HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc
Subject: SETI Articles from the Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA)
Keywords: SETI, EJASA
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:51:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        In response to Tord Malmgren's and others questions about SETI 
    (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence), I am offering to E-mail 
    upon request the following related SETI articles from the Electronic 
    Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA), which I 
    have been Editor of since its founding in August of 1989.

        The EJASA appears each month on USENET's sci.astro, sci.space, 
    sci.space.news, and sci.misc newsgroups.  

        SETI articles from the EJASA -

         "Does Extraterrestrial Life Exist?", by Angie Feazel - November 1989

         "Suggestions for an Intragalactic Information Exchange System",
           by Lars W. Holm - November 1989

         "Radio Astronomy: A Historical Perspective", by David J. Babulski
           - February 1990

         "Getting Started in Amateur Radio Astronomy", by Jeffrey M. Lichtman
           - February 1990

         "A Comparison of Optical and Radio Astronomy", by David J. Babulski
           - June 1990

         "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical 
           Spectrum, Parts A-E", by Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley - January 1992

         "History of the Ohio SETI Program", by Robert S. Dixon - June 1992

         "New Ears on the Sky: The NASA SETI Microwave Observing Project"
           by the ARC and JPL SETI Project - July 1992


        If anyone requires further assistance in regards to the EJASA
    and SETI, please let me know.

        Regards,

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
From: annis@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (James Annis)
Subject: Re: grav lensing (is MG1654 a diversion?)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Distribution: na,sci
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:51:05 GMT

Tom Van Flandern questions the morphologies of the known lens systems, 
	and suggests that, as a whole, these bring into doubt the lensing 
	model for radio sources and quasars.

Whether or not lensed quasars should show arcs is not clear.
In the standard interpretation quasars are point sources. A distorted, 
arc-like ex-point source could easily remain a point source with the 
resolution of our telescopes. This is probably not a point that can be 
argued: someone is going to have to do the calculations.

The fact that the published examples of lensing of radio sources are all
rings is clearly a selection effect: the workers are publishing the
most spectacular and convincing examples first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Annis                                annis@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Institute for Astronomy    University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii USA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gliba@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Re: An Observation Question
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:34:10 GMT


>In article <1992Jul29.163247.1@scivax.stsci.edu> gliba@scivax.stsci.edu writes:



>>How Far Can You See?
>>
>>
>>   Under moderately light polluted skies, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is
>>the most distant object visable to the naked-eye at a distance of about
>>2.4 million light years. If your skies are better, you may be able to see 
>>the galaxy M33 in Triangulum naked-eye, which is a little further. If your
>>skies are superb, then maybe NGC 253, a galaxy in Sculptor (Mv 7.0) can
>>be glimpsed, but not from midnorthern latitudes. It is considerably further
>>away than M31 or M33.
 


>Are there any actual, verifiable naked-eye sightings of NGC 253?  My guide
>book puts it 1.4 mags. dimmer than M33 (7.1 vs. 5.7) and I know M33 is not    
>visible under skies with a limiting magnitude of 5.7.  (stuff deleted)
 
I don't know of any sightings of NGC 253, but it might be possible in > 7th
or so magnitude skies, like Mauna Kea in Hawaii.


>           (stuff deleted)                Unfortunately, I've not seen M33
>under skies with a limiting magnitude of _6.7_.


Oh really, I have seen it in 6.2 magnitude limit skies!


>              (stuff deleted)                     It sounds like the limit
>for galaxies is at least 1 magnitude less than that for stars, so seeing NGC
>253 would imply a star limiting mag. of at least...uhh, 8.0.  Of course, this
>is for MY eyes, and there are doubtlessly people out there with better night
>vision, so your mileage may vary.


I think its more like half a magnitude, as in the case of M33, but it depends
on how extended the galaxy is. More extended galaxies tend to have their magn.
underestimated. If this is so, then NGC 253 may only be 6.5 magnitude and could
be seen from 7.0 magnitude skies (not unreasonable).


>I understand that there is considerable variation in just what
>guides say galactic magnitudes are, so NGC 253 might well be brighter than 
>I guessed.   (stuff deleted)

I agree here.


>Interestingly, M81 appears to be about the same brightness and size as
>NGC 253, so here's a possible stand-in for NGC 253 for us northerners.


Wait, my reference (Edmund's Mag. 6 Star Atlas) shows M81 as 7.9, nearly 
a magnitude dimmer than NGC 253.



>David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
>                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
>(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
>(nash@c.scs.uiuc.edu)       | No binary trees were killed to make it.





