Solar System vs. deep-sky

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/

Hi

I actually like deep sky more....i guess because there is SOOO much to see....

But, going along with your thought processes.....2 things almost occur to
me....both kinda depressing when I view deep sky objects...

My first thought is always.....No way in hell will mankind ever be going
THERE......unlike at least some reasonable potential we have to vist stuff in
the solar system or the very nearest stars....

And the second thought that immediatly follows....well thats at least ONE place
man will probably never screw up.....

take care

Blll

Ï "BllFs6" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

Hi

I actually like deep sky more....i guess because there is SOOO much to
see....

But, going along with your thought processes.....2 things almost occur to
me....both kinda depressing when I view deep sky objects...

My first thought is always.....No way in hell will mankind ever be going
THERE......

Nobody knows that, for sure. You cannot exclude an extant future
possibility, based on premises which depend on our current technology. For
all we know, the next generation might develop technology that takes
advantage of wormholes or time travel. Nobody knows for sure.

unlike at least some reasonable potential we have to vist stuff in
the solar system or the very nearest stars....

Solar system, yes. Nearby stars, hmmmm. Let me give you a typical example:
Saturn V that went to the moon, will take roughly 120,000 years to reach
alpha Centauri, and that, assuming it utilizes its initial speed throughout
the entire trip.

And the second thought that immediatly follows....well thats at least ONE
place
man will probably never screw up.....

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.

The following is fiction, but it may give you some insight on what is to
follow, before "we screw up elsewhere" :*)

http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/wr...micLadder.html

take care

Blll
--
Ioannis Galidakis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
------------------------------------------
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable

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

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/

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:52:09 +0900, Trane Francks
wrote:

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.

I think you personally are messing up this planet right now - see
previous reply for suggested solution.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

"Trane Francks" wrote:

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.

I really, really hate to get involved in this, but...

Considering some 6 billion people are currently living here, and most
of the difficulties people have in living as they wish are political, not
environmental, it is far from certain that you have any real evidence
to support your claim. 'Using' something does not necessarily mean
'ruining' it. Change does not necessarily mean 'ruining', either. When
the raw materials for the computer you used to post your message were
taken from the earth and formed into your computer, was that 'ruining'
them? To come to the views you and others have espoused here, one
has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as we
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use.
Why is man's use less 'good' than a warthog's use? Can a warthog or
spotted owl gaze at the stars through a telescope made from materials
taken from the earth and wonder at the vastness and complexity of this
amazing and wonderful universe? You should realize that you are
taking what amount to personal feelings and attributing them with
some kind of 'truth' that simply does not exist. This is more than quaint
and provincial, it is ill founded and shows a serious lack of perception
and balance. Unfortunately, the very fact that those espousing such
views of necessity had to have been confused in their thinking to have
adopted them, is ample evidence they will not be able to see the error,
even after it has been pointed out to them. Sigh.

Consider:

A) If mankind was not created by God, and got here through entirely
physical processes, then mankind has just as much 'right' to use the
earth as any other living organism. In fact, the terms 'right' and 'wrong'
are meaningless, for we are simply another manifestation of physical
phenomena. You might as well declare that gravity, lightning, pi or the
speed of light are 'right' or 'wrong'. The best that you can say is that
something is 'preferable' or 'not preferable' from some entirely
subjective viewpoint, and even there we cannot be completely
accurate, for we do not have the ability to see the full consequences
of all our actions.

B) If mankind was created by God, then it is God's values, not ours,
that count.

Take your pick. In neither case can you make the argument that man's
appropriation and use of natural resources for his use and pleasure is
'wrong'. Not always wise, perhaps, but not 'wrong'.
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Russell Wallace" wrote in message
...
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.

Now, now, now ! Don't be too harsh with the man, try assimilating . . .
I mean converting him instead. I recommend sending him a bumber sticker
that says, "Earth First. We'll Jeep the other planets later!"



"Sore wa himitsu desu."

And just WHAT is a secret?
^_^

I tend to favor deep sky viewing. Somehow, the very remoteness and
enormity of it all is more mind stretching for me. Just looking at the
dim fuzzies and wondering what it's all about is liberating somehow. On
one hand, my daily problems fade into a more reasonable perspective. On
the other, I feel like I'm a part of something so much greater than
myself.
The solar system is nice, (and I do live here,) but let me sail
away into deep space...
Marty

Marty wrote:

I tend to favor deep sky viewing. Somehow, the very remoteness and
enormity of it all is more mind stretching for me. Just looking at the
dim fuzzies and wondering what it's all about is liberating somehow.

That's me, too. Deep-sky viewing from the city is pretty challenging, and
when you do find something I'm sure most people would think the view isn't
very interesting. But when you know that that faint smear of light is a
mighty city containing more *suns* than there are people on Earth, well...

Sometimes, though, it's so vast that I feel dead to wonder. Then I like to
look at the Moon, because it's beautiful and the idea of it makes better
sense to my tiny brain!