January 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Hygens
by Kim Hyatt 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

All ESA has posted at this point (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEMQ1QQ3K3E_0.html) is a lot of bragging about how successful the Huygens mission has been, but not a word about successful imaging. When/where do we get to see IMAGES? Kim

1 0

Re: Best space/sci-fi movie ever
by Chuck Hards 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

Not many Bergman fans on this list, I can tell. 35 year old memory here, please don't crucify me if I miss a detail. My copy of the book is in a cardboard box buried in my basement. 2001 was an ART film as much as sci-fi; remember this. It's not a mindless "space soap opera" like Star Wars, you're supposed to walk away with more questions than answers, supposed to look inward. I'm assuming that it's the last portion that is misunderstood, but it is explained in the book. It's really just a repeat of the first portion of the film. Commander Bowman actually finds a huge monolith in orbit around Jupiter and "enters" it. The weird scenery depict alien worlds flashing by as he travels the stargate network. TMA-1 was just a device to alert the big monolith in Jovian space that humans had become advanced enough (and survived self-destruction) for the next step in the evolutionary process. Bowman becomes a tool of the alien intelligence and lives his life in a time-compressed fashion, or perhaps a non-linear fashion, from our point of view, within the confines of his own time-space continuum, to be re-born as the "star-child". The star child is the modern equivalent of the ancient monolith found by Moonwatcher and his tribe and serves as the seeds of that next evolutionary step. ("He wasn't sure what he would do next, but would think of something." Remember that's how the Moonwatcher portion ended as well as the end of the book, IIRC...) There's acutally a lot of religious iconography incorporated into the film and the abstractness is a way of presenting it somewhat covertly, Kubrick was probably trying to find some pan-theistic way of reaching as many people as possible without alienating specific faiths. Whether he succeeded or not is not important to the plot. The aliens are benevolent high intelleigences that, while not creating humanity, gave us the "spark" of creativity and set us upon the path to enlightenment. In this regard, they are not "God", but are part of God's plan for mankind, so there's no need for anyone to feel that their belief system is threatened. (It's just a MOVIE.) The whole HAL thing was kind of secondary, a lesson in hubris, designed to wake us up and take us down a peg, deservedly so. The sequels destroyed the simple elegance of the plotline, as it is made to be understood that the aliens themselves have either evolved beyond interest in their original intention or died-off completely, and the monoliths (sentinels) are just running old programs now, albiet about as sophisitcated as automated systems can get in this universe. The "digitized", "etherial", "spiritual" (whatever) version of Bowman realizes this and tries to keep it all together, keep humanity focused in the right direction. But none of the sequels are really of any import or up to the standards of the first film, the original stands alone and can be considered self-contained and complete. Does this help at all, Rich, or do you think I'm nuts? Rich wrote: > Guess I'm nuts, but I HATED 2001. Probably because > I > just didn't get it, back when it came out as a teen, > and years later as an adult when I thought I might > finally understand it, I hated it just as much the > 2nd > time as the first! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

6 9

Re: Best space/sci-fi ever
by Chuck Hards 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Brent wrote: > After > I finished he commented to me, "I don't know how > anyone can do things like that". Good story...I met Nimoy at the Union Building when he gave a speech there years ago, had him sign a hand-drawn picture of the Enterprise I had done while listening. On another occassion, I watched a non-ST film of his sitting next to George Takei (Mr. Sulu!), who gave me a running commentary during the film on the nuances of "Leonard's genius". (!) Funny thing, but every cast member of ST TOS I met were absolute ladies and gentlemen, not a trace of snobbery at all and only too willing to listen to what I had to say. Every one were warm, genuine people, to me at least. Perhaps that has something to do with my fond memories of the show. Not to diminish your Mastery of the Cube, but remember that folks like Nimoy are artists and use a different half of their brain than the technical types...for the same reason, we couldn't perform Macbeath worth a damn, despite what our moms might think... ;) It is said that some of Goethe's writings, in the original German, moved many readers to suicide because life became meaningless in light of the beauty of his prose. Not by religious commandment or edict, just by sheer beauty of thought did their real lives suddenly pale into insignificance. Let's see a modern scientist or engineer do that. Now here's the kicker: Goethe was also an accomplished civil engineer and designer...he had the benfit of being able to use both brain hemispheres to their fullest! Russell Porter, a name more of us might recognize, is another of those types. People like that make me feel like I'm just taking up space. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Edit that reply!
by Chuck Hards 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

