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
<< 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. >> Talk of moving the big scope is a little premature. It's not even built yet. Siegfried ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:40 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Remote site
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
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (2)
-
Chuck Hards -
Siegfried Jachmann