HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:35:02 GMT

Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>njzy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) writes:
>> At the risk of displaying considerable ignorance, I have always 
>> understood the cosmological constant to be an integration constant.

The cosmological constant is a principle natural constant which must be put
into the (field) theory a priori like the elementary electromagnetic charge, 
or the fermion masses (or Yukawa coupling constants, if you consider the
Standard Model of particle physics). In the theory, it appears as a constant 
parameter that can be fitted to experiments, but is fixed besides that.
(these constants can not just be absorbed in units like "c" and "hbar"
or eventually "G").

[Postulates and discussion of Einstein eq's omitted]

>In 1917, Einstein decided that he had to remove at least one of the above
>assumptions to be able to get a field equation which admits a static
>cosmology.  ["MTW"-like discussion, and note on "H", omitted]

It's not true that Einstein wanted to obtain a static universe, instead of
this is often claimed. See your citation [1] in the "Sitzungsberichte", if 
you have access. His point was, instead, Mach's principle: 
  The inertia of massive bodies should be due to relative acceleration 
  against each other, not the "absolute space", and caused by a universal
  interaction, i.e. gravity. So, in a consequent theory of relativity, the
  inertia should diminish to zero if putting one mass into infinite distance
  from all others. 
To make this impossible, Einstein was looking for a 3-space with finite
volume, and obtained this by the introduction of Lambda. Contrary to what
(e.g.) ron@mlfarm.com (Ronald Florence) writes and is published in most 
books, he had *not* in mind any astronomical facts, but only theoretical
arguments, at that moment (of course he realized this fact later, before
Hubble's observations).

\begin{thebibliography}
[1] A. Einstein,
>          "Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativatstheorie,"
>          Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitzber.  142-152.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 17 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:37:00 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 230, 08/17/92
10.7 FLUX=133.8  90-AVG=126        SSN=141      BKI=2200 1001  BAI=002
BGND-XRAY=B3.9     FLU1=1.5E+05  FLU10=1.2E+04  PKI=1111 1221  PAI=005
  BOU-DEV=015,014,004,004,009,004,004,008   DEV-AVG=007 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C3.8   @ 1845UT    XRAY-MIN= B3.2   @ 0730UT   XRAY-AVG= B5.6
NEUTN-MAX= +003%  @ 1325UT   NEUTN-MIN= -002%  @ 2315UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.3%
  PCA-MAX= +0.3DB @ 0615UT     PCA-MIN= -0.2DB @ 0700UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55264NT @ 1353UT   BOUTF-MIN=55225NT @ 1709UT  BOUTF-AVG=55249NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+107NT@ 1902UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 0359UT  G7-AVG=+083,+036,+008
GOES6-MAX=P:+116NT@ 2010UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-007NT@ 1123UT  G6-AVG=+095,+004,+028
 FLUXFCST=STD:133,133,130;SESC:135,135,130 BAI/PAI-FCST=020,015,010/030,015,010
    KFCST=3445 5443 2334 4333  27DAY-AP=011,046   27DAY-KP=1222 3432 2366 6353
 WARNINGS=*SWF
   ALERTS=**245STRM:0606-2319UTC
!!END-DATA!!
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff Papineau)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Comment: First Gazing; Query: Eyepieces
Keywords: eyepieces, eyerelief, kids
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:47:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <bic.714070738@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu> bic@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Bruce Cohen) writes:
>Comment:
>
>
>Question:
>
>	The C4.5 came with a 25mm eyepiece.  I have budgeted $200 for more
>eyepieces.  I have noticed that Televue has a 3 for the price of 2 sale
>going on.  What do people think about a 40mm, 7.4mm, and a 2.5x barlow?
>Would I be better off getting 4 orthoscopic eyepieces?  Has anyone
>used the new Vixen eyepieces that are supposed to offer 20mm of eye relief?
>My wife's eyes suffer from astigmatism.  I have some (but not much) hope of
>getting her to join me in this stargazing venture.  It is more likely that
>my kids will join me.  I am not sure that eye relief is so important for
>kids.
>
>	Comments and suggestion will be appreciated.
>
>
 I have been looking into this myself, in anticipation of buying a Newtonian.
I believe the best wide-field in the 1 1/4" is the 32mm Plosel. This is
the widest field available for that size. Also, the 10.5 Plosel and the
1.8 Barlow are good choices. I think the 10.5 is better than the 7.4, 
since yu can use the barlow to get either 5.2mm or 4, depending on
the barlow. Remember, the 300x limit for your 4 inch scope. Practicle
maximum may be closer to 250x.