SOMEBODY is still copying WAY too much on their replies, this was another digest that was mostly unneccesay repetition. It makes it too hard to pick out the new posts and your thoughts might get missed completely; please try and edit out the non-topical stuff if you want to be read...hope it wasn't me! ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

4 hours to Titan
by Patrick Wiggins 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

As I enter this at 10:10 pm the Huygens probe is just under 4 hours from hitting the top of Titan's atmosphere. Here's the schedule: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html Go, Huygens! Patrick

1 0

Comet pix anyone?
by Patrick Wiggins 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Anyone get any pictures of the comet last night (Wednesday)? I tried (as before using an ST-237 and C14 @ f/3.0) but even using exposures that were 4 times longer than when I tried earlier in the month the tail hardly showed at all. Patrick

2 1

Re: Best space/sci-fi ever
by Chuck Hards 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Gee, Brent, I don't think I can ever look at you quite the same way again! ;) I was a ST fan from day one, watched the original series when it was in prime-time. I still love those first episodes, (don't tell anyone) have a Kirk uniform in my closet (that no longer fits) and a poster or two along with a few autographs. Attended many ST conventions back in the old days as far away as LA (Equicon '76/Filmcon III was a blast, great place to meet girls, despite Shatner's "get a life" sketch on SNL years ago...not true! How many of you ever dated a girl with pointed ears and a phaser set to stun?) Shatner was good friends with our neighbors when I was growing up and went skiing here not infrequently, I was in Trekkie heaven! Alas, I have not liked ANY of the movies, nor any of the spin-off series even half as much as TOS. They are all vague, faint copies at best, with cut-rate writing and/or shallow characters. The movies were long on boring, stock-type special effects and tired camera techniques without the excellent writing that was the hallmark of TOS. "Bones, would you please hand me that can of ginger-ale?" "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a busboy!" Brent, have you watched 2001 in the context that it's an art film, and as such, not restricted by standard story-telling techniques? That alone can explain your angst with the editing process I believe. Give it another chance with a different attitude. Then again there is the chance it by design certain people won't like it no matter what. But give it another chance. My opinions only. Brent Watson wrote: > I'm with you, Rich. 2001 was not a good movie. I > DID > understand the movie, but for me it died in editing. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

weather alert
by daniel turner 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

The dark sky clock shows tonight to be about the best there has been for quite a while. Even the pessimistic weather forecasters call for scattered clouds until midnight and broken cloud cover after that. Moon sets at 9:33 and it's only a 15 percent crecent. So bundle up some one and drag them outdoors, they already think your're pretty wierd, so show them the comet. This could be the last call until the next moon. Clear Skies Daniel Turner __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

