- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: Comet Macholtz
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Much better tonight from the bottom of the soup-bowl in downtown West Valley. The ground fog dissipated and the sky was darker than last night. Found the comet immediately using the chart at: http://skyandtelescope.com/mm_images/7575.gif though of course it was still very close to last night's position; it's moving slowly. Better views in the 20x70mm binos than the 9x63mm. The darker sky background improved contrast and the higher magnification increased the angular size markedly. I found the comet to be about as bright as the outer portions of M42, surprisingly. As hard as I try I just can't make it out with the naked eye. Although I didn't detect a tail I thought I could just imagine a slight elongation in a north-south orientation. Debbie is definitely getting the better deal than us Wasatch front dwellers. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

Re: Remote site
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Further thoughts based on Patricks post. When my mortgage is paid-off (only a year to go!) I am going to start looking for "recreational property" with the aim of one day building a cabin or placing a "manufactured" home there. I will have my remote site regardless of the rest of the world. Of course friends will be invited when appropriate. (Being in a family where the majority of members roll their eyes at the mention of the word "telescope", not every clear moonless night is automatically reserved for astronomy, darnit). I've seen the "dark-site dissention" at the club level, which is why in a recent post I leaned toward the privately-owned site. But there is another solution that retains the "club" experience, for those who cannot or will not purchase or lease land privately... You simply start a new club. People more interested in regular or semi-regular observation at remote, dark sites might be better served to separate themselves from a club structured for public outreach, such as SLAS, which is very much dominated by people with a social agenda in addition to the science. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but why beat your head against the wall if you're not getting what you want out of it? Most current club members wouldn't use a remote site anyway (the cause of most of the arguments), but then a majority of members don't regulary use SPOC, either, but those most active members get quite a bit of use out of it. Those who do the most work should get to use the toys most often, and put them where they want them. If the dark-sky folks would put as much time and energy into their goals as the SPOC boosters do, there would already be a dark site. But inertia (and most of the movers and shakers) are against it in the Salt Lake club, so why not start your own? Heck, I'd gladly join both clubs. But Patrick, don't be swayed by "the crowd". You know that the best observing is from the darkest sites; peer pressure can't change the truth of that. Don't see a dark site as a threat to SPOC, it isn't. The crushing weight of an increasing population is the only real threat to SPOC. A dark-site is a different experience entirely, somewhat more intimate than the SPOC phenomenon, more private by nature. Finally, everyone needs to know that Bruce is a pretty darn clever engineer. All of the instruments at SPOC, including the big scope, can be moved to a new site (either close or remote) when the time comes, and that time is not even on the horizon yet. Food for thought (or print it out and wrap fish with it) Patrick wrote: > I've stayed out of the recent discussion here about > dark sky sites > because of my experience the last time it was > discussed. That > experience turned me from an enthusiastic supporter > to a non-believer. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

Remote site
by Patrick Wiggins 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

I've stayed out of the recent discussion here about dark sky sites because of my experience the last time it was discussed. That experience turned me from an enthusiastic supporter to a non-believer. No one could agree on where the site should be let alone what should be at the site. And the fact that in the many years of fund raising only a few thousand dollars was raised didn't help (Siegfried has shown that much can be raised in a day by the right, properly motivated person). However, that was when it was being proposed as a SLAS owned site. Now I'm hearing that some are considering a privately owned, non-SLAS, facility. Certainly a smallish group could make decisions that a big group could not. And any such small group could even apply for tax exempt status under the right circumstances making donations tax deductible and property taxes nonexistent. That said (and freely admitting a number of continuing misgivings) I'll throw out the following: A guy I know that owns an ISP likes astronomy. I spoke with him today and he is interested in a remote site. By remote site, he means a place where he could put up an observatory that he could then run from home. I asked if in return for help putting such a site together those who helped could have access to the site, store equipment there and have private star parties there. He's fine with that. As for locations, he has several spread all over the state, many in very remote areas. Most include a secure concrete structure and power and all have fibre optic internet and roadway access (though obviously some are dirt roads). Two of the closer in sites he mentioned are in Skull Valley and Rush Valley. But he also mentioned Lucin and up on some mountain peak somewhere (I told him that might not work because of limited access in winter). He's willing to put money into the project but would expect others to help out with costs as well. If there is _serious_ interest in such a project he'd like to have a meeting. So, keeping in mind that talk is cheap, the question is, how many are _seriously_ interested in putting several hundred dollars each into such a project? Patrick