Please forward peoples comments regarding the Televu sale. I may just do
this myself. My buddy thinks that the Feb. Orion eyepiece sale is the way
to go, but I think I want better eyepieces than Orthoscopic, they only have
a 25mm Plossel, and their WideField stuff is pretty expensive. Not sure
I will want to wait that long.

Does anyone have comments on the Orion Plossels compared to the Televu?
Also, can someone tell me what typical sale prices in Feb. are like
at Orion?
What's you favorite eyepiece in a 1 1/4?

Jeff-
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: drabik@tech.ascom.ch (Pascal &)
Subject: Black holes
Organization: Ascom Tech Ltd., Freiburgstrasse 370, CH-3018 Berne, Switzerland
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:21:43 GMT

Hi,

   I would like to know whether a black hole has been detected up to
now.

   I have been told recently that they can explode at the end of their
life, although I still don't understand really how is it possible. If
this is true, it could be possible to detect such explosion in the
sky.

   Regards,

Pascal.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Pascal DRABIK            Tel:     +41 31-999-32-22        % You'll never %
Ascom Tech Ltd.              Telefax: +41 31-999-36-07        %  know until  %
Freiburgstrasse, 370                                          %  you try...  %
CH-3018 Berne                e-mail : drabik@tech.ascom.ch    % ~~~~~~~~~~~~ %
Switzerland                                                   % ~  ~~~~~~  ~ %
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: Cleaning Eyepieces
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:24:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.060919.7967@news.iastate.edu> F1.DAO@isumvs.iastate.edu (David Oesper) writes:

>Here's how I clean my telescope eyepieces (only when absolutely
>necessary!):

<OK method for cleaning in place deleted>

>What techniques do others of you use and recommend?

I use Kleenex and pure ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. Q-tips are best
wrapped in Kleenex.

It is very hard indeed to get a lens clean all over, really clean,
while its in a mount.

I've gotten over my squeemishness and now carefully remove the lenses
from the mount for cleaning. Here's the **correct** way to clean optics
(and yes folks, this is official ... optics is my business, cheap
optics, expensive optics, very expensive very fragile optics (like
$2000 per 1 cm square surface)):


You have the optic, sans mount, in your gloved hands (gloves not necessary if
the edges are wide enough to grap without hitting the polished faces).
You get a piece of Kleenex (or even better, Kodak lens tissue, not
a cheap substitute - better Kleenex than other lens tissue) and fold it
in half lengthwise (i.e. about 10x3 inches). You put about 1 inch of it
on the edge of your desk, and put a weight on it to hold it in place.
The other 9 inches you hold off the edge of the table, holding it tight.
You then place a few drops of alcohol on about 2 inches out from
the table on the tissue. You then **carefully** place the lens in the
wet area, jiggle it a bit, and slowly drag it out into the dry area.
This leaves the dirt behind, and wipes off any residue of alcohol
rather than letting it -- and any dissolved crud in it -- evaporate.

Use **pure** ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. Not adulterated with perfumes,
etc. Ethyl alcohol denatured with methanol is OK.  Try to get reagent grade
isopropyl ("ACS Certified" in the US) or USP grade ethyl alcohol 100%
(200 proof). I use the ethyl, its cheap in our storeroom, and made
from very patriotic Illinois corn just down the road :-)

I've measured laser reflectances from mirrors cleaned this way as high as
99.993% ("SuperCavity" Fabry-Perot etalon plates).

I should add that the eyepieces I've taken apart are all fairly simple ones.
No Naglers.


