HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hbh@athena.mit.edu (Heidi Hammel)
Subject: Real Men Astronomers [Was Re: e-mail activated telescope?]
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:39:01 GMT

higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> kent@patience.Stanford.EDU (Mark Kent) writes:
> > [query about a remotely controlled telescope]
>Seriously, it doesn't seem right to sit in a warm little room pecking
>at a keyboard to do observations.  Do we need to raise up a generation
>of couch-potato observers? Real Men brave the cold and darkness to get
>their images!
>I know this idea is crude and implies some unfortunate corollaries, such as:
>1. Radio astronomers are not Real Men.
>2. Anita Cochran, Heidi Hammel, and other lady astronomers *are* Real Men.

:-}  Well, okay - but just don't tell my SO ;-).  Seriously, though, it is
tough to find a professional astronomer who does *not* work in a warm room.
Most large telescopes are run that way.  Even Real Men like me do it :-). 

Rest assured - many professional astronomers "pay their dues" at smaller
telescopes before moving up to the big ones.  You only need one winter
season of nights at -5 degrees enduring winds of 30 mph to build character
and create a sense of humility.  You *really* *appreciate* warm rooms
afterwards...  

To preserve my .. er ... "male" reputation and defend other "couch-potato"
astronomers, I'll add that even in a warm room, Mauna Kea's 14,000-ft
altitude can be a real challenge.  There are headaches, hypoxia-induced
stupidity, extreme dryness (RH < 5%), etc.  And then there was the run in
1991 .... My observing sequence went: std star 5 min, Neptune 15 min, throw
up 10 min, std star 5 min, Neptune 15 min, throw up 10 min, std star 5 min,
Neptune 15 min, ad nauseum .....  It is so difficult to get telescope time
that you just grit your teeth and keep going, flu or not.  I got some
useful data out of that run, but it was not the easiest or most pleasant
of experiences, even for warm-room key-board-pecking observing...  

So do I get to keep my title of "Real Man" astronomer
even though I mostly work in a warm room at a computer? ;-)

heidi
--

    Heidi B. Hammel   (hbh@astron.mit.edu)   MIT 54-416   EAPS Dept.
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Orbit Determination
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:15:33 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Nov8.172831.5995@cbnews.cb.att.com| djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant) writes:
|While we're on the subject of orbit determination, I'd be interested in
|any pointers to good reference texts that describe the method of determining
|orbits from three (or more) visual observations.  A step-by-step approach
|would be best (i.e. taking you through the process of reducing your 
|observations and deriving the orbital parameters).   
|
|Something with more detail than just "solve the following systems of
|differential equations" is called for here, as I'm really interested in
|an algorithmic approach I can carry out myself (and probably implement as
|a program, just for grins).  (Besides, it's been a *long* time since I
|did any differential equations...)

A good one is _Methods of Orbit Determination_, Escobal, P., Wiley,
NY, 1965, Chapter 7. Several methods are covered, the algorithms are
spelled out, and there are good numerical examples and exercises.

A word of warning: You are trying to determine the orbit of
a low earth satellite with 3 position-3 time methods with optical
observation. They don't work. See _Celestial Mechanics, A Computational
Guide for the Practioner_, Taff, L.G., Wiley, NY, 1985, p.216.
Differential Correction methods are the only ones that work. Taff
avoids the low satellite case. His examples are for geostationary
orbits. Even a recent work as _Methods of Orbit Determination_, 
Boulet, Dan, Willmann-Bell, Richmond, VA, 1991 treats the subject
with an earth satellite which has a semi-major axis of 16000 km.
With low earth orbits the perturbation of the earth's equatorial
bulge and atmospheric drag contribute significantly. DC methods
work but these factors have to be taken into account so instead
of 6 unknown elements there are more.

One of the problems of orbit determination is that if you are
the only observer, the best you can do, is to calculate a circular
orbit solution since the arc under observation is such a small
portion of the ellipse (unless your observations extend over
a sufficiently large interval so that the ellipse has rotated
enough to reveal the eccentricity to the degree of observational
accuracy.)

In addition to the ones above check out:

Brouvwer and Clemence, _Methods of Celestial Mechanics_, Academic
Press, 1961.

Baker, _Astrodynamics: Applications and Advanced Topics_, Academic
Press, 1967.

