Any good but lesser known astro sites?

Hi,

Many of you who have been here awhile and thus on the Internet probably have
come across some interesting astronomy sites - not the Top 20 that we all
generally know about, but lesser known but good sites. If so, would you be
willing to share some of them here for us?

--
Thanks,
Jeffrey

Astronomy in South Carolina



Any good but lesser known astro sites?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:53:32 -0500, "Jeff Hopkins"
wrote:

Hi,

Many of you who have been here awhile and thus on the Internet probably have
come across some interesting astronomy sites - not the Top 20 that we all
generally know about, but lesser known but good sites. If so, would you be
willing to share some of them here for us?

I got the very idea of assembling a list of links to AMATEUR ONLY
sites fairly recently. I have so far come up with seven that met my
criteria: (1) done by an amateur astronomer only; (2) showing
excellence in achievement; (3) teaching me something I hadn't known
before, or articulating discussions with a fresh and unusual approach
with exceptional clarity and intelligence.

I am collecting them an including them at the end of my "Astronomical
Jottings" page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~astro-app...ings.htm#LINKS

AstroApp

AstroApp wrote:
(1) done by an amateur astronomer only;

Ok, I'm curious. What exactly does this criterion mean?

Does it have to be by a single person (with no help from anyone else)
who is not, nor ever has been, employed as a professional astronomer?

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
AstroApp wrote:
(1) done by an amateur astronomer only;

Ok, I'm curious. What exactly does this criterion mean?

Does it have to be by a single person (with no help from anyone else)
who is not, nor ever has been, employed as a professional astronomer?

But if you start to determine the group modelling after, say,
the Olympic/Sport committees, would they have to submit to a
drug test?;-)

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:41:47 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:

AstroApp wrote:
(1) done by an amateur astronomer only;

Ok, I'm curious. What exactly does this criterion mean?

Does it have to be by a single person (with no help from anyone else)
who is not, nor ever has been, employed as a professional astronomer?

Greg

Greg, your site is fantastic and is one that I am constantly referring
to in links for the observing articles about specific objects that
I've drawn up. Your lengthy, informative reports about sky objects
prove that unlike many other astro product developers, you are an
OBSERVER and as such, are an amateur! An amateur in the best
traditional sense: being somebody who devotes their time to a pursuit
not for money but for the love of it. And your articles are done with
the solid science background of a professional.

So your own website sort of falls into a special niche that occupies
the transition between the web pages that promote and sell products,
and those that merely relate personal amateur experiences. In fact,
your articles should give confidence to your potential customers that
your products are RELEVANT to amateur observers, not merely works of
code assembly that vaccuum up information and regurgitate it on
screen, without regard to the practical use thereof.

However, what I was trying to start putting together was a listing of
people's personal astronomical pages that merely relate their private
hobby experiences. Persons who have, for instance, never gone into
the development or sales of astro-related products but are merely
sharing their knowledge and experiences to others of the like. Since
for a time I actually sold optical products and even some of my own
software, MY pages would not "fit" into this category even though I'm
now retired completely.

There are, for instance, gorgeous pages of astronomical images. But
often one finds that there are ways to BUY them. This is, then, a
mildly commercial enterprise. So I would not put such an astrophoto
website into my category, even though it is admirable and useful and
worthy. I'd use only those image websites that don't sell their
pictures, but merely want to share them free to all readers.

There are excellent websites about optics, done by people who make
mirrors and who sell them to the public. But then those pages are
like yours: part commercial, part amateur.

There are many useful things on commercial sites, like the TeleVue
eyepiece calculator. But that is primarily a promotional commercial
site.

This leaves the rest of us who spend first our time, then our money,
paying for our own webspace and working for countless hours a year,
writing up, digitizing, editing, and sharing our work for free. There
are a million such sites on the net, but few that are really
outstanding and show great originality or innovation, superb
accomplishment, and academic worth. I find that I bookmark only about
5 percent of the astro sites that I land on through various links and
serendipitous adventures. Of that group, maybe I go back only to half
of them for even a second visit. THOSE are the remarkable sites that
I'd like to help others discover!