1 0

Re: Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 23, Issue 25
by Bob and Judy Bruce 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- From: <utah-astronomy-request(a)mailman.xmission.com> To: <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 23, Issue 25 > Send Utah-Astronomy mailing list submissions to > utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > utah-astronomy-request(a)mailman.xmission.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > utah-astronomy-owner(a)mailman.xmission.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Utah-Astronomy digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Re: sunshine! (Lambert, Aaron) > 2. RE: Re: sunshine! (Joe Bauman) > 3. Re: Best space/sci-fi ever (Chuck Hards) > 4. RE: Re: sunshine! (Lambert, Aaron) > 5. Re: Re: Renting vs. Buying (diveboss(a)xmission.com) > 6. Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Funny moments (astrodeb(a)charter.net) > 7. Re: Comet at zenith now (~8:25 pm) (astrodeb(a)charter.net) > 8. Re: Best digital SLR for astro imaging (astrodeb(a)charter.net) > 9. RE: Best digital SLR for astro imaging (Dale Hooper) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:03:07 -0700 > From: "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert(a)Williams.com> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: sunshine! > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: > <E2C43F6E9DB5B0498AC305FB1F9C9BCB0E1407(a)wmsslcem02.WILLIAMS.COM> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Thanks for the lengthy reply about the sun spotters! I look forward to > seeing your scopes at the swap meet so I can get a better idea of what > to do. > > Aaron > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:52:19 -0700 > From: Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: sunshine! > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <f05100307be0c495898a7(a)[192.168.95.134]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Aaron, I'm a horrible bug on this subject: but make certain that > there is no way you can damage your vision. It's extremely easy to > blind yourself with using a telescope to view the sun. You really > have to know what you're doing -- I'm sure Chuck can give you all the > pointers. Thanks, Joe > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800 (PST) > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Best space/sci-fi ever > To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: <20050113162519.32298.qmail(a)web10806.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Gee, Brent, I don't think I can ever look at you quite > the same way again! ;) > > I was a ST fan from day one, watched the original > series when it was in prime-time. I still love those > first episodes, (don't tell anyone) have a Kirk > uniform in my closet (that no longer fits) and a > poster or two along with a few autographs. Attended > many ST conventions back in the old days as far away > as LA (Equicon '76/Filmcon III was a blast, great > place to meet girls, despite Shatner's "get a life" > sketch on SNL years ago...not true! How many of you > ever dated a girl with pointed ears and a phaser set > to stun?) Shatner was good friends with our neighbors > when I was growing up and went skiing here not > infrequently, I was in Trekkie heaven! > > Alas, I have not liked ANY of the movies, nor any of > the spin-off series even half as much as TOS. They > are all vague, faint copies at best, with cut-rate > writing and/or shallow characters. The movies were > long on boring, stock-type special effects and tired > camera techniques without the excellent writing that > was the hallmark of TOS. > > "Bones, would you please hand me that can of > ginger-ale?" > "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a busboy!" > > Brent, have you watched 2001 in the context that it's > an art film, and as such, not restricted by standard > story-telling techniques? That alone can explain your > angst with the editing process I believe. Give it > another chance with a different attitude. Then again > there is the chance it by design certain people won't > like it no matter what. But give it another chance. > > My opinions only. > > Brent Watson wrote: > >> I'm with you, Rich. 2001 was not a good movie. I >> DID >> understand the movie, but for me it died in editing. > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:28:49 -0700 > From: "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert(a)Williams.com> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: sunshine! > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: > <E2C43F6E9DB5B0498AC305FB1F9C9BCB16E6EF(a)wmsslcem02.WILLIAMS.COM> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Thanks for the warning. I've read enough scary tales about solar viewing > to convince me to just stick with a projection system - especially with > my kids. Plus that way, as Chuck pointed out, many people can view it at > the same time. > > Aaron > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Bauman >> Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: sunshine! >> >> >> Aaron, I'm a horrible bug on this subject: but make certain that >> there is no way you can damage your vision. It's extremely easy to >> blind yourself with using a telescope to view the sun. You really >> have to know what you're doing -- I'm sure Chuck can give you all the >> pointers. Thanks, Joe > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:25:26 -0700 > From: diveboss(a)xmission.com > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Renting vs. Buying > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <1105640726.41e6bd161f167(a)webmail.xmission.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Or... When my oldest son was 16, he had undergone a bone graft to his > wrist > and had to wear an electro-magnetic device around the wrist to help > promote > bone growth. He resided with my first wife during this period and suffice > it to say, nobody at this point in his life, had explained to him the > dangers of placing a video tape near a magnetic source. > > One day his aunt took him and his cousins to Blockbuster to rent some > flicks > while he was wearing this device, and well... > > "This makes about 6 bad videos in a row doesn't it???". Said one of the > staff members at Blockbuster. "We've been having problems lately with a > few > tapes, seems that some are missing entire sections.". > > After he and I figured out the possible cause, he went back to Blockbuster > to make it right. The manager thanked him for coming in and let it go. > > Now at my house, rather than renting a video, we wait for it to show up at > the theater. ;) Waiting for this to happen allows me plenty of time to > pursue other interests... ;) > > Guy > > > > Quoting Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com>: > >> Sad to say, I've had the same trouble with renting from Blockbuster! -- >> Joe >> >> >Hi Scott, it's not the cost, it's that rentals usually >> >are too badly scratched to read if a DVD, or too dirty >> >and worn to track correctly if VHS. I have a young >> >daughter and we've tried library copies, but they seem >> >to be just as bad. Worse, if a juvenile title. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:30:44 -0700 > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Funny moments > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <3khj1l$g13auk(a)mxip09a.cluster1.charter.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Chuck, > > I had to go back to Blockbuster because the movie "Collateral" was way > scratched so I know what you mean. I hope the next copy works. But I can't > afford to buy a DVD everytime I want to watch a movie. But I do see your > point. I think I'll stay away from Blockbuster in the future and try > another store. > > No cable or phone yet but at least the sun is out. > > Debbie >> >> From: Scott Catron <zaui(a)yahoo.com> >> Date: 2005/01/12 Wed PM 01:37:47 MST >> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Funny moments >> >> --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > I never saw "Contact"; it came out during the >> > diaper-changing segment of my life IIRC, missed a lot >> > in those days. Worth buying? (I don't rent) >> >> Chuck, >> >> I don't know what your objections to renting are, but if it's cost (as it >> is >> with me), you could check it out of the library. >> >> I enjoyed it, FWIW. >> >> Scott >> >> ===== >> --- Scott Catron - zaui(a)yahoo.com --- >> You can do anything you set your mind to when you have Vision, >> Determination, and an Endless Supply of Expendable Labor. - Dr. E. L. >> Kersten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:37:53 -0700 > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Comet at zenith now (~8:25 pm) > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <3k786n$lbfr3e(a)mxip14a.cluster1.charter.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Our power was out for three hours Tuesday night so I took advantage of the > darker skies and viewed with comet with the 15 X 70 binos. It was a neck > bender. The Double-Cluster, M35, M37, M38, M45, and NGC 7789 were also > nice to view through the binoculars. The comet is still bright like a > un-resolved globular cluster. And it was naked eye in Green Valley! > > Debbie >> >> From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> >> Date: 2005/01/12 Wed PM 08:23:40 MST >> To: utah astronomy listserve <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Comet at zenith now (~8:25 pm) >> >> The comet is nearly at the zenith as I post this. >> >> Seems a little fainter and perhaps a little smaller but still naked eye >> and very easy to see in even small binos. >> >> Time to start taking pictures. >> >> 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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:48:53 -0700 > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Best digital SLR for astro imaging > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: <3k70mg$kn4eji(a)mxip15a.cluster1.charter.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Patrick, > > You can see the results of both cameras in the challenge section of the > digital-astro group. This is what I did before I bought my Rebel. I don't > have the link right now but as soon as I get back online I'll send you the > link. > > By the way, can anybody recommend a book on image processing? > > Debbie >> >> From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> >> Date: 2005/01/11 Tue PM 08:42:08 MST >> To: utah astronomy listserve <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Best digital SLR for astro imaging >> >> I've had a few conversations off list about using digital SLRs for astro >> imaging. >> >> So far I've heard from those who like the Canon 10D, Canon Rebel, Nikon >> 70 and Nikon 100. >> >> Anyone care to chime in with their opinions? >> >> 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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:57:41 -0700 > From: "Dale Hooper" <Dale.Hooper(a)sdl.usu.edu> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Best digital SLR for astro imaging > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Message-ID: > <F3B41B92D722CE4D9F5AB205DCD498B8D40E18(a)cobra.usurf.usu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Here are two: > > The New CCD Astronomy, by Ron Wodaski > > The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing (includes AIP4WIN > software), by Berry & Burnell - currently out of print - they will be > releasing a 2nd edition in about a month. > > ------------------------- > > > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Best digital SLR for astro imaging > > Patrick, > > You can see the results of both cameras in the challenge section of the > digital-astro group. This is what I did before I bought my Rebel. I > don't have the link right now but as soon as I get back online I'll send > you the link. > > By the way, can anybody recommend a book on image processing? > > Debbie > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > End of Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 23, Issue 25 > **********************************************

1 0

Re: Funny moments
by Chuck Hards 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Debbie wrote: > But I can't afford > to buy a DVD everytime I want to watch a movie. Debbie, neither do I. I buy a movie about every two to three months, maybe a couple at Christmas. I don't see many movies really, probably only saw three or four all of last year in the theater and only one was my choice. We did rent quite a bit until we got tired of the "reject rate" and the dirt accumulation on the video heads. Was hoping the switch to DVDs would eliminate any problems but the scratches just replaced the dirt and tracking problems. I still haven't seen a lot of recent sci-fi flicks, that crop of Mars movies a few years ago, still haven't seen them, and only saw "Independence Day" on TV last year (TURKEY). I still only watch broadcast TV, no cable, no dish, and until recently our biggest TV was a whopping 13". We now have a monster 19". I have trouble sitting still for more than a few minutes at a time, except when at the eyepiece. If the film industry depended on people like me, there would be no film industry! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

1 0