January 2008 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] HELP!!!
by Chuck Hards 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

You dodged a bullet! It's actually rare to find cemented achromats in larger sizes, because differential expansion of the two glass types will generate stress and deform the glass- sometimes enough to pop them apart and damage them. Over about 70mm, most of the quality objectives are air-spaced. One other thing to note is that there should be registration marks on the edge of both elements, so you can re-align them in the correct radial orientation. It's sometimes just a pencil mark, so hopefully you didn't remove it with your cleaning. Not all makers use indelible ink for such registration marks. Often it's just a pencil line drawn simultaneously through the edge of both elements. Also not all makers even bother. Only the higher-quality achromats will have them. On Jan 4, 2008 1:27 PM, Rob Ratkowski Photography <ratkwski(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > Follow up > > the Burgess 127 doublet is air spaced. I was about to use > mineral spirits to separate the elements when I noticed a space and > then remembered the 3 clear tabs. It popped apart easily and w/ some > fine surgical gauze and mineral spirits, clean up began.

3 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] HELP!!!
by Chuck Hards 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

Rob, Surplus Shed sells Canadian Balsam and cementing lenses isn't too difficult. However, de-cementing a lens can be tricky, especially if a modern lens cement has been used. And the larger the lens, the greater the factor of difficulty. Your best bet may be contacting the distributor. On Jan 4, 2008 10:54 AM, Rob Ratkowski Photography <ratkwski(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > Aloha > > > Optimizing my Burgess refractor for solar viewing, I painted the edge > of the lens. Wellllllllllllll, the solvent has migrated into the lens > where it was cemented together to about 1" leaving black spots. Does > anyone know who does lens recementing?? I haven't used the scope yet > and I would expect some flaring and such from the black paint, but > it's UGLY. > >

3 3

Channel 5 at 5
by Patrick Wiggins 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

Our very own Ann House is scheduled to appear on the KSL channel 5 news this afternoon during the 5:00 hour. :)

6 9

Anyone being bounced? (& a bit of JB history)
by Patrick Wiggins 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

Ann tells me her posts to the UA list have been bouncing today. Has anyone else been having similar problems? If so please let me know (off list is fine). As for "JB history" (sorry Guy, I don't mean Jim Beam <grin>) but I thought folks here might like to see a historical piece that ran in today's D. News about our very own Joe Bauman. I never knew he started out at the Chrony and I got quite a chuckle reading about his interview with VP Hubert Humphrey. http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695240896%2C00.html patrick

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
by Gary Vardon 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

Joe and others, Some comments on a manned Mars mission 1. I believe that the first few manned missions will end in failure. We will have to do many manned missions until we solve all the problems involved if we do at all. This will up the cost tremendously. 2. After one successful mission the cost of the next mission probably will still be too great to repeat so that we would not be able settle Mars with a permanent base. 3. Going to Mars with a manned mission does not entail solving one or a few engineering challenges but rather a vast slew of them so analogies to other challenges may not be relevant. On a brighter note check out this website www.windows.ucar.edu It has a neat space information including about Mars. Sincerely, Gary Vardon see my website www.wealthbuilder.wwdb.biz use gary1234 as the id -----Original Message----- From: Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 2:28 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Good point, and you are right about Mars having a varied terrain. But A geology alone doesn't add up to interesting or justify the cost, as far as I'm concerned. You could argue tat the moon has fascinating geology, with mountains, rilles, basins and volcanoes. And Antarctica is even more interesting. But let's face it, Mars probably never had substantial life. If it was as expensive to visit Antarctica, and we already knew what it's like because of robotic exploration, would there be a good cost-benefit reason for going? On the other hand, we may be able to find signs of life on exoplanets within a few years, by analyzing the atmosphere. I'm just saying we may be better off thinking about astronomical research rather than going to Mars, because the payoff for the former could be much better and less expensive. -- Joe On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Chuck Hards wrote: > Joe, I'm stumped. Are you talking about the same Mars as the rest > of us? > > I find Mars fascinating- hardly the world you describe. Robots > have shown > Mars to be a dynamic, diverse world, with an ancient natural > history just > crying for human explorers to go and discover. And I think you've > read far > too much into the exo-planet stories. All seem pretty bleak from > the mostly > surmised conditions posited on some of them. Mars isn't earthlike > in many > respects, but it's a heck of a lot closer than any exoplanets in > the current > inventory, and infinitely more accessable. It will be centuries, > literally, > to thousands of years, before humans ever actually think of those > planets as > "places"- if we ever do. They will remain mere data until long > after our > culture has crumbled to dust. > > I think it likely that Mars will be terraformed long, long before any > exo-planets are ever even imaged with resolution greater than a > spectrographic smear. > > Mars and other solar-system bodies are right here, practically in > our own > back-yard. We would be derelict in our duty to our species if we > didn't go > there and explore them in person. It is our nature. Well, most of > our > natures. > > I also don't place much credence in the stance that robot explorers > are > better than humans. The reasons are numerous and go beyond just > the risk > argument- which is utter nonsense when you take into account that > we send > our best young people off to be killed in foreign lands by the > thousands, > right here on earth. I guarantee you that even with odds weighted > against > them, you'd have thousands of scientists and engineers lining-up to > volunteer to crew a Mars mission. That is part of being an > American. We > love challenges. But the mere presence of a human crew is what ups > the odds > of success. We can repair, jury-rig, replace, engineer solutions > right on > the spot. A profound, total failure can occur, of course, but that > can and > does happes even with the robotic probes. Mars does not have a > good success > record with robot probes. I believe the historical failure rate is > over 1/3 > of all missions launched. I think manned missions stand a much better > chance because of our ability to improvise and change plans. > > I could go on, but lunch is over and I have to get back to work. > > Viva Marte! > > On Jan 2, 2008 12:43 PM, Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> wrote: > >> Yes indeed, Happy New Year to all our friends! >> >> My predictions about a crewed Mars expedition are: >> >> 1, it will happen pretty soon because we have discovered a cheap new >> transportation system; >> >> OR >> >> 2, it will never happen because robots are proving Mars isn't that >> interesting. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: 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://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

