Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Permanent Dark-Sky site thoughts
Patrick wrote:
And then there's the fact that the club can never seem to agree on where to do private star parties. How in the world could there ever be consensus on where to put such a facility?
Part of this problem, is after the club picks the site, votes that as the "Official Site" for the month, small groups get together and plans their own "Dark Site Location. When the official site has been voten on by club members, that is where the support should be not where small groups are saying, "The official site is ______ but a groups of us will be going to ________ site, anyone who wants can join us." That is where some of the problem is. A Chair person, Don Colton, was chosen to pick the sites but still there are those who will go their own way.
Personally, I like having an observatory built on the back of my house. Sure, the skies are not perfect but I can still see M-13, M-31 and the milky way naked eye. And the fact that when I'm home I'm never more than a couple of minutes away from the start of another observing session makes such sessions >happen a lot more frequently than if I had to drive somewhere.
Patrick
Not everyone is in a position, financially or physically to have an observatory in their back yard. It would be nice if we had a location to go to with half-way decent dark skies and not have to fight other crowds for a camp spot. Those who attended the "Dark-Site" meetings and on the committee were not interested in building permanent structures at this time but to just have a dark location to go to instead of the "Official Dark Site" chosen by the club. So there would be 2 places that club members could go each month - the Official Site" and the permanent "Dark Site". Deloy and Karen Pierce
--- Karen Pierce <starpartiesrus@utah-inter.net> wrote:
Those who attended the "Dark-Site" meetings and on the committee were not interested in building permanent structures at this time but to just have a dark location to go to instead of the "Official Dark Site" chosen by the club.
Without improvements such as a structure or toilets, there is no "dark sky site", just a star-party location. You don't need any money for that. This is what I meant by no shared vision. It means different things to different people. A dark-sky site should be accessable for all 4 seasons, leaving out much of the mountains in Utah. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without improvements such as a structure or toilets, there is no "dark sky site", just a star-party location. You don't need any money for that.
This is what I meant by no shared vision. It means different things to different people.
A dark-sky site should be accessable for all 4 seasons, leaving out much of the mountains in Utah.
Chuck
Chuck, I think you ar 100% correct abut no real vision. SPOC2 has been put in place by people who have a vision, and are willing to do whatever it takes to see the vision put in place. Siegfried has asked the Dark Sky Committee to present a plan, and thus far none has come forth. Lacking a plan, and seeing no progress towards having one, it is only logical for Siegfried to make the comments he has made. I am not an oponent of a dark site. I would like to see such a thing happen. Neither am I for it enough to step forward and make it happen. I do think it would be a mistake to absorb those funds, though. I would love to see someone step forward who is a BIG PROPONENT of a dark sky site. That person would have a vision of what it should be, and will lead others to accomplish that vision. He would, as a leader, also listen to those around and modify his vision to satisfy the others who would use the site. His attitude should be: "Lead, follow or get out of the way!". This is the kind of person needed to make a dark site a reality. I am not convinced that there need to have "improvements" like the ones you mention to begin with. Some would certainly come with time, but those who use the dark sky site should decide what they are. Arbitrary statements of accepptability really have got to be tempered by the users' thoughts. The same is true about the site. The mountains ARE indeed accessible year round with the right equipment. It might be that this equipment is more important initially than the improvemnents are. I do know that the road up Farmington Canyon is open to automobile traffic year round. It is kept that way for maintenance of the radar installations on Farmington Peak. This road provides access to some areas where there are already long term land leases and moderately dark skies. Security issues can also be mitigated. Things do not need to be expensive to be secure. A shipping container is inexpensive, yet VERY secure. I guess my real message is to that individual who is VERY interested in the dark sky site. Where there is a will, there is a way. If you have a vision, stand up and share that vision. Take responsibility, and be willing to sacrifice to get what you want. IT IS POSSIBLE, in spite of whatever negative comments may come along. (No offense intended to anyone who has already responded.) Respectfully, Brent
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck,
I think you ar 100% correct abut no real vision. SPOC2 has been put in place by people who have a vision, and are willing to do whatever it takes to see the vision put in place. Siegfried has asked the Dark Sky Committee to present a plan, and thus far none has come forth. Lacking a plan, and seeing no progress towards having one, it is only logical for Siegfried to make the comments he has made.
I'd be interested in seeing what, if anything, the DS-com has come up with. Here is my personal vision of a multi-user Dark-Sky site: A property owner's association. SPOC works because members live 5-minutes (or less) away. Would the facility be used as much if it were located at say, Lakeside? Doubtful. Accessability makes SPOC work. It sits in the middle of a subdivision. For a remote location, I think personal ownership would be a MUST in order for people to care enough to make it work. Private ownership would preclude SLAS involvement, unless SLAS owned the property, and leased plots to those willing to sign a lease and pay for it.
I am not an oponent of a dark site. I would like to see such a thing happen. Neither am I for it enough to step forward and make it happen. I do think it would be a mistake to absorb those funds, though.
That's where I"m at. Until I either retire, or my child is grown-up, I will not be a driving force in any club effort (and I divide my hobby time between two very different activities and clubs) due to lack of free time. Agreed that any earmarked funds should remain earmarked, at least for the present. Especially if they were donated for that purpose, specifically...we don't want to insult donors.
I am not convinced that there need to have "improvements" like the ones you mention to begin with. Some would certainly come with time, but those who use the dark sky site should decide what they are. Arbitrary statements of accepptability really have got to be tempered by the users' thoughts.
Well, as I said, that's MY vision. If there are no improvements (Siegfried did talk about an OBSERVATORY at a dark-sky site, after all...) then it's just another camping spot to me. No committees, funds, or any other thought needed. Show-up, and hope that a beer party didn't get there first. One day, I will have my own dark-sky site, built to my own vision, God willing; but I hope the club doesn't have to wait that long! Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Hey, Karen it is so good to hear from you. we have been wondering what you guys are doing...what about a visit?? Karen V Karen Pierce wrote:
Patrick wrote:
And then there's the fact that the club can never seem to agree on where to do private star parties. How in the world could there ever be consensus on where to put such a facility?
Part of this problem, is after the club picks the site, votes that as the "Official Site" for the month, small groups get together and plans their own "Dark Site Location. When the official site has been voten on by club members, that is where the support should be not where small groups are saying, "The official site is ______ but a groups of us will be going to ________ site, anyone who wants can join us." That is where some of the problem is.
A Chair person, Don Colton, was chosen to pick the sites but still there are those who will go their own way.
Personally, I like having an observatory built on the back of my house. Sure, the skies are not perfect but I can still see M-13, M-31 and the milky way naked eye. And the fact that when I'm home I'm never more than a couple of minutes away from the start of another observing session makes such sessions >happen a lot more frequently than if I had to drive somewhere.
Patrick
Not everyone is in a position, financially or physically to have an observatory in their back yard. It would be nice if we had a location to go to with half-way decent dark skies and not have to fight other crowds for a camp spot.
Those who attended the "Dark-Site" meetings and on the committee were not interested in building permanent structures at this time but to just have a dark location to go to instead of the "Official Dark Site" chosen by the club. So there would be 2 places that club members could go each month - the Official Site" and the permanent "Dark Site".
Deloy and Karen Pierce
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
participants (4)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Karen Pierce -
karen vanderhule