Bate, Mueller, and White, _Fundamentals of Astodynamics_, Dover, 1971.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: collins@emperor.gatech.edu (Tom Collins)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:40:59 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov4.193735.16355@sal.wisc.edu> lattis@sal.wisc.edu (Jim Lattis) writes:
>
>it may be clear today that Galileo was right, but the theologians of his
>day, acting on the opinions of some of the best astronomers of the day,
>  [ stuff deleted ]
>the point then is that the modern question is not so simple as you suggest.  
>the papal panel had to decide not whether Galileo was right--schoolchildren
  [ more stuff deleted ]

I agree with Jim 100%, but I would like to expound on an issue that is
closely related to his comments.  It is ridiculous to judge historical
figures based on our notions of right and wrong.  They were struggling
(for the most part) to improve their society, just as we are, and they
were surely much better in most respects than, say, the middle ages or
prehistoric times.

So let's not pat ourselves on the back too much for being so enlightened.
Our descendents probably will have a few bones to pick with us, too.
Our efforts would be much better spent in accelerating the pace of
"change for the better" than indulging in gratuitous hindsight.  And 
now that I've spoken, let's keep this subject in other more
appropriate news groups ;-).


-- 
Tom Collins                               tom.collins@ee.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology           (404) 894-2509
400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 384
Atlanta, GA  30332-0540
From: mh028986@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Michael C. Hevey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: tes
Date: 4 Nov 1992 21:47:38 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: moshier@world.std.com (Stephen L Moshier)
Subject: Re: Swift_tuttle's orbit
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:33:01 GMT

  Could you post any references you have handy on the effect
of outgassing?
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Binoc Objects from the Florida Keys
Date: 5 Nov 1992 19:29:04 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

We are about to spend several days camping in the Florida Keys.
Given the dark, albeit turbulent, skies we are taking a pair
of 8x56 binoculars with us for observing purposes.  What objects
should we especially look for near the southern horizon given
that we will be about 13 degrees further south than usual (we'll
be at about 25 degrees N instead of 38).  Remember, we'll be
relying on binocs so no super dim objects (just couldn't quite
fit the 12.5" f7 Dob into the duffle :-)).

Rapid responses if you can as we leave Friday evening and the
campground doesn't have a net drop (or even phones which is sort
of the point). :-)

Thanks mucho,
Andy
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:04:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: samba.1992Nov5.230416.8291
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

lattis@sal.wisc.edu (Jim Lattis) writes:

>it may be clear today that Galileo was right, but the theologians of his
>day, acting on the opinions of some of the best astronomers of the day,
>had plenty of good reasons to doubt that he was right.  Bellarmine himself
>agreed that if Galileo had proof of his assertions, then there could be
>no question that Scripture would have to be reinterpreted.  But Galileo
>had *no valid proof*, neither by their standards nor by ours.  Thus, as
>the seventeenth-century theologians saw it, they were not preventing
>Galileo from speaking the truth.  Rather, they were preventing him from
>declaring *as true* a theory, which he could not prove, that they 
>(mistakenly) saw as dangerous to the authority of the Church and the
>spiritual well-being of its believers.   [...]

>...to put it another way, it's not a question of science that the panel
>has decided, but one of history. [...]

This is entirely correct. I would add to it that the political milieu
in which these people operated was of decisive influence. Galileo was
known by the Vatican to have exchanged letters with Kepler, whose
mother had in the meantime been burned for alleged witchcraft (remember
this was during the Thirty Years War, which ended in 1648 with one
third of German population dead; they were playing for keeps). Just
30 years earlier, Bruno and Campanella had used questions of cosmo-
gony as a platform for open oppositon to Vatican power. As the Vatican,
no doubt a little paranoid (remember "...must be a Communist..."?),
perceived itself to be in a struggle for existence (read: primacy),
it would inevitably have been looking for ulterior motives behind
Galileo's reasoning. People in positions of power never take decisions
about truth or falsehood in the intellectual vacuum most of us
scientists think they should, often much to our chagrin. Galileo's
tragic mistake was to believe very sincerely that truth and logic
were paramount in his exchanges with others (even with the Aristotelian
doctors who refused to look through his scope), and that his
protestations of sincerity of faith would make the difference.

The definitive reference for this story is

    The Crime of Galileo, by G Santillana (mid-late 1950's),

who drew the obvious parallels to the case of Oppenheimer.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Deflecting P/S-T
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.145458.25432@cam-orl.co.uk> dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave
Garnett), after painting a gloomy prospect for deflecting the comet, writes:

>Perhaps the answer is to do the 'correction' on the previous
>orbit, when P/S-T passes closest to the sun, and hence the
>largest source of free energy ?

Thank heavens! we've still got a month in which to act! :-))

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Experiences with telescope mail order
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:23:52 GMT

I've ordered twice from Pauli's with no complaints *but* I ordered rather
inert and hard to screw up things, like a half-pier for a Super Polaris
mount. Maybe the rule is to only order that sort of item from them. The
first time I called I actuqally had a nice chat with the owner regarding
my last nme, as he had recently bought out the well-known sporting goods
supplier of the same name...but I digress.
 
