Astronomy

[trolls' bane]

I looked at the Meade ETX series, and liked them. The ETX 70, which I have, is pretty good, but it's a refractor so everything is backwards. It is also troublesome since you can't take it apart: My best eyepiece fell apart--It was in pieces when I opened the little case when I was packing up my stuff on the last day on the houseboat, very suspicious-- and when I thought I had fixed it, it fell apart while inside the telescope. Part of it got wedged under the mirror flipping mechanism. Still there. It's almost a freak accident how it got stuck.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by ringbearer

You have to download and install a plugin to view it in 3D...but it's WAY COOL!

link

This was posted by ringbearer in a closed thread but the site did look interesting enough for me to repost it here. I sadly couldn't get the plug-in to work though...

[Nurvingiel]

Hey TB if you're still looking for a good astronomy book, what if you got the textbook for Astronomy 101 from one of the L.A Universities? (There's the University of California and the California State University, and I'm assuming they're two different places.)

Then you'd have a textbook that would deal completely with astronomy, and I bet it would be at your level. You've studied a lot independantly and that's at least as much at first year students would have studied. The only problem is you'd be missing some grade 12 math and physics that a university astrology text would assume you have. I hope you can find one that makes sense. (I can't vouch for all university textbooks - some of the ones I've had... )

Anyway, it's just a thought if you're not happy with the Italian translation book.

I hope you can get your telescope fixed.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey TB if you're still looking for a good astronomy book, what if you got the textbook for Astronomy 101 from one of the L.A Universities? (There's the University of California and the California State University, and I'm assuming they're two different places.)

Then you'd have a textbook that would deal completely with astronomy, and I bet it would be at your level. You've studied a lot independantly and that's at least as much at first year students would have studied. The only problem is you'd be missing some grade 12 math and physics that a university astrology text would assume you have. I hope you can find one that makes sense. (I can't vouch for all university textbooks - some of the ones I've had... )

Anyway, it's just a thought if you're not happy with the Italian translation book.

I hope you can get your telescope fixed.

I'll look into that. I haven't really had time for astronomy lately, and even when I do people start panicing if I want to stay up till or get up at 2 AM to see something that won't be seen again for 10,000 years, but at the same time, I guess I can't blame them, because usually by that hour my enthusiasum has worn off along with my patience.
But Mars is as Red as ever. Just finished part...what...six in Blue Mars. Grandma Sue got me a Nonfic book on Mars as well, as she still doesn't like it that I'm reading fiction so much and that I can't really learn much more than vocabulary words from fiction, not to mention beleiving that anything labled fiction can have any so-called hard science withing it's covers.
I also got my planetarium program running.

[trolls' bane]

Check out these great articles!

Two New Moons--and Maybe Some Rings--for Pluto
"10th Planet" proves bigger than Pluto
New Kind of Star Found
Speeding Neutron Star is Fastest on Record

[Earniel]

I just read about the new two moons. And thanks go again to Hubble! *hugs favorite space telescope*

New Horizons will have more than enough to look at when it gets there...

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I just read about the new two moons. And thanks go again to Hubble! *hugs favorite space telescope*

New Horizons will have more than enough to look at when it gets there...

New Horizons?
Yeah! They'll probably not be much more impressive than Phobos or Deimos (!) but they'll be worth looking at for sure. Another correction to make to my Audoban Field Guide, not that I'd be able to see Pluto as much more than a small dot dimmer than most of the surrounding stars (even our favoite space telescope *also hugs* couldn't get a clear picture of it), much less even Charon, which would probably look like an irregular bulge on one side of Pluto if I was extremely lucky.
Which brings me to more personal news. I am going to try and build a Newtonian reflector. So far, I'm pretty sure it's best if it has a ~6 in. aperture (or 150mm I'm measuring in millimeters because it's easier to use metric in these cases) and a ~3 foot focal length (1000mm), making it an f/6. I thought it would be easy, and it is, but I just realized today that I'm going to need something to focus it with.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

New Horizons?

The new, freshly launched space probe, specifically sent up there to visit Pluto? The first one to visit Pluto since the Voyagers, I think. Expected to reach it in, what was it, 2012? 2015? Something like that. Pluto is a loooong way off.

My time to ask , what exactly is a "Newtonian reflector"? I could look it up but I figured you'd probably want to tell me.

[trolls' bane]

Sorry, I'm not exactly up to date on my news. I only found those articles in my school while I was looking on the net for a good picture to add to my T-shirt project in my digital art class. What else have I missed in the last year?

