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/

"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/

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!

"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

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/

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

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

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

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

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/