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

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Introduction and advice on a new scope
by Isamuthx 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

Hello Dan, As an XT10 owner, in my opinion, I think the XT8 would make a great choice. It's reasonably priced, provides good views of the planets and deep sky objects, and should fit into most cars. My XT10 optical tube fits in the trunk of my 1998 Toyota Camry and the base fits in the backseat. As far as eyepieces go, it looks like Orion only includes a single 25mm (48x) eyepiece with the scope (they used to also include a 10mm), so you'll probably want to look at getting a higher power eyepiece as well. Another option would be to get a 2x or 3x barlow lens to increase the magnification of the included 25mm eyepiece. Hope my 2 cents worth helps! Jeff > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:46:28 -0700 > From: "Dan Hanks" <danhanks(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Introduction and advice on a new > scope > To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > Message-ID: > <abb33cbd0811111146l79d9c3ecsc172af3ce5e1f799(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi folks, > > By way of introduction, I just joined the list. I've > been a subscriber > before but life just got too busy and I had to drop off for > a while. > Life has calmed down somewhat, so I'm back. > > I've been into astronomy for as long as I can remember, > probably > started with backyard sleepouts in my hometown of Parowan, > UT, and > looking up at the stars on warm summer nights. > > Though I've enjoyed astronomy for many years, I've > never had a real > good-quality scope. I currently have a lower-quality > Bushnell 4" > reflector with an EQ mount, and am looking to upgrade to a > much better > instrument. I imagine some better eyepieces might make a > world of > difference. Altogether, though, my current scope provides > more > headaches than celestial enjoyment, so I'm looking to > move to > something of better quality, easier to use, and more likely > to get me > out more often. I have my eye on the Skyquest XT12, but > that would > probably stretch our budget a bit. As an intermediate step > I've > considered going with the XT8, as a smaller investment to > see if I'll > actually get out and use the thing. If that turned out ok, > I could > probably graduate to the XT12 (or perhaps the XX12 if > prices came down > on that after some time). > > Any recommendations? > > Thanks, > > Dan

1 0

government and science funding
by Robert Taylor 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

>From the Perspective of the "Loony Right" science has gone on for centuries without government intervention or aid. It is not necessary to have government funding to have good science. The are reasons other than direct commercial benefit to have a strong science program. Universities compete for students based on the strength of their programs, which is a direct benefit for example. But commercial enterprises do a great deal of the research for their own benefit as well, this goes on today. Much of the Federal funding goes to universities to develop their programs and in general I do not oppose it. However I am concerned that when government gets involved in anything it takes a political slant and science chases the dollar instead of chasing the best science. An example of this is studies on Global warming, once it gets into the political spot light there is a lot of money that becomes available for it, regardless of whether we need a another study on the effects of CO2 or not. Science is driven by the money, not the science. Our university system has been compromised to a fairly large degree by the dependence on Federal money. In fact in my experience having been involved in several university science projects I would say that the majority of work being done at our universities has more to do with getting money than good science. You can argue that the end justifies the means and that any science ultimately is beneficial and there may be something to that but we don't seem to be getting a good bang from our buck with the current university system. However I'm not sure I have a better alternative. I do have to say that very large projects like space exploration, colliders and very large telescopes probably need some government involvement because otherwise they are too big for one company or university but maybe not. Universities have built and funded large scopes without government money by conducting joint projects and in conjunction with the private sector, it can be done and has been done. There is also very robust private science sector in medicine, aviation science, robotics, artificial intelligence and computer science to name only a very few. So government involvement and science do not have to go hand in hand and often should not. Science can and is doing just fine without the waste and corrupting effects of the government in a great number of areas. We should not to look the government first for the support of science. It is not needed and often not desired. The "Looney Right" will sign off now. Bob Message: 4 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:36:56 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: government and science funding To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <394089.41679.qm(a)web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It seems pretty clear to me that without government support (National Science Foundation (NSF) grants are funded to a large extent by taxes, are they not?), our hobby would be without ANY of the large observatories, since the Market (aside from amateurs wanting to look and take pretty pictures) doesn't have any commercial incentive to fund astronomical or cosmological research. Am I wrong? Likewise, would colleges even offer degrees in Astronomy if government funding of science education were to go away?

