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

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.

"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"

WELL, when I was a boy, all WE had were big rocks set in circles, and we
were THANKFUL for it.
whippersnappers...

Marty

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.

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

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

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

Right on Margo...

Yes, I'm a young 50..don't look it and it's just awe inspiring that
there is so much diversity in equipment and literature and media and
associations that we have had since the 1980's that we didn't have in
the '60's.

I got started in astronomy when I was a tike and joined my first club
in high school in Ohio and after college, moving to the Philly area,
joined DVAA and then BMAA at it's inception in 1985.

The simple fact is that there is so much to do astronomically and so
many avenues that you can take to explore it, that it's really
extremely stupid to not be very open minded about go to style
equipment.

I would much rather see the energy put into fighting Light Pollution
which threatens
ALL OF US including the professionals.

But I think there just maybe a light at the end of a tunnel at least
in terms of light pollution because it's a direct source of Global
Warming because it's wasted electricity producing light.

But it may still take a while...

And as the clock ticks....

We draw ever closer to losing Cherry Springs State Park, one of the
nation's first dark sky parks, one of the last two public places that
are truly dark on the east coast.

eddie wrote:
Right on Margo...

Yes, I'm a young 50..don't look it and it's just awe inspiring that
there is so much diversity in equipment and literature and media and
associations that we have had since the 1980's that we didn't have in
the '60's.

Hi, Eddie.

It's indeed amazing how technologies have diversified, sometimes with
interesting "anticipations" in earlier decades. For example, I've seeen
articles on short-focus reflectors from the '40's and 50's which seem to
me and others to celebrate precisely the kind of rich-field viewing
that we associate with the "Dobsonian revolution" which took hold in
the '80's.

I got started in astronomy when I was a tike and joined my first club
in high school in Ohio and after college, moving to the Philly area,
joined DVAA and then BMAA at it's inception in 1985.

This consistent dedication is something I have to admire. I got started
as a child around the time of Sputnik, and got a reflector around 4-1/4"
or so which I used from our apartment backyard to look at the Moon and
Pleiades; but regrettably didn't keep up the observing as a teenager or
young adult, although I still read astronomy and cosmology from time to
time and joined with friends in viewing some "special event": a meteor
shower, or eclipse. However I've gotten back into regular observing
over the last year or so is another story: but I admire your more
consistent involvement over the years.

The simple fact is that there is so much to do astronomically and so
many avenues that you can take to explore it, that it's really
extremely stupid to not be very open minded about go to style
equipment.

One point is that go-to may be more like the methods used by a typical
professional astronomy who directs things by computer, and may not know
the constellations visually.

I don't see why, for any certificate or the like, we might not have two
or more categories based on how the objects were found: by visual
starhopping, automated go-to, manual or digital setting circles, etc.

I would much rather see the energy put into fighting Light Pollution
which threatens
ALL OF US including the professionals.

Agreed! Recently I read a lament by a member of my club, Sacramento
Valley Astronomical Society, that one of our dark-sky sites was getting
impacted from a suburban auto mall. This is a situation where reducing
energy-inefficient or unnecessary lighting will benefit everyone: urban
observers like me searching for DSO's among the city lights; suburban
people for whom that auto mall might be very bad news; and also the
dark-sky observers where new or larger light domes are a real threat.

But I think there just maybe a light at the end of a tunnel at least
in terms of light pollution because it's a direct source of Global
Warming because it's wasted electricity producing light.

Yes: "Save our planet; Save our skies!"

But it may still take a while...

I've seen advice from one deep-sky astronomer: it will get worse before
it gets better. There are pleasant success stories from some regions,
for example a Canadian project with government sponsorship to protect
an observatory and improve energy efficiency. The question is which
trend can prevail over the next decade or two.


And as the clock ticks....

We draw ever closer to losing Cherry Springs State Park, one of the
nation's first dark sky parks, one of the last two public places that
are truly dark on the east coast.


That is sad. I should look into this.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430