March 2007 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

M57 +73PSW-3
by daniel turner 27 Mar '13

27 Mar '13

Mark your calendar for early evening May 7. Their will be a close encounter between the Ring nebula and periodic comet 73P. The comet will be close to earth so its exact position in the sky will depend stongly on your location on the globe. Go to spaceweather.com and use the link at the bottom of the page for "Observable Comets". 73p is in the list and includes orbital elements and a link for daily ephemerides. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

8 8

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Science Fair
by Michael Carnes 07 Jul '07

07 Jul '07

Don, you're cherry-picking your data. >I think there is still a controversy over how much economic development >contributes to global warming. While there is much yet to learn, the so-called controversy is largely clouding of the waters by those with an economic interest. Within the last month there's been renewed information of the rate of melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, in addition to melting in other zones, such as Mt. Kilimanjaro. Thousands of ice cores taken over the last century show that the ice goes back tens of thousands of years. If it had been as warm during the Roman era as your sources indicate, that ice would have melted then or would never have formed. Arctic permafrost that has been stable since the last ice age (as shown by the number of mammoths preserved in it) is rapidly turning to mush. Of course you can find a few scientists who disagree with this assessment, just like you can find a few scientists who don't like evolution. You can find a few scientists who believe in ghosts, in Sasquatch, in fairies, in alien abduction, and in all sorts of things. It is extremely rare in science that someone who goes against the grain is shown to be correct (Galileo, Kepler, etc). Most of them are just cranks.

13 30

2006 VV2 = Zoom!
by Patrick Wiggins 31 Mar '07

31 Mar '07

For those who may have forgotten, 2006 VV2 is making it's close approach tonight (Friday). I've got it on video right now and that sucker is really cookin'. It's currently (9 p.m. MDT) moving at just shy of 62 arc seconds per minute (if my math is right that's about 1 degree per hour). At magnitude 10, VV2 and it's movement should be a pretty easy to spot in even modest scopes. It'll be highest in N. Utah skies around 11 pm. If it passes close to something bright enough to register on my system (~mag 12) I'll see about posting a video soon. pw

1 0

Cold fusion is back
by Patrick Wiggins 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

After an 18-year hiatus, the American Chemical Society seems to be warming to cold fusion. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070326/full/070326-12.html pw

3 2

Atmospheric displays, Vesta B-Day
by Patrick Wiggins 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

Rob's moonbow image led me to this UK page of atmospheric phenomena: http://www.atoptics.co.uk Happy birthday Vesta, discovered 200 years ago today: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4 pw

1 0

Yet another laser post
by cmh856＠aol.com 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

I found that with freshly-charged NiMH batteries, my Beta laser gave an additional 1500 lux on the meter, over the reading previously posted, which was taken with fresh alkaline batteries. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway?
by Wayne Sumner 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Spoken like the true Renaissance Man you are! Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> <cmh856(a)aol.com> 03/28/07 5:56 PM >>> Guy, judging from the smileys, I'm guessing that your remark is tongue-in-cheek. As a formally trained painter, I can comment on the piece further. The painting is somewhat stylized and impressionistic, obviously not an intended work of realism. Joe's question is thus a bit naive, from an artistic standpoint, but legitimate from a scientific viewpoint. We are a visually-oriented species- but we often take images as an exact representation of fact- which of course they are not, in almost every case. Most photograhers are true visual artists, not merely visual historians or image documentalists. I'm sure Rob can elaborate on this much better than I. I doubt we ever see an image anymore that hasn't been processed in some manner. There is an artistic mind behind it, it's not just a mindless, mechanical or chemical process. Most of the Public Relations paintings commissioned by NASA, the military, industry, are painted in such a style as to convey action & excitement, or to otherwise instill an emotion or feeling of say, high-tech, comfort, safety, etc. Few are works of realism. For those we must look to the paintings commissioned by retired jet pilots, for example, or the drawings of Russell W. Porter (still the unsurpassed standard, over 60 years later). I would stand by the painting as accurately depicting a mood, an emotion generated from the scene itself- and under certain circumstances, the hues and intensities just might be spot-on, as well. Is that "long-haired" and artsy-fartsy (to quote a former boss) enough? ;) In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:36:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, diveboss(a)xmission.com writes: Joe, I think it is simply an artists interpretation of what Mars might look like to someone who doesn't know any better. After all, if it were meant to depict a realistic image of man back on "his" planet, there would be beer cans scattered everywhere. ;) Which I might add, with the added reflection of the sunlight off the aluminum cans, might very well dilute the brilliant red of the planet to something more like what we see through our Earth based telescopes. :) Just a thought. Quoting cmh856(a)aol.com: > > Joe, a low sun angle means increased reddening from atmospheric extinction- > look at the shadows in the painting. An astronaut on Mars wouldn't see the > same shades and intensities at all times- just as you don't here on > earth. A > terrestrial example would be a very red sunset seen from an arctic location. > Blue & white everywhere, but it all turns deeply red at sundown (or sunup!). > Dust & other suspended particulates are the culprits. > > So, the answers to your questions are: No, and probably not, although I'm > sure there is a lot of color processing and contrast stretching of rover > images. > > In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:05:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, > bau(a)desnews.com writes: > > Hi all, check out this NASA rendering of humans on Mars. Then > remember the views Spirit and Opportunity have been sending back. My > question: is this NASA artist stuck in some 1950s fantasy about Mars > or are we getting paled-out views from the rovers? Thanks, Joe > > _http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374_ (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.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