G.W. Gliba - 'I would rather see starlight than streetlights'
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: awootten@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Al Wootten)
Subject: Re: What was the name of that damaged observatory?
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:31:22 GMT

That was the Big Bear Solar Observatory, which sits in the middle of
Big Bear Lake.  It is run by Hal Zirin and Co. of Caltech.
--
+--------------------------------------------__---------+
| Alwyn  Wootten  (awootten@nrao.edu) 	     \/	GBT	|
| National Radio Astronomy Observatory        ^         |
| 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475, USA|
| (804)-296-0329 voice  Let's build The Millimeter Array|
| (804)-296-0278 FAX           {>    {>    {>    {>     |
+------------------------------^-----^-----^-----^------+





Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: STONE@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Travis R. Stone)
Subject: Greenwich Sidereal Time Algorithm
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:30:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

Step (i): Calculate the Julian Date (JD) corresponding to
          the target date at 0 hours UT.

Step (ii): Calculate T by the formula below:

                T = (JD - 2415020.0)/36525

Step (iii): Calculate the Sidereal Time at Greenwich at
            0 hours UT from the expression below:

            GST(0) = 6.6460656 + 2400.051262*T + 0.00002581*T*T

            Reduce the result to the interval 0-24 hours by
            subtracting 24 from GST(0) if it's >= 24.

Step (iv): To find the Greenwich Sidereal Time for any instant
           of UT on a given date, express that instant in
           hours and decimals, multiply it by 1.002737908,
           and add it to the GST(0) for that date.

           Say, for example, you wanted the GST on 13 November
           1978 at 4h 34m 00s UT; you would calculate

                        GST(0) = 3.4503696 hours,

                      4h 34m 00s = 4.5666667 hours,

               4.5666667 x 1.002737908 = 4.5791698 hours,

             so GST = GST(0) + 4.5791698 = 8.0295394 hours

                   or (finally!) GST = 8h 01m 46.342s.

Hope this helps.

T. R. Stone
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Heavy Boots
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:37:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Jul30.161658.26111@news.iastate.edu> partee@iastate.edu (Jonathan F Partee) writes:

[recounts that 48 out of 168 people in a course titled "Physics 324 - 
Modern Physics for Engineers" did not know that a pen dropped on the
Moon would fall to the Moon]

Thanks. Could you cross-post that article to talk.origins? Some folks 
over there need to be reminded that, since so many engineering students
know so little about physics (the very foundation of their own field),
it should not be surprising that even more of them don't know diddly 
about evolutionary biology.

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: schnuffi.weigele.de!martin (Martin Weigele)
Subject: IAU Circulars
Organization: M. Weigele
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:50:08 GMT

Are they accessible in electronic form, does anyone know?

Thanks
-- 
Martin Weigele, Kapellenweg 32, D-W-5300 Bonn 2
phone +49 228 333252 home, +49 228 9866385 office
email: martin@weigele.de
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Product/Dealer review
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:07:27 GMT

After a bit of use, I decided my Celestron SP-C80 scope needed two
major improvements: More height (I'm 6'2") and a lower-power finder
that didn't smack me in the forehead. The first need seemed to be adressed
by the  Celestron (actually, Vixen) half-height pier, a 13" extension
for the Super Polaris mount that has the additional advantage of making
it easier to aim at objects near zenith without hitting the tripod legs.
 
Perusal of the various ads in S&T and catalogs showed prices of anywhere
from $105 (Pauli's Wholesale Optics) to $149 + $5.49 shipping (Orion).
A local store also said they'd order it for about $180. I decided to try
Pauli's, and while I was at it, get a Telrad as well ($37, I think.
 
The guy on the phone at Pauli's was actually pretty helpful, and said I
should get the package in about 5 business day, which I did. There were
no hidden charges- just straight UPS plus a 3% credit card surcharge.
They beat the NYC discounters by more than a few bucks.
 
As to the items: The half-height pier does what it's supposed to, though
the price does seem on the high side. Two castings with minor machining
and a piece of tubing. Fine orientation to celestial north is a little
more difficult as well, as you lose the use of the two screws that nudge
the mount back and forth. Still possible, just a little harder. But it
works and did solve my problem.
 
The Telrad is also a nice unit, though pretty crude by modern design and
production standards. It's pretty obviously the product of a small
operation; could use a major redesign that would cut the volume by 3/4,
intergrate the battery holder in a better way and make better use of the
materials involved. It's molded plastic but looks as if it's a copy of
a prototype done in sheet metal or perhaps wood. But it works very well
and certainly met all my expectations. It's great for someone like me
who doesn't know his way around the sky all that well and gets lost at
high magnifications.
 