3 4

Re: Comet Macholtz
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Debbie: Ha, I know, I was just giving you a good-natured hard time. ;) After seeing it last night, I knew that it would appear much bigger from your dark site. Just being visible at all from here means it's already much brighter and bigger than the "average" comet. As always, I'm envious of your locale, youthful enthusiasm, and your eyesight is probably better than mine as well! Keep up the excellent reports. > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > To: Utah Astronomy > <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 9:56:42 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet Macholtz > > Chuck, > > When I said the comet was big I was talking about > the head of the comet and not the tail. I saw it > last night in 15 X 70 binoculars and it looks like a > bright unresolved globular cluster. I still can't > see a tail. I have seen brighter and better comets > but Machholtz is still fun to observe. > > Debbie __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Comet Macholtz
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Zero. It's about as good as it's going to get. Just from memory, I think the moon will ruin the view during peak brightness; the next couple of weeks. BTW, I don't consider Hale-Bopp a "great" comet. Close, but no cigar (or cigarette); it was a "really good" comet. It pales in comparison to comet West, which was about 20 times larger and a magnitude or two brighter. Coincidentally, both appeared in the same part of the morning sky. I think what made West so great, aside from apparent size, was that it was visible in a fully dark sky; while Hyakutake was at least twice as long, West was much, much brighter. Patrick, I think the comet you saw in the late '50's was probably Arend-Roland. If yours had a prominent anti-tail, it was probably Arend-Roland. > From: Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> > To: Utah Astronomy > <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:32:50 -0700 > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet Macholtz > > So, what are the chances the Macholtz will be a > great one? Thanks, Joe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet Macholtz
by astrodeb＠charter.net 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Chuck, When I said the comet was big I was talking about the head of the comet and not the tail. I saw it last night in 15 X 70 binoculars and it looks like a bright unresolved globular cluster. I still can't see a tail. I have seen brighter and better comets but Machholtz is still fun to observe. Debbie > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2004/12/16 Thu AM 08:53:28 MST > To: Utah-Astro <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet Macholtz > > I saw it last night from my yard in the middle of the > SL valley, in 9x63mm binos when it was very close to > the meridian. I was surprised that it was visible at > all through the light pollution and ground fog. It > appeared about the size and brightness of M13, maybe a > tad larger. No sign of a tail. > The good news is that the track is taking it higher so > the views should get better in coming days. > As with most faint fuzzies, dark skies are a > requirement to get the most out of this comet. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Re: Comet Macholtz
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

I saw it last night from my yard in the middle of the SL valley, in 9x63mm binos when it was very close to the meridian. I was surprised that it was visible at all through the light pollution and ground fog. It appeared about the size and brightness of M13, maybe a tad larger. No sign of a tail. The good news is that the track is taking it higher so the views should get better in coming days. As with most faint fuzzies, dark skies are a requirement to get the most out of this comet. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

1 0

Re: Comet Macholtz
by Chuck Hards 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Those big ones really do spoil one, don't they? A 3rd, 4th magnitude comet only a few degrees across? Yawn.... What are your favorites of the last 30 years, Patrick? I'd rank mine as West, Hyakutake, Hale-Bopp, in that order. Biggest disappointments were Halley and Kohoutek. Oh, Austin was a yawner too. People may not believe it, but you could read a newspaper by the light of comet West. Ziggy and Brent remember a couple even earlier...but then I don't QUITE qualify for the "senior" discount at the movies...not quite yet... ;) > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > To: Utah Astronomy > <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:51:24 -0700 > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Comet Macholtz > > Ah, memories of that magical night when the tail > stretched almost all > the way across the sky. > > Sigh... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

5 4

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Wal Mart / Dark Sky Security / Bad Day
by astrodeb＠charter.net 15 Dec '04

15 Dec '04

Guy, I'm just joking around. I didn't get my Starbucks coffee this morning. I hope I didn't offend anybody on my last post. Debbie > > From: diveboss(a)xmission.com > Date: 2004/12/15 Wed PM 01:30:35 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Wal Mart / Dark Sky Security / Bad Day > > Deb, > > I once felt that way, but as I begin to age, I view Wal*Mart as a future > potential employer. Besides, they sell telescopes there... > > > > Quoting astrodeb(a)charter.net: > > > Ba Humbug Walmart! I still have freedom of speech and I hate their cheap > > Chinese made merchandise. If I had an airplane I'd drop some of Rich's > > horse manure on Walmart. Make it stink real good. > > > > My 2 cents with salt and pepper, > > > > Debbie > > > > > > From: Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> > > > Date: 2004/12/15 Wed PM 12:29:59 MST > > > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > > > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Wal Mart / Dark Sky Security / Bad Day > > > > > > Well, one local media guy, at least, carries around a great big ol' > > > salt shaker .... No fears. Joe > > > > > > >Not to be a wet blanket, but everyone needs to know that we are > > kidding > > > >when we talk about stuff like this. Remember that this list is > > > >monitored by local media. > > > > > > > >Carpe Noctum, > > > > > > > >Patrick :-) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

3 2

Nova - The Elegant Universe:
by Jim Gibson 15 Dec '04

15 Dec '04

Nova will be showing the following: The Elegant Universe: Einstein's Dream and String's the Thing (Repeat) Tuesday, December 21 from 8 to 10 p.m. Eleven dimensions, parallel universes, and a world made out of strings. It's not science fiction, it's string theory. Watch a Preview Go to the Web Site The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th Dimension (Repeat) Tuesday, December 28 at 8 p.m. Eleven dimensions, parallel universes, and a world made out of strings. It's not science fiction, it's string theory. Watch a Preview Go to the Web Site --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.

1 0