1 0

Introduction and advice on a new scope
by Robert Taylor 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

Dan: I would second Don Colton's comments. I had an XT8 for several years and it is a great if not perfect scope to get started on. It's light enough move easily, big enough for real deep space viewing and has a long enough focal length to be great on planets and the price is right. The XT12 is a lot bigger and more difficult to move and use although the aperture is nice. But I'll bet you'll use it a lot less than the XT8. The XT8 is a very good combinations of what you want in a scope without a major financial commitment or gym membership to lug it around. Either with or without the COL (Computer Object Locator) a great scope to get started or get back into astronomy. ++++++ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:46:28 -0700 From: "Dan Hanks" <danhanks(a)gmail.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Introduction and advice on a new scope To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <abb33cbd0811111146l79d9c3ecsc172af3ce5e1f799(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi folks, By way of introduction, I just joined the list. I've been a subscriber before but life just got too busy and I had to drop off for a while. Life has calmed down somewhat, so I'm back. I've been into astronomy for as long as I can remember, probably started with backyard sleepouts in my hometown of Parowan, UT, and looking up at the stars on warm summer nights. Though I've enjoyed astronomy for many years, I've never had a real good-quality scope. I currently have a lower-quality Bushnell 4" reflector with an EQ mount, and am looking to upgrade to a much better instrument. I imagine some better eyepieces might make a world of difference. Altogether, though, my current scope provides more headaches than celestial enjoyment, so I'm looking to move to something of better quality, easier to use, and more likely to get me out more often. I have my eye on the Skyquest XT12, but that would probably stretch our budget a bit. As an intermediate step I've considered going with the XT8, as a smaller investment to see if I'll actually get out and use the thing. If that turned out ok, I could probably graduate to the XT12 (or perhaps the XX12 if prices came down on that after some time). Any recommendations? Thanks, Dan

1 0

OT: Government and science funding
by Richard Tenney 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

It seems pretty clear to me that without government support (National Science Foundation (NSF) grants are funded to a large extent by taxes, are they not?), our hobby would be without ANY of the large observatories, since the Market (aside from amateurs wanting to look and take pretty pictures) doesn't have any commercial incentive to fund astronomical or cosmological research. Am I wrong? Likewise, would colleges even offer degrees in Astronomy if government funding of science education were to go away?

1 0

OT: Politics
by Richard Tenney 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

This is a resend, since I posted this yesterday and nothing, so forgive me if you get this twice... Ah, nothing like politics (which is just another form of religion) to make enemies of friends! Let's all take a deep breath and relax. I think it's OK to debate the merits or demerits of the role of government and/or political figures regarding science and science funding, but probably a good idea to omit the name calling and labels (e.g., right-wingnuts, leftist-loonies, etc.). I've been guilty of waxing political, and there's surely a lot of emotion and strong feelings on both sides. For those that want to keep the discussion (and it should be a CIVIL discussion, sticking to facts and on-topic with SCIENCE) going, keep the "OT:" in the subject line so those that want to bow out can just delete them if they are only interested in utah-astronomy related posts. Carry on...

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 69, Issue 7
by John R. Peterson 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

A good summary of the Bush Administrations attitudes towards science can be found this Newsweek article by Sharon Begley: http://www.newsweek.com/id/167618 John R. Peterson >Dale Hooper Wrote: > >So, you don't suppose that a grenade such as, "As everyone knows, >Bush's administration has been an absolute failure in this regard". >Could possibly be taken *the wrong way* by anyone? > >Over the next four years scientific advancements will ALSO be credited >to individuals, universities and private industry. I don't see Obama >heading to the lab any time soon. The best thing government can do is >get out of the way. > >Clear skies. > >

1 0

Test
by Kim 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

This is a test only. Please do not reply. Kim No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.1/1781 - Release Date: 11/11/2008 8:59 AM

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Bush Admin
by zaurak＠digis.net 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

The looney right brought it up. --- diveboss(a)xmission.com wrote: From: diveboss(a)xmission.com To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Bush Admin Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:00:18 -0700 The looney left has spoken. ;) Next! > Hi Diveboss... > You mention the federal government is supposed to defend and > protect it's citizens. You go on to say that the federal government is > not responsible to rebuild low lying coastal cities. So... helping > citizens of the United States of America who's lives have been > destroyed by a natural calamity is not the responsibilty of the > federal government? Your thinking is the typical right wing thinking > and it is extremely hypocritical. For, if it were your home that was > destroyed, you would be screaming for some kind of federal help. > You mention the "framers"... I suppose you mean the true American > patriots who designed and wrote the Constitution. I believe these same > "framers" would roll over in their graves if they knew what the Bush > admin has done to our most precious docmument. Please do not bring up > the Constitution to validate your point, while at the same time you > conveniently forget the crimes against the Constitution that your > favorite president has committed. In the real world, you cannot pick > and choose which parts of the Constitution you are willing to protect. > And neither can the war veterans pick and choose which freedoms they > will fight to preserve. > And the EPA is not essential? Why they only protect us from > industrial poisons, and oversee significant bills such as the clean > air and clean water acts. And let us not forget... and all right > wingers seem to not want to mention this... but the greatest attack on > American soil occurred during a republican presidential watch. And > don't tell me it was Clinton's fault. When Clinton launched missles at > Al Queida bases in Afghanistan in the 90's, the republicans claimed > Clinton was attempting to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky > scandal. So, in reality, if the republicans were not hounding Clinton > for spurious reasons while in office, maybe Clinton could have done > more about Al Queida. As it were, he was fighting for his political > life and he turned over a lot of intelligence to the Bushies and > recommended they make going after Al Queida a priority. But Bush sat > on the intelligence and allowed 911 to happen. Those are the facts. > And please do not tell me that private enterprise will lead the > way in saving our civilization. Where are they? In your closet? Under > your bed? Sure... they have brought us all kinds of "cool" electronic > gadgets and conveniences in our lives. But where are they when it > comes to global warming, energy efficiency, energy independence and > actually providing well paying jobs for our citizens? Again... if we > solve the major problems staring us in the face, it will be government > intitiatives and mandates that will accomplish this. Private interests > are only concerned with their stock holders and profits, not the well > being of our citizens. > Now, I won't take up anymore of this blog space by debating > political issues. I just had to say something, because we live in > Utah. And Utahn's cannot grasp the fact the republicans got their > asses kicked in the last election. The American people are tired of > Reaganomics and abuses of our Constitution. For thirty years we have > seen unfettered excess by our corporate overlords. The American people > have spoken! No more right wing policies! Thanks again for your time. > > Jon > p.s. > No, this is not Rocky, but I will say hello to him if I see him. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Introduction and advice on a new scope
by Jay Eads 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