4 4

Hotel Mauna Kea
by Patrick Wiggins 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

Appearing now on You Tube: "Hotel Mauna Kea" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdTlHK1h_0 Not bad for a bunch of oxygen and sleep deprived astro-nerds (actually I think it's very well done). patrick

2 1

SLAS In-reach - Back to basics
by Kurt Fisher 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

Here is a program that I received today for the BAA's Back-to-Basics workshop. It may provide a resource model/idea for SLAS's proposed "In-reach" initiative. - Kurt ------------------------- From: BAA electronic bulletin No. 00322 http://www.britastro.org/ The programme for the day is as follows:- 09.45 - 10.15 Registration 10.15 - 10.20 Official Welcome BAA President 10.20 - 10.30 So What Astronomy Can I do? - Hazel Collett 10.30 - 11.15 Getting Started - What equipment, books etc do I need - Stewart Moore 11.15 - 11.45 Solar Observing - Peter Meadows 11.45 - 12.15 Lunar Observing - Martin Morgan-Taylor 12.15 - 13.00 Observing Saturn & Jupiter - Mike Foulkes 13.00 - 14.00 Lunch 14.00 - 14.30 Observing Variable Stars - Roger Pickard 14.30 - 15.00 Solar and Lunar workshop 15.00 - 15.30 Tea 15.30 - 16.15 Saturn & Jupiter and Variable Stars workshops 16.15 - 16.45 Feedback and Questions 16.45 - 17.00 Close _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
by Gary Vardon 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

An excellent tv called Mars Rising addressed the problems of a manned mission to Mars. Boy, the problems are sever. For example, The temperature on Mars can get to 60 below zero during the day and minus 100 degree Fahrenheit at night. Another problem is fine dust that can jam technology. How about fixing equipment that is highly complex without experts and sophisticated repair technology and spare parts? How about blasting off from Mars with a rocket that has not been used for years and that has been exposed to the Martian elements and with no support personnel? These are just a few of the many problems on a manned mission.. I think that robotic probes are a better use of funds and much more likely to succeed. Sincerely, Gary Vardon see my website www.wealthbuilder.wwdb.biz use gary1234 as the id -----Original Message----- From: Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 11:45 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) I don't know about the "never" part, but to me, a 20-year timeline is a bit too optimistic. I understand that the social and technological hurdles are huge. I'm wondering if the situation today is comparable to say, 1945, and looking ahead to landing on the Moon. I'm reminded of a story from 1969. I may have messed up the details, but here's the gist of it: During WW2 (the year 1945 rings a bell), some GI made a bet with a British barkeep that the US would land a man on the Moon by 1970. The barkeep offered odds of 10,000 to 1, and the GI bet him $1.00 that it would be done. The bet was dutifully recorded to make it legal. In July of 1969 the WW2 vet flew to Great Britain to pick up his winnings. Anyone else remember this story? Did I get the details about right? Does anyone want to give odds of finding life on Mars? I'm convinced that it will happen. As Jeff Goldblum's character said in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way." I want to be here when it happens so that I can hear what the creationists/intelligent lifers have to say about it. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:35 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Happy New Year to you, too. Thirty years before a crewed mission to Mars? That's as good as saying "Never." Too much changes in so long a period of time. The stuff I'm reading says twenty years may be more realistic, yet there's still a real threat of the public losing interest because of the long lead time. Assuming that the federal budget permits our nation the luxury of such a thing, then the way I'm predicting this will shake out goes along these lines: 2018 to about 2025 we spend on the Moon figuring out how to spend extended periods of time on the surface of another world. It turns out that while our technology in 1970 was adequate to spend a couple of days on the Moon, attempting to spend and entire week there would have been disastrous. Meanwhile, we're sending more advanced robotic missions to explore Mars and have a go at a couple of sample return missions. If the sample return missions indicate no potential for nasty biological interactions, either Earth-to-Mars or Mars-to-Earth, and we've figured out how to keep astronauts sane and productive on 30-month missions, and we're confident that we can not only place objects reliably into Martian orbits but also get large objects in Martian orbits safely back to Earth, then the thinking is that a crewed mission to Mars could leave Earth around 2025 - 2030. Of course, we haven't got so much as a clue about what the national mood will be ten years from now, let alone in 25 years, nor can we accurately predict where funding for this adventure stacks-up against other national funding priorities. And yes, Patrick should sign up. Seth Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007 11:09 AM _______________________________________________ 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://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

6 7

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
by Kurt Fisher 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

Kim wrote: > Anyway, the program suggested that a Mars mission might be > 30 years out. I'm landing there this year on May 25 - if only in name and spirit. http://gallery.utahastronomy.com/v/kurt/miscastro/PhoneixCertKaf.pdf.html HNY - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net

2 1

Kim's New Year Wish
by Chuck Hards 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

What is it with you and hornet's nests, Kim? *;o)*

2 1