Doug McDonald  

Laser Physicist
From: ce062@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel B Stuckey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: M33 naked-eye object.
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:04:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


  Originally I wrote...

>     I checked the galaxies you listed with the NED (NASA extra-
>   galactic database) and found the following magnitudes listed;
>
>     NGC 7335-14.44
>     NGC 7336-15
>     NGC 7337-15.24
>     NGC 7340-14.68
>
>    the database did not distinguish between photographic and
>   visual magnitudes. However it may be due to the size of the
>   galaxy and its surface brightness. Keep in mind that M33 is
>   listed as mag 6.5! which makes it a naked eye object. This
>   may be the reason for your discrepancy

  And your reply...
  
>But M33 *is* a naked-eye object.  At least it is if the sky is
>particularly clear and dark, and the observer has reasonably sensitive
>eyesight for fuzzy objects.  Mag 6.5 sounds a bit low to me.
>
>I've seen it with the naked eye precisely twice in my life.  Both
>times required averted vision.  The slightest haze wipes it out to the
>naked eye and it doesn't take much to spoil the view in binoculars.
>
>The point is that surface brightness, compactness and the presence or
>absence of abrupt changes in brightness across the object are vitally
>important factors in the visibility of nebulous objects.  Sometimes,
>one object many magnitudes brighter than another is nonetheless
>considerably more difficult to detect.

 Paul, I agree that M33 is a naked eye object and I believe thats
what I said in my original message (g). The point I was trying to
make is that galactic magnitudes have to be taken with a grain of
salt, and factors such as angular size have a tremendous impact on the
percieved magnitude. Something which you eloquently stated in your
reply.

                                              Thanks
                                              Joel

-- 
Joel B Stuckey     STUCKE98@SNYBUFVA.CS.SNYBUF.EDU
                   CIS 73177,3460
                   Buffalo State College, Buffalo NY
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Date: 12 Aug 1992 13:21:00 -0700
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>     Consider the Big Bang.  The idea began with the observation of a
>redshift-brightness correlation.

You keep repeating this same historically incorrect statement.  Einstein
was already aware that GR requires expansion/contraction of the universe
in 1917 when he wrote
	"Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativatstheorie,"
	Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitzber.  142-152.
Friedmann Cosmology was born with Friedmann's 1922 paper
	"Uber die Krummung des Raumes," Z. Phys. 10, 377-386.
The same idea was derived independently by Lemaitre in 1927 (sorry, no
reference).

On the other hand, the observation of the redshift-brightness correlation
was not made until 1929, published by Hubble as
	"A relation between distance and radial velocity among extragalactic
	nebulae," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S. 15, 169-173.

Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
Internet:   richard@locus.com		 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard	  I ndependence and
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET	   F reedom!
From: ted@physics1 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Formulae for projections of sky maps?
Date: 16 Aug 1992 01:13:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics1.berkeley.edu

Can anybody point me towards a reference that lists formulae for
the various projections of full-sky maps to two dimensions?
I don't even know what the different projections are called, but
what I'm looking for are the two or three most common ones.

Thanks a lot,

-Ted
(ted@physics.berkeley.edu)
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Date: 17 Aug 1992 18:28:42 -0700
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:

>>Not really.  Einstein's wanted a field equation of the form
>>        G' = 8*pi*T
>>where G' is a measure of curvature of space-time, T is stress-energy,
>>and the 8*pi is there by convention.

>Actually (to nit pick, maybe this is what you mean by convention),
>this form is necessary to have the equation converge to the Newtonian
>        (del squared) phi = 4 pi G rho,
>in the nonrelativistic limit.

