N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


This is true of *any* activity. Heck, when I was training for the
marathon 20 years ago, I met plenty of folks who said they wanted to
run a marathon - if only it wasn't 26.22 miles long...

Some comedian needs to pick that one up. It is truly, classically

funny!

For some folks it's not a joke, though. They really don't see why the
distance has to be 26.22 miles - after all, we'd have more marathoners
if it were shorter. Or if people were allowed to use rollerblades,
scooters, or bicycles to cover the distance. After all, running is
truly *ancient* transportation technology. As a communications
technology, (the marathon is based on ancient Greek runners, who were
primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by
methods that are faster, more error-free, less expensive...

Funny how analogies pop up in th estrangest places! 8^)


The fact is that almost anyone in decent health who is willing to do
the training can finish a marathon. But you gotta do the training,
which 99% of people in decent health won't do.

True enough. I don't have any interest in marathons, a combination of
my physique and the abuse I've put upon my legs over the years. I'm
built better for the 100 yard dash!

Side note: I had to give up Hockey temporarily to nurse a torn
meniscus. At Christmas I couldn't walk down stairs, and long drives in a
car were murder upon getting out. 6 weeks of rest, then followed by a
daily weight lifting regimen, and it's a freakin' miracle. Pain is just
gone! I can hardly wait to lay a good check on someone! 8^)

I would imagine that one can have tremendous fun in astronomy with
less-than-state-of-the-art equipment. Just like amateur radio.

Yes. a lot depends on the situation. While I have my 12.5 inch scope, I
also have a 6 inch that I made, and a small catadioptric scope that is
quite modest. But I can put the littel scope on the front seat of the
car or set up on a picnic table somewhere.

And binoculars are a great way to observe.


Exactly. Just like there are plenty of good simple rigs out there,
waiting to be bought or built.

But that kind of deal took patience and of course much luck. A
commercial version of the larger scope I made would set you back around
3.5 to 4K dollars. And it probably wouldn't have as good a mirror.

Basic rule of thumb is department store scopes are truly junk.

The inexpensive Dobsonians (a type of alt-az mount, usually with a
reflector mirror) often have passable optics, but usually need
mechanical work to perform well. You can get some 6 inch variety for
around 300 dollars. So if you are willing to put in the time....


There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind
itself)

I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well.


No experience quite like working 'em with a rig ya built from
scratch...

hehe, you are right there, Jim. I am PROUD of that thing. Won a some
prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon
star party.

Most refractors have a phenomenon called "color", in which not all
wavelengths of light are focused to the same point. Drives me crazy. The
better ones have what is called an APO lens, in which rare earth glasses
are used to focus the light all at the same place. And yup, they cost
money. I've looked through a number of 12K scopes. Lovely planet images,
but not all that much light gathering power.


Various rig designs have different good and bad features. For example,
the wonderful K2 has really good dynamic range and very low phase
noise but its display accuracy is *only* about 20-30 Hz even if the
reference oscillator is set dead-on. This is a result of how the PLL
works. Most owners don't care but there are some hams who are not
satisfied with 20 Hz error.

Hmm. could be we are putting together the reasons that a lot of Hams
are also amateur astronomers!


Lots of similarities.

And ohhh geee, the dufusses that wanted to get the little kids
interested in observing seem to have forgotten that Mommy and Daddy
don't want little Buffy or Jody (and by extension, Mommy or Daddy) to

be



staying up all night and traveling to remote sites.....


Here's another issue:

If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries
and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could
hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the
pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of
a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special
equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real
knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret
what is seen, either.

simmer, simmer, simmer......;^)


Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is
needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on
the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs.
And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it?

Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were
interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand!


They were awed because it was a *new* experience for most of them. I
bet.

Yup. I am always impressed by a good night sky, but these folks
couldn't normally see much in the sky at all. I also primed them with my
interview, and wham! I don' know if you've ever seen pristine sky, but
like the guy in 2001 says - "My God, its FULL of stars!"

Of course looking at pictures taken by others is not the same thing as
seeing something directly. But for most people, it's 'close enough'.

I'm glad I saw that sentence!


It's the same in amateur radio. Yet the point of *direct experience*
is simply something many people simply "don't get".

I'm an experience junkie. As long as it's legal and ethical, I'm in!


We are a small part of the population, and getting smaller
(percentagewise).

Yes the images provided by Hubble are
stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there)


It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof.

What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns.


It's still all about $$. How much you think the shuttle disasters cost
in $$? And the truth is that even with all the upgrades they're an old
design that costs big money to keep alive.

One of the promises made about the shuttle was that it would save
money and be 'easily' reused. Neither has come true - it's cheaper to
launch satellites on an Ariane and the shuttles are extensively
rebuilt between flights.


I'm betting on Bert Rutan to take us that next step. He's getting
close, BTW.



I'll go on
record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on
it. In a heartbeat.


The next flight will probably be the safest because you *know* they
went over the thing with a fine tooth comb...

The world doesn't belong to those that are safe.


Sure it does! The trick is understanding what safety is really all
about. Risk cannot be avoided but there's no point in being foolish.

I dunno, Alan Shepard skirted the foolishness edge, and most people I
know wouldn't dream of a trip on the shuttle.


But
some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night,
observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even
alone, the experience is no comparison.


Of course.

And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all
night,
working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow
hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the
experience.

Oh yeah!


There are some who call me all sorts of unflattering names because of
those experiences...

Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also
unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature.
You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if
the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and
planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months
or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see
Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer
breath!)

And it all makes the successful experience all the sweeter!


If you could take your 'scope out at almost any time and place and get
clear images of most of the sky, it wouldn't be a special experience.

Although in Pennsylvania, the wx takes it to extremes! 8^) AS a matter
of fact, on of the big reasons I got into the ARS was because the skies
in PA were so often cloudy, I needed another hobby to give me something
to do in my spare spare time.

the rest snipped

- Mike KB3EIA -