Posts Made By: K. Michael Malolepszy

I saw ONE Gemind last night under my wonderful dome of light pollution. Of course, I wasn't much in the mood to spend a lot of time outside in the cold since I already spent most of the day yesterday in the cold - in my office (HVAC problems at work)...however, I had no problem finding Comet C/2004 Q2 (Machholz) with 10X50 bincoulars. It was quite easy to find as long as I'm not string right into a street light and has been an easy city binocular object for at least a week. No tail or fanning visible in the binoculars. Looked light a very bright globular in the binoculars.

I used this chart which I had NO problem reading in the ambient light outside:


http://www.skyhound.com/sh/2004_Q2.gif

Other info at:

http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/charts.html

http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/

http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/comets/article_1396_1.asp

http://cometography.com/lcomets/2004Q2.html

Images:

http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2004Q2/pictures.html

Get this month's skymap - a very helpful, 2-page sheet with an
all-sky map, info on astronomical events and explanations - at
the Skymaps download page:

http://skymaps.com/downloads.html

You may need to download and install Adobe Acrobat Reader to open this sky map;

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Also of help is the Abrams planetarium Skywatcher's Diary:

http://www.pa.msu.edu/abrams/SkyWatchersDiary/Diary.html

If it's clear Jan. 7, 8 where you are located, try finding
comet Malchholz. Try finding it with binoculars first - it's
located right next to a very easy to see cluster of stars called the Pleiades/Seven Sisters/M45. It's a cluster you've probably already noticed in your sky, even though you may not have known what it is. Then try finding it with your telescope, Info at:

http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/comets/article_1396_1.asp

For the next couple of days this comet will appear as a small, but fairly easy to see fuzzy patch of light next to M45:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05jan_machholz.htm

One of our members observing through the Yerkes 41 inch reflector...

Club members checking out the Yerkes 40 inch.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/209/89.php

Ratzinger answers contraception advocates in new book


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says in his new book that blaming the world´s perceived population problems on the Church´s anti-contraception stance is "complete nonsense".

God and the World: Believing and Living In Our Time (Ignatius Press) is based on three days of interviews between journalist Peter Seewald and Cardinal Ratzinger at the Italian Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino. Ratzinger is the Prefect of the Vatican´s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The 460-page collection of questions covers a wide range of topics, such as the existence of heaven and hell, God´s mercy, the crisis of faith, and whether Jews should acknowledge Christ as the Messiah.

Regarding population-growth problems in the Third World and the blame that is laid on the Church´s teachings against contraception, Cardinal Ratzinger responded, "This, of course, is complete nonsense."

"The misery is the result of a breakdown of the moral sense that once gave order to life," he said. That moral sense, in fact, "prevented the great misery we can see nowadays," he added.

Later the cardinal said: "The misery comes not from large families, but from the irresponsible and undisciplined procreation of children who have no father, and often no mother, and who, as street children, have to suffer the real distress of a spiritually distorted world."

I have no doubt that we will have (if we don't already) the technological means to replace oil. The question is, will we have the political will to do something before it becomes a severe problem even though it may hurt Big Oil's profits in the short term? That's what I'm afraid of...

[QUOTE]Jim Babcock said:

You can find predictions that are wrong and any possible statement to prove your preconceived ideas if you look hard enough:

I hope you are right and the experts are wrong. But what if they aren't? Even if a "solution" appears, how long will it take to implement it?

From:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7549530/

" ...And it will be a long time before those alternatives become widely available and abundant enough to cool the demand for petroleum. Part of the problem is that the global economy is dependent — not just on oil — but on the sprawling production and distribution system that's been developed over the past century to deliver petroleum products to consumers.

“Frankly, even if we had the technology right now to supplant the current energy system with something new and sustainable that was cheap and wonderful it would still take us several decades to do it because its such a big enterprise,” said Richard Smalley, a Nobel-prize winning physicist at Rice University in Houston. “But we don’t even remotely have that right now. And even if we get really intent about this we'd be lucky to get those breakthroughs with the next 10 to 20 years.”

Agreed - it is sad that we still need the British to give us lessons on how to speak english.