I'm new here but one of my scopes is an XT 8 and I really do like it and I have enjoyed it. I have a Telrad on it and that helps, and it has a right angle 9x50 scope and I would prefer the straight on scope but with the TelRad it doesn't matter. The two eyepieces it comes with are ok. They serve for observing (actually I think it only comes with the 25 mm Plossl now). I would recommend a 2x barlow so you double your eyepieces. In light polluted or unsteady skies though the Barlow will not provide a crisp image with a 10mm lens. The XT 8 is easy to move, in one piece or by separating the tube from the base, and thus easy to transport. It is manual so you'll learn the sky in order to find objects and for me, I enjoy doing that. Your right, you can always grow, but the XT 8 will keep you busy for some time. On 2008-11-11 19:46, Dan Hanks wrote: > Hi folks, > > By way of introduction, I just joined the list. I've been a subscriber > before but life just got too busy and I had to drop off for a while. > Life has calmed down somewhat, so I'm back. > > I've been into astronomy for as long as I can remember, probably > started with backyard sleepouts in my hometown of Parowan, UT, and > looking up at the stars on warm summer nights. > > Though I've enjoyed astronomy for many years, I've never had a real > good-quality scope. I currently have a lower-quality Bushnell 4" > reflector with an EQ mount, and am looking to upgrade to a much better > instrument. I imagine some better eyepieces might make a world of > difference. Altogether, though, my current scope provides more > headaches than celestial enjoyment, so I'm looking to move to > something of better quality, easier to use, and more likely to get me > out more often. I have my eye on the Skyquest XT12, but that would > probably stretch our budget a bit. As an intermediate step I've > considered going with the XT8, as a smaller investment to see if I'll > actually get out and use the thing. If that turned out ok, I could > probably graduate to the XT12 (or perhaps the XX12 if prices came down > on that after some time). > > Any recommendations? > > Thanks, > > Dan > > >

1 0

Bush Administration
by Robert Taylor 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Jon: Certainly government has a place where only it can do certain things, such as a space program. To suggest the Bush administration is deliberately trying to sabotage (gut) federal agencies is irresponsible and unfounded. This is left wing blogosphere paranoia, please leave it there. This a bit inappropriate for this board and over the top. I would love to read your views on science and astronomy but leave the politics off this board please. Robert Taylor Dale, Without the "government" you would not have NASA. Without the "government" you would not have NOAA. Without the "government", you would not have the EPA or any other federal entity that worked fairly efficiently and prudently before the Bush administation hired their "anti-science" hacks to head said government entities. The plan of the Bush administration all along was to gut these federal entities to show the American people how ineffectual the federal government is. Look at FEMA and Hurricane Katrina for a perfect example of this type of right wing ideology. The worn out right wing argument of telling the "government to get out of the way" is not only wrong, but foolish. Another perfect example is the almost $1,000,000,000,000.000 of U.S. tax payers money that has been transferred from public hands into private hands. Now the same greedy, right wing, venture capitalists who have run our economy into the ground based upon their diatribe of deregulating the markets, and telling the "government to get out of the way" are now running to the seek the shelter of that same "government" to bail them out of the economic mess they have created. Its funny, that right wingers called Obama a socialist when he introduced his tax plan. But those same right wing ideologues did not complain when they went "hat in hand" to beg for a government bail out. This is occuring again and again. Look at GM and Chrysler and Ford. These companies are just a small example of the massive bailout hoax that is being perpetrated upon the American people. The free enterprsiers are a joke. They want to live their ideology so bad, yet they will unabashedly make like the corporate welfare queens they truly are and run to the federal government for help. Socialists indeed! True free enterprise is dead and has been dead for decades. And as far as the planetary probes that another person had mentioned, these probes would not have been funded if left to the vestiges of the Bush administration. Thanks for your time. Jon

2 1