Summary? Good dealer, two good products.
 
     --mike
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 23.07.1992.
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 23.07.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7229 23N 68W Dao   60   b    7
7232 17N 19W Axx    0   a    1
7234 17S 65W Cao   40   b    3
7235 04S 58W Hrx   20   a
7236 18N 02W Dro   40   b
7237 06N 36W Bxo   10   b


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stndrd@druwa.ATT.COM (DeibertT)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Comet Shoemaker Levy 1991a1
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:12:00 GMT


I viewed Shoemaker Levy 1991a1 on Friday, July 10 at 10pm local
time when it was nearest alpha Ursa Major.  I also saw a definite
nucleus that was brighter.  No signs of a tail, however, (quarter
moon and an urban location).  I estimated the magnitude at 8.2,
using M81 and M82 as references.  A 10" f/4.5 reflector was used.


--

		     Tim Deibert
		     stndrd@druwa.att.com
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 20.07.1992.
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 20.07.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7222 14S 96W Bxo   10   b    1
7225 10S 54W Bxo   20   b
7226 24S 82W Cao   50   b    1
7227 15N 33W Bxo   10   b
7229 23N 30W Dao  110   b    2
7230 14S 07W Bxo   10   b
7232 16N 21E Cao   70   b
7233 05N 92W Axx    0   a
7234 18S 24W Axx    0   a


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Galaxy Formation
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:55:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


gjstephe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Greg J Stephens) writes:
>I would like to know what are the conjectured differences that
>cause a galaxy to become a spiral, elliptical or irregular.

Obviously galaxies start as an irregular clump, gravity pulls them into
an elliptical shape, and then spin momentum conservation cause that to
develop spiral arms.  Its all very simple.... just kidding.

Many irregular galaxies are those which have been gravitationally perturbed
by other galaxies.  Smaller irregulars can be loosely bound star clusters
that only technically should be called galaxies (dwarf ellipticals and the
like).

It has been hypothesized that many and perhaps most of the current elliptical
galaxies are the remnants of galaxy mergers (this is a simple statistical
estimate based on the number of objects in the NCG catalog and the number
which are clearly collisional objects).  It is a possibility that most 
galaxies started out as spirals and many interacted forming the current
population of ellipticals.

If you discard the merger origin of ellipticals, I'm not certain why they
should be so different from spirals.  Just a location with poorly defined
angular momentum?

-- 
The Wailer at the Gates of Dawn              | banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU       |
Just who ARE you calling a FROOFROO Head?    |                             |
DoD#0667  "Just a friend of the beast."      | banshee@ucscb.UCSC.EDU      |
2,3,5,7,13,17,19,31,61,89,107,127,521,607....| banshee@ucscb.BITNET        |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: grav lensing
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Distribution: na,sci
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:41:50 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.051435.12901@athena.mit.edu>, mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:
> 
> > palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David Palmer):
> > 
> > > Suppose that the image forms a ring arc.  Now, take two sources which form
> > > overlapping ring arcs. Now if the observer fires a beam of light backwards
> > > along the direction to the region of overlap.  To which source does the
> > > beam of light go? (It does not split or spray)
> > >
> > > You can also see it by recognizing that gravity is a central force, and so
> > > the image, the source, the mass, and the observer must all lie in the same
> > > plane (by symmetry and angular momentum considerations.
> 
> This is true only for the case of a lens due to a point mass.  Most
> gravitational lenses are due to a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies.
> In GR the lens properties depend on the mass distribution of the lens.
> An elliptical mass distribution forms an elliptical lens. 
> Again I must refer you to Blandford et al (Science 245, 824).  
> The relevant discussion is on p 828.  When the source is in the three image
> region of the lens, "The images are typically at different distance from the
> lens center and are not collinear with it."
> 

*Minor correction*

Actually Palmer's argument is true for any spherically symmetric mass
distribution.  For an axially symmetric mass distribution Palmer's argument
will be valid for an observer on the axis of symmetry.

Pat
Xref: sparky sci.astro:8289 sci.space:10730 news.answers:2231
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: grav lensing
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na,sci
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:21:00 GMT

In article <Brqxpy.2KD@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van
Flandern) writes: 
#     No ring is *perfectly* symmetric.  But for purposes of this discussion,
#the one in question is remarkably symmetric.  We are contrasting what we do
#see with what we should see, which is a ring arc.  -|Tom|-

What we "should" see according to what?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Phobos2-probe UFO pic-pro and contra
Keywords: ufo
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:50:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Committee for Open Access Computing
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>c) Kindly keep ufo discussions off of the sci. groups and erotica groups.
>   You have your forum on alt.alien-visitors and alt.paranormal, keep to
>   them.