Nils Schoultz said:

That's great, thanks. It's a bit sad that we have to find two Brits to debate the war for us, but it's still better than the non-debate we have in our political life. And they are both funny. I give the edge to Galloway, although he is a bit of a publicity hound. Hitchens has turned into a real piece of work. I remember one bit he wrote before our last election where he blasted people who were (baselessly in his view) speculating on Bush's health/alcoholism. In the very same article he proceeded to expand in sordid detail on his personal theory that Bush's ascendancy had begun when Laura cut him off from marital comforts until he straightened up. Like a lot of what he writes, it was brilliant in presentation but utterly moronic in content.
Nils

This plan may not survive Katrina... perhaps NASA won't either in it's current form:

------------------------

"Lawmakers Prepare Plans to Finance Storm Relief

By CARL HULSE

Published: September 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend
on Wednesday more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to
compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina as lawmakers continue to
struggle to develop a consensus on the fiscal approach to the disaster.

At the top of a partial list of the potential cuts being circulated on
Tuesday were previously suggested ideas like delaying the start of the
new Medicare prescription drug coverage for one year to save $31 billion
and eliminating $25 billion in projects from the newly enacted
transportation measure.

The list also proposed eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA
announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings; ending support for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $4 billion; cutting taxpayer
payments for the national political conventions and the presidential
election campaign fund, $600 million; and charging federal employees for
parking, $1.54 billion."

[continued at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21cong.html

Oh, and that Shuttle thingy? Kiss it goodbye next year:

"Is OMB Considering Shuttle Termination?

Editor's note: David Radzanowski at OMB issued an action to NASA at the
beginning of September asking the agency to provide him with an estimate
of what shutdown costs would result from a termination of the Space
Shuttle program in FY 2006. NASA provided a response to OMB on 9
September."

http://www.nasawatch.com/

Sure, at first glance this looks just like a replay of
Apollo, but if you examine the idea you may begin to
think that this really isn't a bad plan after all.
Neither does Neil Armstrong who said, "This proposal
has substantial merit and promise..."

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-03-12-armstrong-space_x.htm
)

Consider this about the Return to the Moon plan.

1) It is seen as a lead-up to a Mars mission, not just
a replay of Apollo. The CEV is envisioned as a general
purpose vehicle that can do LEO, Lunar and Mars
missions. Going back to the moon is just the first
step. It is a way of building a sustainable, safer
space transportation system that is much more flexible
than the Shuttle at minimum cost by using shuttle
derived components.

"The new spacecraft can be configured either to
support human explorers or fly unpiloted to carry
cargo. Its design allows the flexibility to ferry
crews of three astronauts, plus additional supplies,
to and from the International Space Station, take four
crew members to lunar orbit, and eventually maintain
up to six astronauts on a mission to Mars."

"The study lays out a deliberate, milestone-driven
journey to the moon for NASA. Returning to the moon
and sustaining a presence there will demonstrate
humans can survive on another world, and will build
confidence that astronauts can venture still farther
into space and stay for longer periods. NASA's return
to the moon will open opportunities for fundamental
science in astrobiology, lunar geology, exobiology,
astronomy and physics."

(from NASA releases plans for next generation
spacecraft -
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19moonmars/ )

2) The CEV will be launched using a largely reusable
SRB-derived stack.

3) The CEV itself may be re-used up to 10 times.

4) The Lunar Return architecture has the capability to
land anywhere on the moon, not just the equatorial
regions that Apollo was limited to. This means we
will be able to really prospect for potential water
sources at the polar regions - and perhaps use them if
they are there.

5) This plan will be able to land up to 21 metric tons
of cargo on the moon's surface per dedicated cargo
mission. Such a capability opens up the possibility of
landing enough equipment on the moon to "live off the
land" if that is possible. This will be something we
need to learn to do if we are going to go to Mars with
something other than just a "Flag and Footprints"
mission.

6) It will be much safer vehicle than Shuttle due to
the use of an Apollo era idea - the Launch Escape System,
combined with putting the crew / command module on top
of the stack to begin with.

Sure, one can think if more immediately exciting
missions, like going directly to Mars. But that is one
mighty expensive "Flags and Footprints" proposition.
We need something sustainable, affordable and
flexible. I think this plan has merits in all those
areas.

Also, see

How We'll Get Back to the Moon

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html

Architecture Fact Sheet:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133820main_ESAS_Facts.pdf

Exploration Systems website:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/

FAQs:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev_faq.html

NASA releases plans for next generation spacecraft

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19moonmars/

NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/