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway?
by cmh856＠aol.com 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Guy, judging from the smileys, I'm guessing that your remark is tongue-in-cheek. As a formally trained painter, I can comment on the piece further. The painting is somewhat stylized and impressionistic, obviously not an intended work of realism. Joe's question is thus a bit naive, from an artistic standpoint, but legitimate from a scientific viewpoint. We are a visually-oriented species- but we often take images as an exact representation of fact- which of course they are not, in almost every case. Most photograhers are true visual artists, not merely visual historians or image documentalists. I'm sure Rob can elaborate on this much better than I. I doubt we ever see an image anymore that hasn't been processed in some manner. There is an artistic mind behind it, it's not just a mindless, mechanical or chemical process. Most of the Public Relations paintings commissioned by NASA, the military, industry, are painted in such a style as to convey action & excitement, or to otherwise instill an emotion or feeling of say, high-tech, comfort, safety, etc. Few are works of realism. For those we must look to the paintings commissioned by retired jet pilots, for example, or the drawings of Russell W. Porter (still the unsurpassed standard, over 60 years later). I would stand by the painting as accurately depicting a mood, an emotion generated from the scene itself- and under certain circumstances, the hues and intensities just might be spot-on, as well. Is that "long-haired" and artsy-fartsy (to quote a former boss) enough? ;) In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:36:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, diveboss(a)xmission.com writes: Joe, I think it is simply an artists interpretation of what Mars might look like to someone who doesn't know any better. After all, if it were meant to depict a realistic image of man back on "his" planet, there would be beer cans scattered everywhere. ;) Which I might add, with the added reflection of the sunlight off the aluminum cans, might very well dilute the brilliant red of the planet to something more like what we see through our Earth based telescopes. :) Just a thought. Quoting cmh856(a)aol.com: > > Joe, a low sun angle means increased reddening from atmospheric extinction- > look at the shadows in the painting. An astronaut on Mars wouldn't see the > same shades and intensities at all times- just as you don't here on > earth. A > terrestrial example would be a very red sunset seen from an arctic location. > Blue & white everywhere, but it all turns deeply red at sundown (or sunup!). > Dust & other suspended particulates are the culprits. > > So, the answers to your questions are: No, and probably not, although I'm > sure there is a lot of color processing and contrast stretching of rover > images. > > In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:05:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, > bau(a)desnews.com writes: > > Hi all, check out this NASA rendering of humans on Mars. Then > remember the views Spirit and Opportunity have been sending back. My > question: is this NASA artist stuck in some 1950s fantasy about Mars > or are we getting paled-out views from the rovers? Thanks, Joe > > _http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374_ (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

3 5

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Kudos, Rob
by cmh856＠aol.com 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Hear, hear! Well-done, and welcome to the club, mon frere'! In a message dated 3/28/2007 6:43:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, paw(a)wirelessbeehive.com writes: Kudos to Utah-Astronomy's Rob Ratkowski for his moonbow image being published in the current (May) issue of Sky & Telescope, page 29. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

3 3

Kudos, Rob
by Patrick Wiggins 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Kudos to Utah-Astronomy's Rob Ratkowski for his moonbow image being published in the current (May) issue of Sky & Telescope, page 29. pw

1 0