Ha!  The Xists will be picking you up first pink boy.
-- 
The Wailer at the Gates of Dawn              | banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU       |
Just who ARE you calling a FROOFROO Head?    |                             |
DoD#0667  "Just a friend of the beast."      | banshee@ucscb.UCSC.EDU      |
2,3,5,7,13,17,19,31,61,89,107,127,521,607....| banshee@ucscb.BITNET        |
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: Quantized Red Shifts
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:12:49 GMT


In article <DWELLS.92Jul21223207@fits.cv.nrao.edu>, dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells) writes:
> ...
> categories. Anyone who is interested in this subject should definitely
> read the Guthrie and Napier paper; I missed it in MNRAS originally,
> and was stunned by the conclusion when I read the paper a few days ago.
> 
I read the Guthrie and Napier paper and discussed it with one of local
xray pulsar experts.  He noted the following problems.

1)  In Figure 2, the peak I value is 18.1.  My local expert used the same
    techinique to analyze xray pulsar data.  When looking for pulsar
    periodicities he considers anything less than 30 uninteresting and often
    saw values of 20 or so from nonperiodic sources.

2)  Galaxy clustering is well established but not well understood.  Thus
    galaxy redshifts should be correlated.  The power spectrum analysis
    (PSA) assumes these correlations are due two underlying periodicities
    even if that is not the case.

I've done some power spectrum analysis and find that getting good results
requires a large number of data points.  Their sample size is so small
I'm not willing to believe their results until it is repeated for a
much larger sample size.

Pat
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Mirror Coatings ???
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.072018.19154@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: I have been using the same coating on my 10" since 1966.  A good one lasts
>: forever!
>
>Depends on how corrosive your atmosphere is. True, the oxide coating that
>forms on the surface is pretty good at stopping corrosion, but it does
>still occur. 
>
Boy is that the truth!  I use to observe with a 6-inch off of a ship
in the ocean.  The salt air consumed the bery. coatings alive -- in
about six months.  Once, I was away from the salt, the coatings started
to last a lot longer.

With both Beryl and uncoated alumiumn, one key is to keep the mirror
very dry in storage.  Sure death is contact with a moist surface (like
a damp rag).  The fewer the cleaning, the better.

These days, I don't think you can go wrong with alum. overcoated with
silicon monoxide.  Very tough stuff.  Seems to stand up to a lot of
cleaning and abuse.  I think it's the best choice unless you live next
to the coaters.

Bob Bunge



Xref: sparky sci.astro:8371 sci.space:10841
From: geiger@niktow.canisius.edu (Tucson Al)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Space probe data
Keywords: data, speed, launch
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:55:52 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208


	I've been working on a space simulation of my own, with planets,
comets, asteroids, moons, and stars, and I need some data in order to 
correctly implement a propulsion-less space probe.  It is being influenced only
by gravity.
	What I need to know is the following:

	What was the speed (in km/s) of the Voyager 1/2 and Pioneer 11/12
spacecraft when they left Earth orbit. (i.e. began their voyages)?
	What direction were they headed (an angle in relation to the Earth or
Sun)?
	How high in orbit did they "start out"?
	What time of day (UT) was it when they were launched?

	I've been struggling with the space probe for the better part of 4 
months, picking relatively obvious values for the above, like an altitude of
20,000km and a speed of 12.0 km/s.  

P.S. please state what the speed is in relation to, the Earth, the Sun, etc.

Thank you for any and all help,

					Doug Geiger
geiger@niktow.cs.canisius.edu
From: wang@cedar.nrl.navy.mil (Dennis Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: ST-4 & PHOTOMETRY - ST-6 ??
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:41:42 GMT
Reply-To: wang@cedar.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Lab

I would like to hear of experiences with the ST-6 camera from SBIG.  I am about to spend $3k on one, probably within the next two weeks.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Subject: Nebula Filters
Reply-To: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:06:59 GMT

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that different Nebula filters were better
at various pupil diameters. Does someone no what this is based on and what
the figures are for Deep Sky, UHC, and OIII?

The reason why is that I have been using a 8" SCT at about 85x for a exit pupil
of about 2.4 for most of my observing. I have an Orion DeepSky filter and for
the most part, I was rather disappointed with the performance even on Nebula.

Recently I switched to a bigger scope and have been using it with an exit
pupil size of about 4.8. Nebula are now MUCH better using the filter.

What gives? Or is it more the fact I have switched to a bigger scope?