--- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
One of the attractions of the hobby is it's technical side. Gaining competence in talking about sky conditions is one of those basic astronomy skills, like knowing the relationship between focal length, aperature and magnification, that once mastered, becomes fluid and second-nature. Like anything, if overdone it becomes compulsive and takes away from the simple enjoyment of the hobby.
When I was young, and until a few years ago I was very interested in- and immersed in- the technical aspects of astronomy, atming, and other subjects. But as I've eased through middle age I find those same aspects unappealing now- and not just the astro stuff, but all my other interests. It seems less related to the experience of life and humanity than it used to be, almost a distraction from the experience itself. One could argue that an accurate model and a fundamental understanding of the mechanics of nature can only enhance one's experience- if not taken to extremes. An extreme example would be, say, that knowing the genetic coding sequence for a baby in no way gives any hint of, or enhances at all, the experience of holding your own child in your arms and knowing intuitively what a baby is. The key is exactly what you said- don't overdo it- and someone worrying about not critically evaluating the sky every time they go out, falls into that category from my perspective.
With gas prices making a trip to the dark sky site a $20-$30 proposition and light pollution ever creeping outward, it's nice to have a sense of where the dark holes are at particular sites and if what you want to look at is in one. If it's not in one, so be it, there's always something to look at at any magnitude and level of sky brightness. Like you say, you gotta keep it in perspective.
Exactly. I just don't think it's necessarily productive (for me, anyway) to consult a half dozen charts and a couple of Websites to make use of intuition and one's own observations- especially for the subjective individual views through the eyepiece. And also notwithstanding the potential for differences between the telescopes themselves, collimation or it's lack, and for some of us, aging eyeballs that make critical sky evaluation kind of a moot point anyway. The final factor is that I, at least, don't have a life where I can jump in the car at a whim and head out. I have to schedule my outings sometimes months in advance and the skies are what I get when I get there. It is possible to overanalyze sky conditions. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs