Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

My life's experience has been that for every hobby or avocation,

there

is a large group of people that "would do it except for....". What

they

are actually tell you when they say this is " I have a passing

interest

in this. But I'm not so interested that I will become a participant".


BANG! Drove that nail with a single blow, Mike!

What was it they used to say - "indisputable truth"?

Yet some will dispute it anyway.

Whether it is the Morse code requirement, or the cost of a rig or
effort of putting up an antenna, or the cost of a telescope or the
need
to travel to remote areas that are dark enough or the fact that you
have to stay up all night to observe, etc, etc.


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primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by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...

People in amateur astronomy also obsess about the graying of the
hobby and how do we get the kids involved? Fact is, a scope that can
actually be used for any kind of passable observation costs a fair amount of
money.

Is it really so much money, Mike? I've heard that there are some folks
who make their own 'scopes, down to the grinding of lenses and mirrors
and such. And of course there are used telescopes. But the telescope
itself is probably the least of the issues.

I've made two telescopes so far. The only thing I bought was eyepieces
and the eyepiece holder. While it is true that you can make one for very
little money - especially when you get really lucky, like I did, and
find 3 12.5 inch blanks for 15 dollars each. For most people it will
cost some serious dough to get quality. Of course there is the
definition of quality and serious dough!

BTW, 15 dollar 12.5 inch Pyrex blanks are the rough equivalent of
finding an almost new, mint FT-1000 MV Field, loaded, for 100 dollars,
so there is your luck!

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

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)

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.

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?

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".


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.

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.

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 most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through
a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations
are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my
information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty
"old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it?

Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such
as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio.

In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have
to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on
a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the
other
things we have to do to get on the air.


The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort.

There is that!

Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected.

Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types?
For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often
happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so
happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna.
All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field
day.

37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the
parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference
today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal.
Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an
effective HF antenna these days...

Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at
best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two.

Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time
keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical
acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn?


Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has
been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has
driven the industry for 20+ years.

Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to
turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI.

To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in
itself.

Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main
computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet!

My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable
thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like
saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is
deaf.

I wish I knew where that one came from!


It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few.


Here's a datapoint for ya:

In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This
was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and
science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics,
chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC
exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am
still licensed.

The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and
had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12
there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams.

The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many
extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like
this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was
no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our
own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few
kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative
political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look
askance.

Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost
of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to
Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete
setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting
hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few
more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License?
Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that
much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the
button and talk.

Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal
controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have
crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun.

Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now.

I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but
they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most
lost interest when the cb boom ended.

Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's
a prime competitor.

I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the
participants, they think they are being hi-tech..

All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the
directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is
high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives
and loading the software isn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


My life's experience has been that for every hobby or avocation,

there


is a large group of people that "would do it except for....". What

they


are actually tell you when they say this is " I have a passing

interest


in this. But I'm not so interested that I will become a participant".


BANG! Drove that nail with a single blow, Mike!

What was it they used to say - "indisputable truth"?


Yet some will dispute it anyway.

Whether it is the Morse code requirement, or the cost of a rig or
effort of putting up an antenna, or the cost of a telescope or the
need
to travel to remote areas that are dark enough or the fact that you
have to stay up all night to observe, etc, etc.



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^)


People in amateur astronomy also obsess about the graying of the
hobby and how do we get the kids involved? Fact is, a scope that can
actually be used for any kind of passable observation costs a fair amount of
money.

Is it really so much money, Mike? I've heard that there are some folks
who make their own 'scopes, down to the grinding of lenses and mirrors
and such. And of course there are used telescopes. But the telescope
itself is probably the least of the issues.

I've made two telescopes so far. The only thing I bought was eyepieces
and the eyepiece holder. While it is true that you can make one for very
little money - especially when you get really lucky, like I did, and
find 3 12.5 inch blanks for 15 dollars each. For most people it will
cost some serious dough to get quality. Of course there is the
definition of quality and serious dough!

BTW, 15 dollar 12.5 inch Pyrex blanks are the rough equivalent of
finding an almost new, mint FT-1000 MV Field, loaded, for 100 dollars,
so there is your luck!


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.


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.

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!

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!


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!


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

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

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!

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!

