January 2009 - 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] Blackholes Leak?
by stormcrow60＠xmission.com 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Jim, The instance of Hawking Radiation you saw on Nova goes back to quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. For very brief periods of time, matter or energy can be created from "empty" space because no such thing as truly empty space exists. Hawking realized that if a particle/anti-particle pair came into existence near the event horizon of a black hole, one might fall into the hole before annihilating its anti-particle. The other particle could then escape the gravitational clutches of the black hole, appearing to an outside observer as radiation. Science truly is stranger than fiction. That particular Nova show was absolutely fantastic. But then, the Nova programs in general are great. There are some television programs that simply should not be missed. Jon Quoting utah-astronomy-request(a)mailman.xmission.com: > 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..." >

1 0

Planetary Nebula SuWt 2
by erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Hi All, An article about Planetary Nebula SuTw 2, perhaps a non white dwarf illuminated nebula. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/nebula/2008/21/full/ Erik

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 71, Issue 103
by Robert Taylor 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

This is much more typical of my experience. You have to sign an agreement that anything you design or any patent-able invention belongs lock, stock and barrel you your company. In return you're paid whether you design something or not. As is often the case scientists or designers start here, learn the ropes, get a reputation and then leave and go on to bigger and better projects often keeping the rights in whole or in part once they've proven their abilities. I know several people in the IT and Behavioral Sciences that did exactly this. It works and does not require public money. Robert Taylor ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:53:40 -0700 From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 71, Issue 101 To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <2541d8030901301553hbda43bfxeac2495d2b8e4a24(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Not at all. I had to sign a contract with my employer, that basically grants them intellectual ownership & all commercial rights to any processes, devices, or materials that I happen to come up with while employed by them. It's a common practice in private industry. When all accademic institutions get on the same page, it will become common practice there, as well. In the meantime, it's absence is a recruiting tool. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661(a)comcast.net>wrote: > > What you're proposing is > communism - how did that work out? > >

1 0

Black holes leak?
by Jim Gibson 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

After I read Joe’s blog I went over and read Sheena’s. In reading her article on ‘Light from the darkness’ I realized I have missed a step (or 10) along the way in my understanding of black holes. On TV when ever someone is discussing black holes they always emphasize that the gravity in the black hole is so intense that not even light can escape from it. So, how do we get these radio jets escaping from a black hole as depicted in the galaxy Centaurus A? Jim

5 8

C-22 / M-77 color kit
by Patrick Wiggins 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Some folks here have probably heard of Celestron's C-90s, C-5s, C-8s and C-14s. Some may have even heard of the old C-10. But what about the C-22? Turns out our very own Jerry Foote is currently refurbishing and upgrading one of the very few (fewer than 10 were ever made) C-22s. He sent me this picture of the scope before it was dismantled. To give you a sense of scale, the scope mounted on the top is a C-14 Schmidt camera and the "little" scope hanging down below is a C-8. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/c22.jpg Hmmm, if I paint my scope blue do you think he'd notice if I switched OTAs? :) On another matter as I enter this I'm shooting another "color" kit. This one for M-77. It should be available tonight or tomorrow. If you want a copy just let me know. It'll probably be about 45-50 MB for the FIT files. Much smaller for the reduced JPGs. patrick

2 1

Request for image between 1-31 6pm and 8pm MST
by Canopus56 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

If anyone could take a picture at the south polar lunar crater Faustini tonight at the greatest feasible magnification for their gear, I would greatly appreciate it as a personal favor. Tonight is one of four favorable windows for imaging Faustini prior to this summer's LCROSS impact. Faustini is one of the possible target regions. It will be on or near the terminator at the south pole. See maps at: NASA Press Release 11-28-2008 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/news/NASA_Developing_Plans_to_Capt… At 6pm, I am sitting in a cafe trying to finalize an article on the LCROSS impact to meet a publisher deadline. Otherwise, I would be out there myself. Again, if anyone has the time, please make an image. If not, thanks for reading the post. Clear Skies - Kurt

1 0

Vandenberg Delta 2 Launch Feb. 4 1:22-1:32am
by Canopus56 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

