- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Comet pix anyone?
by astrodeb＠charter.net 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

Siefried, I have a picture of the comet but I can't send it to you because I can't get on the internet at home. I sent a copy to Rob so maybe he can send it to you. You are welcome to use it. I may get the cable restored next week. I had a good opportunity to view it Tuesday night as the power, cable, and phones went down in Green Valley. It was darker than usual there so I got a good view of it high in the sky. Debbie "You have the play the hand you are dealt" > > From: "Siegfried Jachmann" <ziggy943(a)xmission.com> > Date: 2005/01/13 Thu PM 09:31:44 MST > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Comet pix anyone? > > Speaking of comet pictures, I would like 3 or 4 people to share their comet > observations and pictures at the January SLAS meeting. Any voluteers or do > we need to institute a draft? > > Siegfried > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > To: "utah astronomy listserve" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:31 PM > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Comet pix anyone? > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

Re: Huygens
by Chuck Hards 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

Kim, they just interviewed a scientist from ESA live in Germany on Science Friday. He said they were looking at an image, taken during descent I believe, of gullies and great evidence of weather erosion! I'm dying to see an image! The scientist said they got HOURS of data, and HUNDREDS of images. The landing panorama is supposed to be released in the morning. Titan is now and forever a place, not just a dot in the sky...getting a little misty-eyed here, one of those not-often-enough occassions when I'm actually proud to be human being! Kim wrote: > 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? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Hygens
by David Dunn 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

I was listening to the broadcast earlier. They weren't expecting any images until about 4:00 ET (I think). The Hygens was on the ground and still transmitting the carrier even after Cassini was transmitting to us. They were even trying to arrange for other radio telescopes to pick up the signal so that they could learn from dopler shift, etc. They were speaking multiple languages so I didn't understand a lot of what they were saying. Dave

2 1

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