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 -