Yes, and I said in that posting that "the multiplicative constant is
determined by requiring the theory to agree with Newtonian gravitation
in the Newtonian limit."  What I meant when I said that the constant was
8*pi by convention was the 8*pi or any other constant could be hidden in
the identification of G' with the standard G tensor.  G or G' could just
have well have had the factor of 8*pi incorporated within its definition
in terms of R and g.  I could have started with
	G' = T
and ended up discovering that
	G'[ab] = 8*pi*R[ab] + (lambda + 4*pi*R)*g[ab]

Richard M. Mathews			D efend
Internet:   richard@locus.com		 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard	  I ndependence
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET
From: evm@opo.vanc.wa.us
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: inexpensive equitorial mounts
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:22:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: opo.1992Aug16.102224.22
Organization: OuterPlane Observatory, Vancouver, Wa

In article <1992Aug16.034249.13264@panix.com>, reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:
> I am currently trying to decide between building a telescope (6-8"
> Newtonian) and buying a commericially available telescope.  The
> biggest stumbling block to building a telescope is that I can't find
> an affordable equitorial mount.
> 
> Meade's Starfinder mount cost more than a complete 8" Starfinder
> system.  Celestron's Super Polaris isn't much better (price wise).
> University Optics has an ad in Sky & Telescope for an equitoral head
> that can be put on a pier or a tripod made of 2x4's, but according to
> the insert I got with the catalog in June they have cancelled this
> item.  I'm going to call them on Monday to see if the insert I have is
> older than their ad.
> 
> Can anyone point me towards other suppliers of equitorial mounts?
> What do people think of the quality, durability and steadiness of the
> above mentioned mounts?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> -- 
> Brian Reynolds
> reynolds@panix.com
> NAR# 54438
> IPMS# 30162
-- 

	Do what many do. Buy the complete system be it a SPC80, SPC8 or what 
have you. Keep the mount and offer the OTA for sale.

........	........	........	........	........
Ethan VanMatre		206-254-2310 H	  Have you counted your photons today?
Outerplane Observatory	206-693-1810 W	
17104 ne 35th Cir	evm@opo.vanc.wa.us	PHOTOELECTRIC PHOTOMETRY
Vancouver, Wa 98682				on a Budget
........	........	........	........	........
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: CPLS13@email.mot.com (Steven_Cohn)
Subject: Times for sundown
Organization: Motorola_CoveragePLUS
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:55:28 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro

Does anybody know where i can find a program/algorithm to calculate
when sunrise and sundown is given latitude and longitude? (sorry if this is
an FAQ - I have never browsed this group before).  I would appreciate if
you could either post it here, or email it to me, as I don't have ftp
access.

Steven Cohn
Motorola CoveragePLUS Engineering
CPLS13@EMAIL.MOT.COM
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Effective Temperatures
Summary: There are no simple answers 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:47:00 GMT

In article <6189@otc.otca.oz>, richardp@otc.otca.oz.au (Richard Pulley) writes...
			...
>I have the
>following table for computing effective temperatures for a star:
> 
		[table deleted]
> 
>Does anyone have similar information on type O stars, and white dwarfs? Is there
>a simple formula for this table??
>-- 

Check the journals.  Over recent years you will find more than one 
effective temperature scale.  You will then have to make judgments 
about which ones to use and how to weight them.  By the same token, if 
the tabulated scale is used to generate published results, the paper 
should say how it was obtained from the scales in the literature.  It 
looks like there has been a good deal of smoothing.
					Barry Schlesinger
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: davecole@cie.uoregon.edu (Dave Cole)
Subject: Re: Film Hypering
Keywords: hyper
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:13:26 GMT

Dominique,
  I have avoided using film wound in the can...  I will have to try it.  Do 
you have any other hypering info for other films?  Have you attempted 2415
hypered in the can?
 
  Do you see any signes of uneven hypering on the unexposed sections of film
when it is hypered in the can?
 
  Also can you re-send the times you use for HG-400.  I lost them.  Cleaned
my MBOX and forgot to save the article.
 
Thanks,
Dave



Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: conjunction predictions
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:11:05 GMT

     Just how easy is it to predict conjunctions?  I had been asked recently
     how often the triple conjunction of Mars, Venus, and Jupiter (last year)
     occurred, and had little fits trying to figure this out based on angular
     differences measured from the Sun, even assuming circular, coplanar 
     orbits.

     What is the proper method of doing this?  Matching synodic periods?
     Orbital integration?