And most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through
a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations
are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my
information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty
"old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it?

One evening we had a professional astronomer with us for an evening of
observing. It was a lot of fun. We amateurs were locating various stars
and stellar objects, and he was telling us all about them in great
detail. A magic evening for both him and the rest of us, although I'm
afraid I scared him half to death. I was telling everyone about the
encounter I had with a huge black bear on the way to the site, with the
bear crossing the dirt road in front of me, and I stopped to watch the
bear, and the big guy stood up to watch me, maybe ten feet from my open
passenger window. It was awsome, and everyone else was used to my quirky
dealings with wild animals, but I heard him say in a quavery voice
"th-th-that bear, it it wan't r-r-really anywhere n-n-near here was it?
We never could get him to come out with us again. 8^(


Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such
as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio.

In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have
to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on
a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the
other
things we have to do to get on the air.


The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort.

There is that!


Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected.

big time.


Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types?
For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often
happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so
happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna.
All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field
day.

37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the
parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference
today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal.
Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an
effective HF antenna these days...


Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at
best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two.



Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time
keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical
acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn?


Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has
been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has
driven the industry for 20+ years.

Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to
turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI.


To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in
itself.

Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main
computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet!


My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable
thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like
saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is
deaf.

I wish I knew where that one came from!



It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few.


Here's a datapoint for ya:

In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This
was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and
science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics,
chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC
exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am
still licensed.

The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and
had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12
there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams.

The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many
extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like
this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was
no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our
own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few
kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative
political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look
askance.

Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost
of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to
Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete
setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting
hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few
more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License?
Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that
much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the
button and talk.

Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal
controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have
crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun.


Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now.

I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but
they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most
lost interest when the cb boom ended.

Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's
a prime competitor.

I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the
participants, they think they are being hi-tech..


All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the
directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is
high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives
and loading the software isn't.

Yeah, pretty well put.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

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...

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.

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'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.

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.

And most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through
a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations
are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my
information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty
"old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it?

One evening we had a professional astronomer with us for an evening of
observing. It was a lot of fun. We amateurs were locating various stars
and stellar objects, and he was telling us all about them in great
detail.

Sure. He knew the facts but I bet he hadn't seen most of them directly
in years, if at all.

A magic evening for both him and the rest of us, although I'm
afraid I scared him half to death. I was telling everyone about the
encounter I had with a huge black bear on the way to the site, with the
bear crossing the dirt road in front of me, and I stopped to watch the
bear, and the big guy stood up to watch me, maybe ten feet from my open
passenger window. It was awsome, and everyone else was used to my quirky
dealings with wild animals, but I heard him say in a quavery voice
"th-th-that bear, it it wan't r-r-really anywhere n-n-near here was it?
We never could get him to come out with us again. 8^(


bwaahaahaa...


Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such
as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio.

In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have
to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on
a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the
other
things we have to do to get on the air.


The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort.

There is that!


Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected.

big time.


Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types?
For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often
happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so
happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna.
All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field
day.

37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the
parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference
today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal.
Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an
effective HF antenna these days...


Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at
best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two.



Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time
keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical
acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn?


Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has
been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has
driven the industry for 20+ years.

Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to
turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI.


To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in
itself.

Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main
computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet!


My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable
thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like
saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is
deaf.

I wish I knew where that one came from!



It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few.


Here's a datapoint for ya:

In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This
was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and
science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics,
chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC
exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am
still licensed.

The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and
had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12
there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams.

The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many
extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like
this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was
no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our
own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few
kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative
political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look
askance.

Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost
of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to
Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete
setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting
hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few
more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License?
Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that
much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the
button and talk.

Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal
controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have
crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun.


Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now.

I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but
they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most
lost interest when the cb boom ended.

Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's
a prime competitor.

I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the
participants, they think they are being hi-tech..


All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the
directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is
high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives
and loading the software isn't.

Yeah, pretty well put.

Thanks

73 de Jim,N2EY

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 -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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^)

Glad to hear you're back in one piece and pain-free. I'll never win
any races but I've been able to run for 23 years without serious
injury.


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.

But, Mike, it's not "state-of-the-art", is it? Do "professionals" use
such a telescope? ;-)

Won a some
prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon
star party.

bwaahaahaa

You'd make a good barracuda...


