March 2009 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

LCROSS Science on a Sphere Movie
by Canopus56 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

If you are out there Seth, please let the list know when this will be playing in the lobby of the Clark. I'd like to come down and watch it. Thanks - Kurt ----------------------------------- Return to the Moon Science on a Sphere Video released 2-27-2009 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/multimedia/returntothemoon/index.html "With the advent of the NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), humanity makes a return to the moon like a herald announcing a new age. To commemorate the mission and champion the value of future planned lunar expeditions, the Space Agency is set to release a new short film called RETURN TO THE MOON. . . . . They’ll follow LRO as it makes orbits around the moon, gathering data about the surface and what may lie beneath. And then, in a dramatic demonstration of a daring mission goal, moviegoers will witness the inventive and powerful moment when NASA engineers intentionally crash a research probe into the surface of the moon to dig beneath the top layer. The space agency calls that impact probe LCROSS, and as both a research tool and a cinematic experience, it promises to deliver something exciting."

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Retailer
by Canopus56 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

> I dont believe Bill is at Inkley's any more. > I was in there last week, and the area where his display cases and > and telescopes was cleared out. just 2 scopes on the floor. I was in last Friday and talked with him. Earlier in the week, from other staff, I was told that he works Mon Wed Fri 10 to 2. He said they are not going to be a Meade dealer. He has his Celestron equipment for sale in the storage room. They have a couple of Meade hard cases on clearance sale at 50%. Sorry, I'm not a Meade guy so I didn't pay close attention to the details on the cases. I discussed buying a Celestron 4se or 5se and he indicated it could be ordered. Checking internet news stories, Ritz filed for Chapter 11 on Feb. 23 which was 5 days before when I talked with Bill. Chapter 11 means reorganization - the company continues to operate during bankruptcy reorganization. I understand post-filing debts and business have priority over any debts pre-petition. In some respects, companies that have filed for Chapter 11 are more financially secure companies for retail consumers to deal with since they have just been released from their crushing debt load. Not so good for suppliers that are owed money before the filing. The real risk - which is usually a small one - is that a company will convert to Chapter 7 liquidation in the middle of the Chapter 11 case. The internet news stories also indicated that it was the Boater's World side of the Ritz business was a contributor to sinking the ship (no pun intended), but the decline in demand for photo-printing from the rise in digital camera use also was a cause in the company's decline in revenue. IMHO that's what sunk Howell's last year. I still intend to go back and order from him depending on resolution of one technical question by Celestron. I intended to hand him a check to prepay for the whole scope, but will probably cut the advance offer back to 50% of the total purchase because of the bankruptcy. Although I do not know his current situation, my heart goes out to Bill in these tough economic times. - Kurt

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Retailer
by Canopus56 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Troy, If you do go the DOB route, I would suggest the following in addition to the other comments you have received:; 1) Even if it means saving for another couple of months, buy one that has digital setting circles. The price point difference is about $170 ($530-$360). The digital setting circles will greatly simplify getting your scope on target, particularly in light polluted skies. They will increase your enjoyment of the scope by much more than $170. 2) The price points on these DOBs are so low these days, it's not really worth searching out used equipment, especially through internet classified sites like Astromart, IMHO isn't worth the hassle unless someone has a local deal here in Utah (having read your post). 3) Internet retailing is fine but one of its negative consequences is that it has really begun to price squeeze the retailers out of business in terms of both inventory on head and the knowledge of staff. Telescope sales are only a partial exception to this trend. Bill Cowles is very knowledgable. They have knowledge people at Clark but it's a hit and miss proposition. You have to ask for someone who knows. The floor staff generally are not knowledgable, only sell entertainment goodies, do not use and no nothing about telescopes. The last time I was there (within the last month) they had cleared out all of their telescope accessories and only had the scopes on display. 4) For this class of scope, I recommend buying through a brick and mortar retailer. I just bought a low-end scope over the internet from a reputable vendor, but had to return it. Let me say that although the whole process of getting a return authorization, reboxing, reshipping through UPS and getting the replacement was a bothersome, unpleasant hassle. It took two weeks to get a return authorization (one week to get an answer to my first email); another week for them to mail me the return shipment UPS sticker. Three weeks for UPS to the get the thing to the seller and for the seller to evaluate the claim and ship me a replacement. For this class of scope, I would buy from a local brick and mortar guy. If anything goes wrong, you can just drop it off and pick up a replacement on short order or just get your money back. 5) Plan to save up for an observing chair. DOBs are low to the ground. You can get a neck or back cramp pretty quick. Clear Skies - Kurt

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
by stormcrow60＠xmission.com 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Hi Jim, I have yet to find the link to the program that shows the scientific data that proves humans are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. I am at work and the Discovery Channel website alone has enough to wade through. But it is the same data that the vast majority of scientists agree on that proves global warming is being influenced by humans. Influenced to the point where it is tipping the CO2 scales and causing global warming or exacerbating it. Now, one can either rummage through thousands of pages of scientific data or one can watch a one hour science program that tells you the same thing. And I have seen enough science programs and read enough about this to know when corporate entities are trying to dupe me. I will post the link when or if I can find it. Don, I do not see what the earlier epochs and periods of Earth history have to do with modern atmospheric data. In the carboniferous period, there were massive volcanoes too. That would indeed place a huge amount of CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere. But there were also 3 foot diameter spiders and dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans. So what? I don't see your point. When volcanoes are going crazy... unlike today, you would expect massive influxes of these gases. Also, anyone can name a scientist or two that would agree with their views. Two or three scientists disagreeing with man-made global warming does not constitute evidence against the overwhelming data that says man-made global warming exists. That is like saying the fundamentalist Christians have refuted evolution because they can disprove the Java man fossils. It does not stand up against the overwhelming majority of collected data that says global warming is either caused or greatly exacerbated by humans. As far as attacking the messenger... when the messenger is the fossil fuel lobby, yes, I will attack it. I understand BP is trying to move in the direction of cleaner energy. But please, do not insult me by implying the petroleum industry and lobbyists are looking after the best interests of human kind. Profits off of fossil fuels are there biggest objective. And Exxon... come on. Every year they make billions in profits and still receive billions in tax breaks. Until the petroleum industry is willing to move part and parcel beyond technologies that have not changed for over one hundred years, I will rail against them. They are not my friends. Green energy is attainable and profitable. The fossil fuel industry has the ability to move us into cleaner energy sources. And so much more can be done by these corporate giants. But they want to wring out the very last drop of profit at our expense. And the very fact that we are discussing this makes me think that their propaganda has convinced some to think that we can keep using petroleum like it is going out of style. Well... you know what? It is going out of style... and quantity. The only question is... how much damage will we do to the Earth before we learn a very hard and serious lesson? By the way... I love this discussion. Jon

3 2

Global ?????ing
by Spencer Ball 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

There are two types of information on global warming/cooling: 1. true scientific info and 2. biased info, presented only to prove one's opinion. In today's politically charged environment, it takes real honesty to be a true scientist, and I believe most scientists are not honest. Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd, Ste 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 (801) 453-2000