Arnold Gill
--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 15 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:47:33 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 228, 08/15/92
10.7 FLUX=130.5  90-AVG=125        SSN=122      BKI=2231 1023  BAI=007
BGND-XRAY=B3.6     FLU1=*.*E+**  FLU10=*.*E+**  PKI=2241 2233  PAI=011
  BOU-DEV=014,014,039,009,008,004,019,031   DEV-AVG=017 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C1.1   @ 1735UT    XRAY-MIN= B3.2   @ 2103UT   XRAY-AVG= B4.1
NEUTN-MAX= +005%  @ 2305UT   NEUTN-MIN= -002%  @ 0350UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.9%
  PCA-MAX= +0.2DB @ 0705UT     PCA-MIN= -1.0DB @ 2325UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55266NT @ 1339UT   BOUTF-MIN=55217NT @ 1712UT  BOUTF-AVG=55249NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+111NT@ 2102UT   GOES7-MIN=N:-015NT@ 0659UT  G7-AVG=+077,+043,+008
GOES6-MAX=P:+125NT@ 2102UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-006NT@ 1245UT  G6-AVG=+088,+006,+030
 FLUXFCST=STD:125,125,120;SESC:125,125,120 BAI/PAI-FCST=010,015,020/010,015,030
    KFCST=3332 2222 3333 3333  27DAY-AP=004,008   27DAY-KP=1101 1221 2201 3332
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Laser Guide Star observations
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:37:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Finding the beam on again after midnight 8/14/92, I observed the
normally orange-red color of the beam changed to a bright orange-
yellow, rather like the color of one of those Ticonderoga pencils
of school days, where the beam passed through a high cloud layer.

This "pencil" changed a bit in form and intensity as the clouds
moved slowly over Livermore, but was very much brighter than the
rest of the beam.  About an hour later, viewing from our mountain
site 20 miles south of LLNL, the "pencil" was very easy to spot
at an angle of 14 degrees from the horizontal, well above the local
horizon.  This in spite of the bright moon and generally hazy skies.

Now that we know where to look, the fun promises to intensify!

trr
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice   WB6BYH                   Holler Observatory - 
tomrice@netcom.com                     Longitude:  121 d  30 m  20 s W 
CIS: 71160,1122                        Latitude:    37 d  25 m  10 s N 
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Re: Palomar Visits?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.120040.2849@mlfarm.com>, ron@mlfarm.com (Ronald Florence) writes...
>Jeff Stoner writes:
> 
>   I'll be visiting out in San Diego over Labor Day weekend and was wondering
>   what, if any, facilities Mt. Palomar has for daytime casual visitors? 
> 
>There is a small museum with exhibits, a tiny store for souvenirs, and
>a visitor's gallery in the dome of the 5-meter Hale telescope.  The
>gallery provides a good view of the 5-meter telescope; the glass is to
>insulate the telescope from the body heat of visitors.  Just outside
>the visitor's gallery (across the walk) you can see the concrete dummy
>disc that was used to balance the telescope while the primary mirror
>was being figured.
> 
>There is a marked parking lot and walk for visitors.  The Oschin
>(48-inch Schmidt), the 18-inch Schmidt, and Oscar-Meyer (60-inch
>Richie-Chretien) telescopes, the machine shops, and the Monastery have
>no provisions for visitors.
>-- 
Well, they have no provisions for the CASUAL visitor.  It may be possible,
if people write to the assistant director, for them to get a tour of
some of these other facilities (I've given such tours on a few occasions).
Also, the Reuben H. Fleet museum in San Diego has monthly tours of the
observatory given by some poor, unfortunate grad student...like me :-) and
there are also tours given on the third Saturday of every month for groups
(like schools, astro clubs, etc., but these must also be arranged through the
observatory).

Please note, however, that the people at the observatory have more important
things to do than to give guided tours.  This is a working scientific facility,
and the staff and observers MUST prepare for their night's observing.
Personal guided tours by an observer (or someone else from Caltech astronomy)
are done strictly at the behest of that individual.

The address to write to arrange a tour is:
		Dr. Robert Brucato
		Palomar Observatory
		105-24 Caltech
		Pasadena, CA 91125
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------