New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

Canth · 2002-07-07 13:34:08

I have the national audobon society's feild guide to the night sky which is a great refrence for many astronomy things including identifying constellations etc. It has some beautiful photographs of the constellations to help identify them as well as star charts perfect for use with binoculars and a wealth of information on the planets and constellatations. The star charts aren't quite detailed enough for the best use with a telescope but it is an excellent book for night sky familiarity and binoculars. If you want some telescope material I reccomend star hopping for the ametuer astronomer which has some excellent star hopping trips all planned out, it is a good book to use to get into telescopic observing, as well as see such famous objects as the ring nebula and the whirlpool galaxy. If you are good at building things you might want to consider building your own telescope. I reccomend going to the library and seeing which books you like as well as reading up on astronomy and telescopes. Keep using your binoculars, don't rush into getting a telescope, with something this expensive it is a good idea to take your time and see what the best scope is for you.

Phobos · 2002-07-07 19:57:53

Thanks for the great info. You two will probably hear from me again when I screw everything up. As for building telescopes, me and mechanical things don't get along to well. I'll probably just get one pre-made.

Canth · 2002-07-08 09:35:41

I have very little mechannical aptitude myself. Good luck.

Palomar · 2002-08-15 18:21:51

*Groan. Just what this Jane Q. Public DOESN'T want to hear:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....ce_news

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-15 18:25:24

*Isn't THIS the truth?! Lots of good online articles at Yahoo! today...

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2002 … 10429s.htm

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-15 21:44:45

*Groan. Just what this Jane Q. Public DOESN'T want to hear:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....ce_news
--Cindy

Very depressing. Maybe they'll be able to regain communications with it after tweaking around a bit. I just hope something like this doesn't happen with the Pluto probe they plan to send. I'd take that really hard.

*Groan. Just what this Jane Q. Public DOESN'T want to hear:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....ce_news
--Cindy

What's up with all of this war mongering over Iraq? Even if Saddam is the most evil bastard on Earth (I think he could certainly be a runner up to such a title) there's something suspicious about this sudden demonization of Iraq that we're hearing. I think there's several possible scenarios at work here. One, Bush thinks going to war with Iraq and looking like a tough guy would help him in the polls; two, the people in charge want to install a puppet government in Iraq that would be friendly to the USA (even if it's not to its own people) and thus give us greater hegemony over that area. Iraq is a stripped down little dictatorship, and I don't really buy all of this BS about Saddam being some great terrorist threat. I think that's just a line we're being fed to pump up public support for the eradication of Iraq as we know it. I'm not just bashing on Bush here, I think Clinton was just as much of a warmonger. Personally, I don't have much love for either of them. So to make a long story short, I think we should mold these urges for war into more productive pursuits like building bases on the Moon or Mars.

Byron · 2002-08-16 07:07:53

What's up with all of this war mongering over Iraq? Even if Saddam is the most evil bastard on Earth (I think he could certainly be a runner up to such a title) there's something suspicious about this sudden demonization of Iraq that we're hearing. I think there's several possible scenarios at work here. One, Bush thinks going to war with Iraq and looking like a tough guy would help him in the polls; two, the people in charge want to install a puppet government in Iraq that would be friendly to the USA (even if it's not to its own people) and thus give us greater hegemony over that area. Iraq is a stripped down little dictatorship, and I don't really buy all of this BS about Saddam being some great terrorist threat. I think that's just a line we're being fed to pump up public support for the eradication of Iraq as we know it. I'm not just bashing on Bush here, I think Clinton was just as much of a warmonger. Personally, I don't have much love for either of them. So to make a long story short, I think we should mold these urges for war into more productive pursuits like building bases on the Moon or Mars.

I agree with you 100%. The only reasons Bush is pulling this crap over Iraq and Saddam is to avenge his father, and to boost his own standings in the polls. (like that's really going to work) Personally, I think if we do manage to knock off Saddam, we would end up with someone even worse in his place, like his crazy son. We've got Iraq locked up under house and key, and there is very little evidence that Iraq is pursuing any sort of large-scale program of producing weapons of mass destruction...so why do we need to invade Iraq?

All this is beginning to look a lot like the actions of an arrogant, ageing empire throwing its weight around just because it can...let's stop this totally *unneccesary* war mongering right now and focus on the things that matter, like getting the human race into space once and for all.

B

Palomar · 2002-08-16 08:56:18

[I agree with you 100%. The only reasons Bush is pulling this crap over Iraq and Saddam is to avenge his father, and to boost his own standings in the polls. (like that's really going to work) Personally, I think if we do manage to knock off Saddam, we would end up with someone even worse in his place, like his crazy son. We've got Iraq locked up under house and key, and there is very little evidence that Iraq is pursuing any sort of large-scale program of producing weapons of mass destruction...so why do we need to invade Iraq?
All this is beginning to look a lot like the actions of an arrogant, ageing empire throwing its weight around just because it can...let's stop this totally *unneccesary* war mongering right now and focus on the things that matter, like getting the human race into space once and for all.
B

*That, and protecting the Bush family OIL INTERESTS in the region. What I'm always wondering is why the UK always backs the USA up on these sorts of moves. What's in it for the UK? Just curious. And of course Israel is urging the USA to attack Iraq; I think we can afford NOT to listen to the grumblings of the old Judaism versus Islam hatemongering which infests the area -- the religious component in all of this, including Christianity in the mix, is volatile enough as it is.