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.

Most people can't.

Some weeks ago I was in Manhattan, among the canyons of the tall
buildings. All anyone could see of the sky was a few patches almost
directly overhead. Horizon? Folks in "the city" don't know what that
means.

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!"

David Bowman. Full quote is "It's hollow - it goes on forever - and
oh, my God, it's full of stars!"

And yes, I have seen the pristine sky. One memorable time was some
years back in upstate New York, near the Montezuma Wildlife preserve.
Waaaaay out in the country, no human lights for a mile or so. Wide
open area, no buildings nearby, not even any big trees. Was out on a
trouble call for [name of employer deleted] about 2 AM. Got out of the
car and turned off the headlights to save the battery. (It was
midwinter and about 15-20 below).

Clear moonless night, which is unusual for that area. Fixed the
trouble and by then my eyes were very dark-adapted. You can imagine
what the sky looked like, from horizon to horizon, 360 degrees all
around.

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 hope so.

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.

When did he skirt the edge?

Remember, until the Challenger disaster, the US had never lost anyone
on an actual spaceflight. The loss of astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and
White in the Apollo 1 fire was a tremendous shock because up to that
time we had never lost an astronaut.

What most people don't realize is that most if not all of the
astronauts up to the end of the Apollo program had been test pilots,
where the losses and near-losses were far higher than in the space
program.

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.

You should try western New York. It's not unusual to have a month of
overcast. One winter we had 43 continuous days when the temperature
never went above freezing and the overcast never broke. When the sun
finally burned through on the 44th day, we weren't sure if it was safe
to be out in it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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^)


Glad to hear you're back in one piece and pain-free. I'll never win
any races but I've been able to run for 23 years without serious
injury.

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.


But, Mike, it's not "state-of-the-art", is it? Do "professionals" use
such a telescope? ;-)

Nahh. But this scope IS art! It is an art-deco sort of thing. Imagine a
6 foot faux granite tube in a bluish sort of color. The scope tube is
attached to the bottom "rocker box" with wooden tubes that encircle the
tube. The box is the traditional square shape with cutouts for the large
circular 14 inch altitude bearings to sit in. Instead of the heavy
rocker box that most tubes sit in, the box is lightweight, with tapering
buttresses for strength. All wood parts are cherry finish. It has a
combination of looking like something modern, crossed with 30's sci-fi.

Won a some
prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon
star party.


bwaahaahaa

You'd make a good barracuda...

he thought so! ;^)


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.


Most people can't.

Some weeks ago I was in Manhattan, among the canyons of the tall
buildings. All anyone could see of the sky was a few patches almost
directly overhead. Horizon? Folks in "the city" don't know what that
means.


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!"


David Bowman. Full quote is "It's hollow - it goes on forever - and
oh, my God, it's full of stars!"

And yes, I have seen the pristine sky. One memorable time was some
years back in upstate New York, near the Montezuma Wildlife preserve.
Waaaaay out in the country, no human lights for a mile or so. Wide
open area, no buildings nearby, not even any big trees. Was out on a
trouble call for [name of employer deleted] about 2 AM. Got out of the
car and turned off the headlights to save the battery. (It was
midwinter and about 15-20 below).

Clear moonless night, which is unusual for that area. Fixed the
trouble and by then my eyes were very dark-adapted. You can imagine
what the sky looked like, from horizon to horizon, 360 degrees all
around.

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 hope so.

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.


When did he skirt the edge?

Sitting on top of that little Redstone ought ot do it! Those ealy
astronauts had the nickname "Spam in a Can". My point is that if there
aren't people willing to take the risk, it won't happen

Remember, until the Challenger disaster, the US had never lost anyone
on an actual spaceflight. The loss of astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and
White in the Apollo 1 fire was a tremendous shock because up to that
time we had never lost an astronaut.

What most people don't realize is that most if not all of the
astronauts up to the end of the Apollo program had been test pilots,
where the losses and near-losses were far higher than in the space
program.

Sure. Most peole don't think anything of driving towards each other at
combined speeds of 160 mph while carring many gallons of almost
explosive fuel either. But they won't take what they consider a risk
either. Go figure!

- Mike KB3EIA -