Then, there is a special category of sites that are REFERENCES. They
are primarilly academic and are often developed and produced by active
or retired professional scientists or software specialists. Such a
site might be, say, the NGC/IC Project, or, Mikkel Steine's amazing
Deep Sky Browser. They don't sell products and must cost a lot to
develop and support. Perhaps some of them have been paid for by
grants; who knows? We are all the richer for them, and I for one have
saved enormous amounts of time compared to the 'bad old days' when I'd
have to drive to a university library to look up the information.

So there are lots of ways to approach the assemblage of a list of
superb astro links; I've merely chosen to restrict myself to the ones
described in my statement you quoted in part.

AstroApp

AstroApp wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:41:47 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:

AstroApp wrote:
(1) done by an amateur astronomer only;
Ok, I'm curious. What exactly does this criterion mean?

Does it have to be by a single person (with no help from anyone else)
who is not, nor ever has been, employed as a professional astronomer?

Greg

Greg, your site is fantastic and is one that I am constantly referring
to in links for the observing articles about specific objects that
I've drawn up.

Sorry--I was just having a little light-hearted fun with your choice of
words!

I admit though that I am a little sensitive to people pigeonholing
fellow astronomers in any way, whether it be professional vs. amateur or
consumer vs. someone who makes it their avocation as I have. I guess
that's a natural sensitivity for me, since I fall into all the above
categories! You are of course welcome to make any sort of list of links
that you wish to on your web site. But I'm most comfortable when we
don't put up these barriers between us, and simply welcome all those who
have an interest in astronomy, whatever that interest may be.

Clear skies,
Greg


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Hi Jeff, last year I threw together this list of amateur-related gear
sites

http://www.touristflorida.com/telescopes

(which perhaps also has a few of the 20 sites you mentioned?)
I spend alot of time shopping for things that are either beyond my
budget, or when they are in budget, won't fit in my garage :^) If
anyone has a gear link they'd like to add, post it here and I may
include it in the next update.

Regards, Jason H.

Hi,

Many of you who have been here awhile and thus on the Internet probably have
come across some interesting astronomy sites - not the Top 20 that we all
generally know about, but lesser known but good sites. If so, would you be
willing to share some of them here for us?

--
Thanks,
Jeffrey

Astronomy in South Carolina



Any good but lesser known astro sites?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:14:13 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:

AstroApp wrote:
(1) done by an amateur astronomer only;
Ok, I'm curious. What exactly does this criterion mean?

Does it have to be by a single person (with no help from anyone else)
who is not, nor ever has been, employed as a professional astronomer?

Greg

Greg, your site is fantastic and is one that I am constantly referring
to in links for the observing articles about specific objects that
I've drawn up.

Greg, and everybody else:

After thinking about it again, and looking over the articles Greg has
written, purely as educational pieces to help observers, I've made an
exception and have just added "Skyhound" to my select gathering of
links to purely amateur sites. For the articles that Greg has created
to help people find the best objects of each season, and current
comets, are often the best of their type on the whole Net.

If ANY website deserves to be included in my set of links due to its
excellence, I think the Skyhound articles indeed deserve it. (Not
that I'm claiming that I have any special qualifications for awarding
an "order of merit", which I'm not. But as a writer myself for most
of my own career in broadcasting and engineering, and a long time
amateur astronomer, I can certainly appreciate the effort he's made to
help us amateurs enjoy our telescopes and observing sessions to the
fullest.)

AstroApp (srw)
http://home.earthlink.net/~astro-app...ings.htm#LINKS

Originally Posted by Jeff Hopkins

Hi, Many of you who have been here awhile and thus on the Internet probably have come across some interesting astronomy sites - not the Top 20 that we all
generally know about, but lesser known but good sites. If so, would you be
willing to share some of them here for us?

Thanks, Jeffrey Astronomy in South Carolina Any good but lesser known astro sites?

Each will be unique to the user - I've got mine and I expect you've got yours! I agree it's difficult when there's a commercial angle so comments can be biased.

Nytecam