Newtonian reflector...well, it's a reflector. It's a long tube with a primary mirror at the back, it's the concave mirror, that does the actual magnification, then it's sent back through the tube from the way it came and reflected off a secondary non-concave mirror tilted at a 45 degree angle to the primary, which reflects it into the eyepiece, which then focuses it back into the original image. Basically, you are looking through one side of the front end of the telescope, not the back.

[arvedui_last_king]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The first one to visit Pluto since the Voyagers

The Voyagers never went to Pluto, nor any other ship.

[Earniel]

Indeed, no space probe has ever gone to Pluto specifically before, that's what makes New Horizons so special. (Voyager 1 was originally meant to go to Pluto but that mission was dropped, I believe.)

But what I meant was that, since the Voyagers are the only ones leaving our solar system for the moment, the Voyagers are the only ones to have gone as far as Pluto and further even. So the only ones yet to have gone that way.

Although I realise now I technically should also have added Pioneer 10 and 11 since they're also en route for the outside of our solar system. But since they've both stopped transmitting, and I don't know where they were at that moment, I tend to forget to add them.

[Jonathan]

Good thing they're sending New Horizons now because it's really at the last moment. Pluto is quickly travelling away from the sun and soon Pluto's atmosphere will freeze completely. If we weren't send a probe to Pluto now, we wouldn't get a chance to study the planet's atmosphere until like 200 years from now.

[trolls' bane]

That's right. I keep forgetting about Pluto's high eccentricity of orbit, not to mention it's incination to the ecliptic.

[Bombadillo]

Last I heard, most of the astronomers trying to standardize the definition of a planet think that Pluto's diameter should be the minimum size requirement. This means Pluto is forever the smallest planet in the universe.

Good news! My school will have an astronomy elective next year! I won't be there, but man, I would have taken it.

EDIT: TB, I've got a big ol' Meade 285, out of focus staring at my basement ceiling.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Last I heard, most of the astronomers trying to standardize the definition of a planet think that Pluto's diameter should be the minimum size requirement. This means Pluto is forever the smallest planet in the universe.

Good news! My school will have an astronomy elective next year! I won't be there, but man, I would have taken it.

EDIT: TB, I've got a big ol' Meade 285, out of focus staring at my basement ceiling.

Yeah, mine is about the equivelant to staring at my basement ceiling, but alas I dont' have a basement to put it in. I just joined the message board that belongs to the store where I bought my '70AT, and was just posting a thread on how to build a telescope (asking for now, until I get it built), and later one on the bugs associated with my autostar, which keeps getting stuck on a few seasonal stars and will not select another unless I reset EVERYTHING (turn it off and back on). I think I should get a GPS for it. It's worth the hundred dollars.

[Jonathan]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

At a conference in Prague today, the International Astronomical Union agreed upon new definitions of what a planet really is. Pluto is too small to meet these new criteria and looses its planet status.

So after 76 years, we're down to eight planets again.

[Insidious Rex]

Its a sad day...

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

At a conference in Prague today, the International Astronomical Union agreed upon new definitions of what a planet really is. Pluto is too small to meet these new criteria and looses its planet status.

So after 76 years, we're down to eight planets again.

I know. For some unknown reason, I woke up at 6:30. I think it was the radio, which was tuned to KUSC, the local classical station (actually, where I live, it's call is KPSC, but that's just because it's a different frequency). Well, anyway, the announcer said something about Berlioz's something or other being on in a few minutes, "That's just about enough time to take a hot shower." That I did (more or less because of the suggestion), and returned. A few minutes later, they went into their Spotlight on the Arts, which is quickly followed by a KNX reporter. The news about Pluto sure woke me up.

[brownjenkins]

I think their definition is a little screwy for "science":

RESOLUTION 5A

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A dwarf planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

They say Pluto is not a planet because of: "(c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". In other words, it crosses Neptune's orbit. Yet, that is just a matter of perspective. One could easily say that it is Neptune could be crossing Pluto's orbit, thus Neptune is the "dwarf planet".

Also the name "dwarf planet" (which really should be "diameter-challenged" in today's PC world ) implies a lack of size, yet there is absolutely no mention of size in the definition of a dwarf planet! If you go by the definition, it should be called a "non-neighborhood clearing planet".

Shady science like this is gonna have me start believing Intelligent Design.

[trolls' bane]

Quod erat demonstrandum.
Ah, LB rocks...

LOL! That's going into my sig if there's room.
"Pluto is a diameter-challenged planet."