if my observing site had an orientation other than southerly, or if I were viewing a larger portion of the sky at any one time. Why not state it positively: listening to young people, and newcomers of all ages, and explaining the range of options so that they can make their own informed choices (not necessarily the same as ours) and then share their own adventures, is a key to success. A good newsgroup or club is an open system, open to experience, beginner's enthusiasm, and a lot of mutual learning. Most appreciatively, Margo Schulter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:45:01 -0500, Marty wrote:
WELL, when I was a boy, all WE had were big rocks set in circles, and we were THANKFUL for it. whippersnappers... Marty When I were a lad, we 'ad to carve our own lenses out of wood. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
Margo Schulter wrote:
The fact that I like starhopping in light-polluted skies, and using sidereal time as a navigating aid to help determine what I am likely to see through a rather constrained observing window, doesn't mean that you can't use a go-to or computerized push-to arrangement, or manual setting circles for that matter. That's quite true - manual setting circles let you point your properly polar-aligned telescope at a piece of sky by R.A. and declination. Which basically means that if you can find north, and know what your latitude is, you can get pretty close to places in the sky without knowing the constellations and without star-hopping... even without a computer. When computerized go-to was a very expensive feature on telescopes, I suppose people could have been concerned about the tension caused by people buying their way in to astronomy. However, if one is concerned about astronomy clubs being riven by the divide between rich and poor - today one should worry about *light pollution*, since deep-sky observing seems to be what is all the rage, for which one needs a *car* to drive out in the country even before one needs a 17-inch Dobsonian. In a way, this reminds me of the debate over Morse Code in ham radio. Learning the constellations can be seen as a way to keep the riff-raff out... because it is more convenient to deal with fellow members who share a serious commitment to observing. The trouble is, of course, that the existence of go to - and the light pollution that renders the constellations less recognizable on any given night, with fewer stars visible - is, to an extent, turning this skill into an obsolete skill. So if attitudes turn learning the constellations into a precondition for advancement, the result is going to be fewer members. My telescope has manual setting circles, not go to, and I'm afraid the only constellations I can recognize without a star atlas are the Big Dipper and Orion. But with a well-collimated finder, I can certainly find the planets from my light-polluted backyard. As I have an interest in astrophotography, and go to scopes tend to be altazimuth (yes, the smaller ones can often be tilted up...) I'm waiting until they start adding computer controlled image rotators... or they start selling beginning amateurs telescopes with horseshoe mounts, which avoid the problem of hitting your head on the telescope mounting when trying to observe by using the Nasmyth focus. I think I'll have a long wait for any of those... but perhaps other ingenious solutions to the problem of equatorial mounting will be forthcoming! John Savard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
Quadibloc wrote:
When computerized go-to was a very expensive feature on telescopes, I suppose people could have been concerned about the tension caused by people buying their way in to astronomy. However, if one is concerned about astronomy clubs being riven by the divide between rich and poor - today one should worry about *light pollution*, since deep-sky observing seems to be what is all the rage, for which one needs a *car* to drive out in the country even before one needs a 17-inch Dobsonian. Hi, John. Certainly I'd agree that for _optimal_ deep-sky observing, a dark sky and therefore from most locations a car (your own or a very helpful friend's who has similar inclinations) are bigger essentials than aperture fever grin. However, as a beginning urban DSO observer, I would emphasize that it can be done without a car from an urban area, albeit with some obvious compromises. Something like M24 or M25, which can come through nicely even in nautical twilight, is beautiful in these bright skies (say limiting magnitude of 3.5 at the relevant distance from the horizon). Finding something like M22 is harder, and the view a lot less spectacular, than in darker skies -- but the pleasure of finding that "faint fuzzy" is something else again. The problem, of course, is especially with lower surface brightness objects. Looking through a list, I ask myself if a few galaxies in the Fornax Group might have enough surface brightness to compete with an urban skyglow maybe around magnitude 17.0 per arc-second^2. Will my Astronomik CLS filter help -- broadband LPR filters can make some difference, but often a modest one? Maybe it gives a new meaning to "extreme DSO" observing: seeing with a 200mm Dob what you could easily see with a small scope or even binoculars in darker skies. In a way, this reminds me of the debate over Morse Code in ham radio. Learning the constellations can be seen as a way to keep the riff-raff out... because it is more convenient to deal with fellow members who share a serious commitment to observing. The trouble is, of course, that the existence of go to - and the light pollution that renders the constellations less recognizable on any given night, with fewer stars visible - is, to an extent, turning this skill into an obsolete skill. Maybe your striking analogy points to one asymmetry: in ham radio, Morse Code transmitted by CW can be a viable mode of communication when the noise level or "radio pollution" would make voice difficult to decipher, while in amateur astronomy light pollution makes the skill of starhopping more difficult to apply. For me, maybe the light pollution makes starhopping a "deeper" skill: using binoculars, or even starhopping through the eyepiece, where someone in the country could use a Telrad. The "deep" part also means relying on more detailed charts or atlases to match the aperture and magnification for starhopping which can partially(!) compensate for brighter skies. So if attitudes turn learning the constellations into a precondition for advancement, the result is going to be fewer members. Agreed the in urban conditions, I'm not sure how many people are crazy enough to adopt my methods, and especially to do so and enjoy it grin. That might be a rather strange initiation rite if we're trying to attract a substantial number of people. My telescope has manual setting circles, not go to, and I'm afraid the only constellations I can recognize without a star atlas are the Big Dipper and Orion. But with a well-collimated finder, I can certainly find the planets from my light-polluted backyard. As I have an interest in astrophotography, and go to scopes tend to be altazimuth (yes, the smaller ones can often be tilted up...) I'm waiting until they start adding computer controlled image rotators... or they start selling beginning amateurs telescopes with horseshoe mounts, which avoid the problem of hitting your head on the telescope mounting when trying to observe by using the Nasmyth focus. While my Dob doesn't have altaz setting circles, I can use my observing window as something of a guide, since I'd estimate that the range around the meridian is between hour angles of roughly -1h15m and +0h35m, and the range of declinations from about -7 degrees to maybe -35 degrees (I need to test this more). Knowing the sidereal time, I can make a good guess on the right star atlas page(s) to consult. With an eyepiece field of about 2 degrees, my window at any one time might be 15 fields or so in either dimension. As for navigating by constellations, I can recognize naked-eye landmarks like the _Chaynik_ (Yiddish for "tea kettle") of Sagittarius, or Scorpio with its prime attraction of Antares. Even at mag 3.5 or so, these provide some guidance. However, it's often binocular/finder or even eyepiece asterisms that help me with my navigation. For example, there's the "Antares-Rho Ophiuchi pentagon" right above M80; a "Flipped Radical Sign" around 17h30m preceding M20-M21 and M8; and a kind of trapezoid formed by four bright stars of the Chaynik or Sagittarius around 19h00m. There's also a graceful "Semicircle" of stars in Capricornus not too far from M30; and a "Z" asterism in Sculptor from which one can sweep down a bit to NGC 253 (which I hope I can see with enough patience, more experience, and the CLS filter). To me, "urban starhopping" means a touch of celestial mechanics plus lots of binocular or telescopic asterisms and some detailed charts or atlases to help keep them in order. I think I'll have a long wait for any of those... but perhaps other ingenious solutions to the problem of equatorial mounting will be forthcoming! One thing I need to learn, as your informative discussion makes me realize, is what a "Nasmyth focus" is, and also a horseshoe mount -- time for some Googling and also a look at the library astronomy section. John Savard Most appreciatively, Margo Schulter Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
Margo Schulter wrote:
One thing I need to learn, as your informative discussion makes me realize, is what a "Nasmyth focus" is, and also a horseshoe mount -- time for some Googling and also a look at the library astronomy section. My website illustrates a horseshoe mount, but while it shows what a Coude focus is, it doesn't discuss the Nasmyth focus. For those too lazy to Google, here are the explanations... The most common way of providing an equatorial mount for an amateur telescope used to be - and is again - the German equatorial mounting, invented by Fraunhofer. This is the one that's a bit awkward, and requires a counterweight. Used for f/8 and f/6 reflectors, used for refractors. The Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes tend to use fork mounts. These need to be sturdy, since the telescope is at the far end of the mount. The English mounting is a fork pivoted at both ends, so the telescope is in a box. That means you can't point it at the North Pole. A horseshoe mount tries to compromise between the fork and the English by having a fork at the bottom, extending the tines upwards to a disk with an opening in it, so the telescope can point to the North Pole, the disk resting on a bearing to support the telescope from above as well as below. The 200-inch Hale telescope at Mount Palomar uses this style of mounting. The coude focus is what telescopes use to bring starlight to big, heavy spectrometers. Main mirror reflects light to Cassegrain secondary. Secondary reflects light to a diagonal which goes just where the telescope is pivoted for declination. Mirrors in the mounting take the light through the pivot in the base of the mounting that turns the telescope for R.A. - in this way, the spectroscope can stay still and observe! No craning your neck on a telescope with the coude focus. The Nasmyth focus is based on the principle that going from the declination pivot to the R.A. pivot involves lots of mirrors and relay lenses - so it quits, and just leaves in the diagonal close to the mirror - one looks through the declination pivot. This is a reasonable compromise that keeps the observer's head out of a horseshoe mount. John Savard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
Quadibloc wrote:
My website illustrates a horseshoe mount, but while it shows what a Coude focus is, it doesn't discuss the Nasmyth focus. I've remedied that omission: http://www.quadibloc.com/science/opt03.htm John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AAVSO requesting monitoring of RS Oph during Sept | canopus56 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 31st 06 09:31 PM |
DHS CLUB | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 1st 06 10:57 AM |
AAVSO Variable Star Atlas | Alexander Avtanski | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | August 27th 04 09:21 PM |
Dr. Janet Mattei of the AAVSO has died | John Oliver | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | May 4th 04 08:45 PM |
AAVSO file type question | Hogrider | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 22nd 03 04:42 PM |