The NASA Launch Page and Webb's Vandenbergh launch newsletter is showing a Delta II polar launch on Feb. 4 1:22 - 1:32 a.m. MST. Since this is a polar satellite launch, I am not sure if there is any visibility during the boost phase for Utah. (It may departure southbound from Vandenberg.) I leave figuring out the details to others on the list. As usual, I'll probably drive up to 11th Ave with some binoculars at the appointed time, weather permitting, but am not expecting to see anything. - Kurt http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/launch/index.html Date: Feb. 4 Mission:NOAA-N Prime Launch Vehicle: United Launch Alliance Delta II Launch Site: Vandenberg Air Force Base - Launch Pad SLC-2 Launch Window: 2:22 - 2:32 a.m. PST/5:22 - 5:32 a.m. EST Description: NOAA-N Prime is the latest polar-orbiting satellite developed by NASA/Goddard Spaceflight Center for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA uses two satellites, a morning and afternoon satellite, to ensure every part of the Earth is observed at least twice every 12 hours. NOAA-N will collect information about Earth's atmosphere and environment to improve weather prediction and climate research across the globe. http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/launch-alert/2009-January/000496.html VANDENBERG AFB LAUNCH SCHEDULE As of 2009 January 14 Launch Time/Window Date (PST/PDT) Vehicle Pad/Silo -------- --------------- ---------- -------- FEB 4 02:22-02:32 Delta II SLC-2W Payload is the NOAA N Prime environmental satellite FEB 23 01:50:29-01:57:29 Taurus XL 576-E Payload is the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) scientific satellite. MAY 5 To be announced Delta II SLC-2W Payload is the Missile Defense Agency's STSS ATRR JUL To be announced Delta II 576-E Payload is the WorldView 2 commercial reconnaissance satellite. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright C 2009 Brian Webb. All rights reserved. This newsletter may be distributed in its entirety without restriction. Excerpts may not be reprinted or posted elsewhere without prior permission.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 71, Issue 101
by Robert Taylor 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

One of the corner stones of a free market is that people have the right to profit from their ideas and own the rights to them. This sytem has served us very well and is a reson why the U.S has lead the world in patents for a very long time. It's essential that we protect patent rights if we want to continue to see the march of progress. If you do reasearch for a company while on their payroll your ideas belong to the company not you, the com[pany own the patent and becomes part of their assets. Some companies these day do nothing more than manage patents and do licencing. I'm not sure how it works with government grants but I would think the public would own the patent if the public pays for the research, not the person who came up with the idea but who knows. If you move all studies, patents and research to the public domain you would see research and patents dry up very quickly, very bad idea. If you can't benefit from them why spend the time and money? What you're proposing is communism - how did that work out? Bob Taylor Message: 3 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:59:39 -0800 From: <zaurak(a)digis.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <20090130105939.1FEB03AC(a)resin15.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Rich, As I see it the problem is that the privately funded research becomes propitiatory so what is published and shared is up to the company funding the research. In the case of the Drug Industry they can choose not to release studies that show harmful affects of the drug the spent to develop, Avandia for example. They are simply to invested in the outcome of the study to be trusted to do good science. Results should not be censored, and result should be analyzed by independent people. In the case of energy sources they can withhold data that shows what a competing energy source is capable of providing. It seems contrary to good science, and paticularly in the case of medical research, all studies should be public domain. I think this clearly shows the fallacy that private funding provides and advances science better than public funding. Did the speaker advocate changes in the current funding environment? Erik --- retenney(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:54 -0800 (PST) So after attending last night's excellent F.O.S. lecture at the U on emerging solar photovoltaic technology, I came away a little troubled by something that I realized in the course of the lecture. I post this by way of trying to better understand things, so if I'm wrong in what I'm thinking here, please one or more of you correct me. It occurred to me that we are publicly funding (taxes, NSA grants, etc.) university-level research that in turn is being copyrighted and commercialized by the individuals receiving the grants for personal gain. I recognize that their hard work and creativity certainly deserves to be rewarded, but shouldn't scientific breakthroughs funded by taxes become public domain, available to any and all enterprising talent to bring said technologies to market (at a far more rapid pace than could said individual, who certainly wouldn't be excluded, and in fact have a head-start due to his/her intimate understanding of the emerging technology)? Aren't we the venture capitalists in that sense, entitled to share in the profit? Or is the profit that cool new things come to market? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject... /R

3 2

OT: Science and public funding
by Jerry Foote 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

Many years ago when I worked for the University of Utah doing research funded by NIH the policy was that the University owned the patent rights and could license it out. The inventor did receive a percentage of the license fee with the remaining money from the license going to the University. This resulted in two significant things: 1. Further research on the invention ultimately brought funding from commercial sources back to the University as they were the most knowledgeable on the invention. 2. The license fees provided seed money for further research and/or new research which could ultimately be licensed. While there I received $5000 from this license pool to investigate some technology that ultimately was a basis for additional patents, licensing and in fact created a significant company in Utah with many employees, all paying taxes. The main reason that the technology remained with the University was they had a vested interest in pursuing licensing while the federal government could not support license inquiries or technology inquiries. The one exception to this approach that I am aware of is the NASA Technology Transfer Office which licenses technology developed by the NASA research labs. Jerry Foote ScopeCraft, Inc. 4175 E. Red Cliffs Dr. Kanab, UT 84741 435-899-1255 jfoote(a)scopecraft.com

2 1