Posts Made By: Paul Kammueller

I dunno about you guys, but I can't stop looking at the Titan pictures, particularly the ones that show that sharp 'boundary' across the center face of the planet -- looks for all the world like a coastline on Earth, like North Africa or something, and the dark region being a sea or ocean, complete with 'islands'!

I know nobody's sure what it is yet, not water to be sure, maybe liquid methane, maybe not even liquid, but at any rate it sure looks like a coastline to me. Gives the moon an extraterrestrial yet 'earthy' look that's just eerie in a very sci-fi kind of way. You almost expect to see the U.S.S. Enterprise in orbit over the thing when you look at some of these pictures.

I can't wait to see the pictures from the lander -- the landing zone I think places it at a 'splashdown' between several 'islands'! It could even get washed up on a beach on Titan. 8) January 14th can't get here fast enough!

Though it will never have Trek's numbers, this is quite possibly the best sci-fi series, ever. I'm watching parts of it the 2nd time through now.

Great writing, great execution. Excellent development of characters.

Anybody else anxious? I feel like a little kid waiting for Santa Claus. It's been almost 30 years since we've had lander pictures from a *completely* new, totally unexplored world. Now the time has finally arrived. The anticipation is killing me! :S 8O

It would appear that we have lost one of our own, John Hopkins, a long-time regular poster here.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=291784

Rest in Peace, Friend. You will be missed.

I have argued previously that it would be exceedingly difficult for a god to 'prove' their godhood through a miracle, since almost any conceivable miracle could in principle be performed, or simulated, with command of sufficient energy and technology.

Meanwhile, existing 'evidence' of one or another religion's version of god depends exclusively on hearsay, basically written accounts of long-removed parties that unfortunately from a skeptical standpoint do not get us any farther than accounts of haunting by ghosts or UFO sightings.

So for thought, I submit this: could you be *convinced* of God's existence, if he/she/they posited some logical argument of such strength that you could not find an adequate response to refute it? Say God showed up and told you, "see, I must exist because... blah blah blah." I'm not asking you to think of what such an argument could be (though if you want to so speculate, and say it, go nuts), but just to say, could you, in principle, be so persuaded?

Alrighty then. Here's a fun diversion: Upon further review, some scientists have concluded that the Shroud of Turin could, indeed, be really stinkin' old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm

Comments?

Saw it outside literally just now setting up my scope. Bright orange, caught first site of it near the zenith (this from Saint Paul, MN) as I looked up, streaking due east until finally whuffed out, little closer to horizon than zenith, maybe 35 deg. alt?

Very pretty, sparks flying every step of the way, slow moving, seemed to be going a long time, it was going for several seconds it was almost like watching an airplane.

Anyone else see it? This is the most spectacular meteor I've seen since I was a kid back on the farm.

As long as it was just a drive-by potshot, and not a full-blown sustained post-counterpost duel in a cascading thread, I think it's a venial sin rather than a mortal one.

I'm wrapping up another project and I've got some tough decisions ahead. Basically I've got 2 big scopes and one of 'em has to go. But which?

The contenders:
16" f/3.75-f/18 newt-cass (currently dob-mounted in newt mode only) - short & fat
10" f/8 planet-killer dob -- tall & skinny

The optics:
16" -- bit of a turned edge at the outer periphery -- not sure how much yet but know it's less than the outer 0.5" because at 15" (f/4.0) the star test is perfect. Well-defined diffraction rings, the surface appears extremely smooth, it appears many hours of polishing went into this mirror. Central hole is 6" diameter, for a C.O. of 38% by diameter at 16" or a whopping 40% at 15".

10" -- star test indicates perfect parabolic correction. Intra-focal and extra-focal images are identical, though diffraction rings not as pronounced -- in other words the mirror is figured very well but possibly could have been polished just a bit finer -- but it has given me the best planetary images of any instrument I've ever owned. 1/20th wave secondary, 1.5" (15% CO)

The pros/cons:

16" pros:
1) brightness
2) resolving limit
3) can use without ladder (very cool at this aperture level)
4) larger exit pupil is better for getting around floaters in my eyes
5) will be better at deep-sky if I get a trailer and start hauling it around
6) bulletproof, supersmooth optics inside the outer 1/2"

16" cons:
1) COMA! -- gotta buy a coma corrector $$
2) VERY fussy collimation
3) Cooldown time (mirror is 3" thick!)
4) huge C.O.


10" pros:
1) demonstrated sharpness and contrast
2) current eyepiece collection is built around this scope's characteristics
3) lighter
4) easy collimation

10" cons:
1) very long, need ladder


Should I do the "practical" thing and stick with my 10" f/8, or should I just surrender to aperture fever now, sell the 10" and buy a paracorr? :S

I thought this would be fun.

I remember the first time I discovered that there was such a thing as serious amateur astronomy. Being a kid I had always understood that there were these 60mm telescopes at Montgomery Wards and JC Penneys, and that was it.

Then when I was about 11 or so, about 1979, an uncle and aunt of mine gave me a Celestron catalog they picked up at a photo store somewhere, they thought I'd get a kick out of it because they knew that I was a space-crazy kid. Big glossy photos of big orange telescopes, long-exposure astrophotos, specs on resolution, aperture, etc.

They had no idea the long-term damage they had just done. 8)