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling?
by stormcrow60＠xmission.com 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Hi Joe, Although I am not disputing the fact that sunspots and sun activity affects the temperature of our planet... I mean, how could it not? But, for those that say global warming is not man-made are still in denial and try to muck up the water and the truth regarding global warming. For instance, NOAA recently released a global warming report and some right wing newspaper or organization responded (can't remember who it was), while cherry picking data out of the report. They were claiming that NOAA's conclusion was that global warming was natural and not man-made and that Arctic sea ice was growing. However, when the NOAA scientists were informed their study and their data was being taken out of context, they called this organization out and set them straight. These are the deceptive tactics of those who see scientific fact and public opinion turning away from the status quo. These organizations, such as American Heritage Foundation, The Petroleum Institute, CATO and others are "paying" their psuedo-scientists to make these false statements. Why are these organizations doing this? Because they are financially supported by the fossil fuel corporations. They stand to lose billions and billions of dollars in the near future. Whereas NOAA is a government institute. NOAA scientists receive no monetary gain from supporting global warming facts. They will make their 100K/year (or less) no matter what they state. In fact, The Bush admin stifled the real data from global warming reports for years. They even went so far as to edit environmental and global warming reports, so it would reflect the Bush admins viewpoint. I mean, its like denying that evolution is real. These institutes that try to deceive the public are the same ones that lied to us about WMD's in Iraq, allowed the Hurricane Katrina fiasco to occur and got us into the economic fix we are in today with their ponzi schemes. They even denied we were even in a recession during the presidential campaign. Did you notice the "R" word was not uttered during the campaign and only emerged afterward? Then it was told to the public that we had been in a recession since December 2007? Why? Because this would have made it that much more difficult for John McCain to win the election. How can anyone believe what these organizations say? They spout lies in the media on a daily basis. Now I know some of you will retort, or wonder why I am saying this on the Utah Astronomy blog. But this is scientific fact, and it affects our planet, the only one we know of in the cosmos that supports life... intelligent life. Also realize I am only responding to the initial link to Joes article, which in itself had this particular paragraph: "Last year brought a reverse in the trend of rising global temperatures, reports the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a NASA branch in New York City. "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000," the institute added. Its report was issued on Dec. 16, 2008, and updated on Jan. 13. It may seem a paradox, but 2008 also was the ninth-warmest year since weather observers began making careful measurements in 1880. That's because, while 2008 was cooler, it was still part of a period of generally high temperature." I believe global warming is the largest threat to humans and our civilization. 98% of U.S. and international scientists and international scientific organizations will agree with me. The only ones that do not are on the fossil fuel industry payroll. Thanks for your time. Jon

4 4

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
by stormcrow60＠xmission.com 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Ah Contraire Jim, I watched a science program on Discover, Science Channel or Nat'l Geoographic (I cannot remember which), that discussed the so-called "noise" in the global warming data. The data presented on the program confirms beyond a shadow of doubt that humans are contributing more CO2 into the atmosphere than the Earth can handle. This is the same exact data that NOAA, NASA and other international science institutes are using to support their claims of human induced global warming. If I can find the link to that particular program on one of their websites, I will post it here. All I see from these statements are personal opinions, with nothing scientific to back them up. I understand everyone has their own opinion, but if one is discussing science, then scientific data should be provided. That seems reasonable does it not? Stay tuned for a link if I can find it. Jon

4 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
by stormcrow60＠xmission.com 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article. Jon

4 4

Reflection Nebulae M78 and NGC2071 in Orion - New Image
by Tyler Allred 03 Mar '09

03 Mar '09

Hi SLAS, I just posted a new image to the SLAS gallery. It is a widefield view of M78 and NGC2071, two reflection nebulae in Orion, just north of his belt. This is a very colorful part of the sky, with subtle reds and blues, and loads of dust and dark lanes. Here is a link to the image in the SLAS gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1217 The full version is also posted in the "Latest Images" section of my website, with exposure information included. www.allred-astro.com <http://www.allred-astro.com/> Cheers, Tyler Tyler Allred President Allred Restoration, Inc. 5725 W 12000 N Tremonton, UT 84337 801-358-1868 cell <mailto:tylerallred@earthlink.net> tylerallred(a)earthlink.net _____________________________________________

5 7

"Natural" Atmospheric Cycles
by erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net 03 Mar '09

03 Mar '09

Hi All, A discussion I found on the thought that human activity produces insignificant atmospheric CO2 levels. You decide. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-cosub2sub-e… Erik

1 0