Others: Orion: Helpful, friendly, expensive but getting better. Bought
their slow-motion tripod mount and a 40mm Kellner.
 
Astronomics: Helpful, friendly, honest, reasonable prices. Bought a
28mm Celestron Erfle on close-out. (Check their close-out/used/etc
circular for some very good deals. The Erfle cost $39!)
 
University: Very knowledgeable, good values. I have one of his
Plossl oculars- a good deal at $49.95. He spent a long time with
me on the phone explaining why I should get that particular
focal length for a specific scope and application. He was right.
 
Bob Little, who brokers Questars and sells accessories and the new
Intes Maksutov: Can't say enough good about him. Even after I had
my scope and he had my money he called me back *twice* with suggestions
and advice. He has an excellent and well-deserved reputation. If
you want a used Questar, or need service on one, go through him.
For $100 he'll do a complete overhaul- Questar charges over $300.
He's been working with Questars for about 30 years. No, I don't get
anything from him for saying all this ;-)And Bob also recommends
Ross Seyfried of University Optics. They're friends.
 
City Camera in Dearborn, MI. A camera store that also sells Celestron,
Meade, Televue and various binocs. Good deals, they seem pretty honest.
I bought a Celestron SS-80 from them and traded it in on a SP-C80 a
fewq months later and they gave me 100% credit. Not bad. There's only
one guy there who really knows scopes, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.planetary
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: role of meteoroids in continental rifting
Followup-To: sci.geo.geology 
Summary: unlikely in observable structures
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 22:55:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.192334.28001@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>keith farmer;S10000 (kfarmer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu) wrote:

>> In article <pad.720924805@probitas> pad@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au
(Paul A Daniels) writes: 
>> If I remember correctly, Pangaea and Gwandonaland are two names fro
the super-continent... 

This thread has been perking along in sci.astro for about a week now
starting with the worry over the August 14, 2126 "end of the world." 

Non-geologists appear to be confused by the time scale of events about
which such events have occurred. All geologic reconstructions of the
continents have been done for the Phanerozoic Eon (570 My ago to
present), and mostly late in this eon, whereas meteoroid
bombardment, based on lunar evidence, decreased to its present
level some 1000 My ago. Thus although one cannot rule out a meteoroid
hit having something to do with initiating such a rifting, the only
evidence is for "normal as seen today" rifting from tectonic
processes involving thinning of crust mainly from internal heating.

The really big hits that Earth must have taken were of course in the
Hadean (4.6-3.8 Gigayears ago) decreasing in size and intensity as on
the Moon during the Archean when the continents being formed must have
been relatively small, and possibly being significant only in the early
Proterozoic (2.6 - 0.6 Gy) when the continents began to increase in
size as the Earth continued to cool (ca 100 deg K per Gy).

Many of us would be interested in evidence to the contrary on these points.
The biggest hit of all, that whose debris is theorized to have
produced the Moon, must have occured very early. Has anyone seen
discussions on its epoch? 




Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:44:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope) writes:

>From article <69374@cup.portal.com>, by Robert_N_Brauer@cup.portal.com:
>>>   To refer to the Earth, I can use  "terrestrial".
>>>   To refer to the stars, I can use  "stellar".
>>>   To refer to galaxies,  I can use  "galactic".
>>>   To refer to black holes,  what can I use?
>>>
>>>Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks.

How about "of the black hole"?

keith
From: aik@arch.uwa.oz.au (Ms Ng Aik)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Info on Mars
Date: 6 Nov 1992 03:54:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: arch.arch.uwa.edu.au
Summary: Need some info on the planet Mars.
Keywords: Mars, topology, geography


I require some information about Mars.

The type of stuff I need is:
	TOPOLOGY - maximum and minimum heights
	GEOGRAPHY - the general terrain etc.
	COMPOSITION - minerals that make up the soil etc.

If anyone has anything about any of the above,
including any gifs of photographs of the surface,
I would be most appreciative...

Please send any stuff to:
sym@arch.uwa.edu.au
(130.95.192.10)

Thanks in advance
Adrian Chia


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: batchelor@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988)
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Summary:  Making up an adjective referring to black holes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  black hole
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: sci.astro
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:27:00 GMT

In article <SRCTRAN.92Nov11233822@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes...
>   To refer to the Earth, I can use  "terrestrial".
>   To refer to the stars, I can use  "stellar".
>   To refer to galaxies,  I can use  "galactic".
>   To refer to black holes,  what can I use?
> 
>Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks.
> 
>Greg Aharonian
>-- 
>**************************************************************************
>Greg Aharonian
>Source Translation & Optimiztion
>P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

We can always make one up.  For example, in geology, a spherical cavity in a
rock is known as a vesicle.  The word 'vesicle' has French origins, so we
could prefix it with a French word part meaning black, convert it to an
adjective, and voila!

Negrivesicular: adj. pertaining to a black hole
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dave Batchelor   Space Science Data Operations Office   Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center  Greenbelt  MD  20771  USA
batchelor@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: kfarmer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (keith farmer;S10000)
Subject: Re: Orbit Determination
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 23:23:49 GMT

BTW, I _have_ checked out books on the subject, but they don't seem to carry th
info I'm looking for, or else they are hiding it...

Thank you,
Keith

Xref: sparky sci.astro:11900 sci.space:15787
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:52:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Nov8.232547.27419@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
#
#According to the NASA investigation of the Hubble mirror problem, there
#was nothing wrong with the specs. The backup mirror built to the same
#specs by Kodak is *perfect*. The problem was that Perkin-Elmer bollixed
#up the testing of the figure of the mirror and ignored the results of
#a Foucault test that showed the mirror to have spherical abberations
#because their primary test was supposed to give more accurate results.
#Unfortunately, they installed a fixture backwards when making the
#primary measurements and got the *wrong* result.

I'm pretty sure there was never a Foucault test; that
there hadn't been one became an issue after the mistake
was discovered. This was brought up at NASA reviews I
attended. After all, the interferometric test was supposed
to be so accurate that a crude test such as the Foucault
test wouldn't tell you anything you didn't already know
(or so they thought).

The "fixture" that was used backwards was the Invar rod;
It was indeed used backwards, but that was not the chief
reason for the mis-manufactured null corrector. This was,
as I posted earlier, the laser return from the end cap, 
which had had a fleck of black paint scraped off.

Bill

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mike@rahul.net (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Hubble Guide Star Catalog questions
Organization: a2i network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:26:01 GMT

In article <92309.151205K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes:
>Dear Mike|
>
>I suppose some stars have double-entries in the GSC because they were
>scanned more than once (overlapping of the Schmidt-plates). In case of
>double-entries I always take the mean value of all the data given in the
>GSC.
>
>"Classification" tells you weather the object is a star or a non-stellar
>object (in most cases a galaxy).

I finally figured that out. Now the question is, what value represents what?

>I hope these suggestions are helpful to you|
>  Yours
>    Herbert
mike


-- 
"Friends don't let friends vote Democratic"

Mike Smithwick - mike@rahul.net 

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: Mark_Dakins@Novell.COM (Mark Dakins)
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:07:09 GMT

In article <1dsl5fINN8b7@smaug.West.Sun.COM> Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>Mark_Dakins@Novell.COM (Mark Dakins) writes:
>
>>I have not done any serious calculation, nor any measurements but,
>>I suspect from the published diameters of the Earth and Luna
>>that you would need to be wearing a glove to cover the Earth
>>with your thumb at arms length if you were standing on Luna.
>
>With no more accurate measuring device than an 8.5"x11" piece of paper,
>I estimated the width of my thumb to be .9" (it took 12 thumbs to make
>up the 11" of the page) and the distance from eye to thumb to be about
>24" (a little more than 2 pages).  These numbers indicate the angular
>diameter of my thumb is 2.2+/-0.2 degrees.  The diameter of the earth
>as seen from the moon is 1.92+/-0.13 degrees (depending on earth/moon
>distance which varies by 14%), so my thumb probably even covers the
>earth at perigee (periselene?).
>
>    Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
>Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		        Laisve!

Well, based on this and someone elses followup I actually tried it
last night.  I plotted two circles with the proper ratio of diameters,
posted them, backed away until the apparent size of the smaller circle
matched the apparent size of the moon, and then tried to cover the
larger circle with my thumb; and ... (drum roll) ... I could!

My error was based on the ratio of the size of the Earth to the size
of the Moon vs the ratio of the size of my little finger to the size
of my thumb.  It turns out that that is not a good approach since my
little finger is way more than ample to cover the Moon.

A couple of interesting observations.  The Earth is BIG as seen from
the Moon.  I was very impressed with the aparent size of my "Earth
sized circle" projected next to the Moon.  Also, my thumb is only
about 13/16" across the knuckle (about 3/4") across the center of
the nail) and I hold it about 28" from my eye when it is at arms
length.  At this distance it is JUST large enough to cover the 
"Earth sized circle."  Minor topic but I had fun doing this last night.

						Mark Dakins

Xref: sparky sci.astro:11712 sci.space:15403