And let's not forget that the USA also somehow still considers Fidel Castro and Cuba as some sort of "viable threat." It is to laugh. Lift the sactions off of Cuba once and for all; it's embarrassing to me as a USA citizen how my nation treats a little backward pipsqueak country like Cuba...as if communism in the year 2002 is such a "terrible threat." This isn't 1962, let's move on and quit punishing Cuba for not being democratic. Geesh.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-16 09:24:12

Quotes from Yahoo article cited above:

As a result, one astronaut and two cosmonauts on the International Space Station have only Russian spaceships to rely on for supplies or a possible emergency trip back to Earth. In short, Russia now rules in space.
What happened? Space exploration lost its ''sex appeal'' for our politicians. There no longer is a bad guy to beat up there. So Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein make better emotional targets.
The Bush administration's lack of care about the space program was emphasized this week. Vice President Dick Cheney landed here amid secrecy aboard Air Force Two. Thousands of space workers were high with hope he would spotlight the importance of getting back into the space business.
Instead, Cheney spent all day nearby at sea aboard the USS Wyoming, a nuclear submarine named after his home state. Not a nod nor a word about our crippled space program.
What a difference from the days of John F. Kennedy. He understood that the nation which is No. 1 in space ultimately will be No. 1 on Earth.

I agree and disagree with this -

Soyuz and Progress are the most efficient active launch vehicles for taking people and supplies to LEO, thus, perhaps in the civilian sphere Russia does "rule space"

However, in the event of war between the USA and Russia, US Space Command would quickly kill any and all Russian space assets that might possibly have any military use.

The USA is the only nation able to easily dominate all of LEO - from a military perspective - should the need to do so arise. This article does demonstrate the priorities of the current administration, however, I never - ever - had any illusions GWBush cared about space other than to establish US military supremacy.

Of course, JFK and Apollo was all about proving whether USA or USSR had technological superiority. Since that question no longer exists, I am not sure that JFK is the best role model for space advocates. The battles to include geologists on the Apollo missions should demonstrate this nicely, IMHO.

"Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership" is a collection of essays on this subject but the title says it all.

Palomar · 2002-08-16 10:02:38

The battles to include geologists on the Apollo missions should demonstrate this nicely, IMHO.

*Bill, would you please elaborate on this point? I'm not familiar with this element in the Apollo missions. Thanks!

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-16 11:34:35

*Bill, would you please elaborate on this point? I'm not familiar with this element in the Apollo missions. Thanks!

Harrison "Jack" Schmidt was the only scientist to fly with Apollo. The rest were fighter pilots - like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. My reading suggests that making these pilots pay attention in geology class was quite difficult - and funny.

"Hey - I fly jets and shoot down Commies - who cares about a bunch of dumb rocks anyways!"

My reading also suggests that the science community had to lobby NASA very very hard to add time for serious science during the EVAs and to even get Schmidt on his mission.

There are some wonderful books and videos about all of this - titles escape me at this moment but others on this forum can likely suggest their favorites.

I have a 6 or 7 video tape collection of a fictional re-anactment of each Apollo mission and my family and I have all watched it - very entertaining as well as informative.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-17 01:16:11

Hi Cindy and Bill !
"A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin is my bible on this subject.
Even if you don't want to plough through its full 600 pages, it offers a wealth of detail on a particularly interesting chapter in America's history. It's a worthwhile addition to any home reference library.

Phobos · 2002-08-17 01:55:20

All this is beginning to look a lot like the actions of an arrogant, ageing empire throwing its weight around just because it can...let's stop this totally *unneccesary* war mongering right now and focus on the things that matter, like getting the human race into space once and for all.

Well said. I think this war mongering has taken on an especially dangerous element considering that Israel promised to launch nukes at Iraq if Saddam attacks Israel. Something tells me if Saddam knows he's on the way out he'll have no problems throwing whatever scuds he has Israel's way and I think Israel isn't bluffing (maybe it is.) Attacking Iraq could certainly induce Iraq to test Israel's threat. On top of that China said it'll attack Taiwan outright if Taiwan votes to officially claim it's independence from the mainland and that could happen while were mired down in Iraq. It's scary anyhow that this year alone we've already had three countries that were seriously thinking about using nuclear weapons against each other. I'm really beginning to wonder if civilization has a chance in hell of surviving. For all of that money being spent on war we could go a long way in researching ways to utilize resources in space. But I guess the machinations of the world's blood thirsty rulers must take precedence.

Palomar · 2002-08-17 08:49:47

*Groan. Just what this Jane Q. Public DOESN'T want to hear:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....ce_news
--Cindy
Very depressing. Maybe they'll be able to regain communications with it after tweaking around a bit.

*Sorry to say, the news doesn't get any better:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....ce_news

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-17 08:55:31

*In one of Arthur C. Clarke's SEQUELS to _2001: A Space Odyssey_, the main character of the book is on a small spacecraft with a group of people intending to rendezvous with a comet -- Halley's comet, if I remember correctly.

Would such a thing as landing on a comet's nucleus even be possible? And why would a manned mission be desired in that regard?

No, I'm not promoting this scenario...let's get to Mars. However, I'm curious. I thought the notion of people landing on a comet's nucleus a bit weird, but I guess Clarke keeps selling those books...

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-17 09:04:06

It's scary anyhow that this year alone we've already had three countries that were seriously thinking about using nuclear weapons against each other. I'm really beginning to wonder if civilization has a chance in hell of surviving.

*It gets even scarier. Earlier this year, when India and Pakistan were about ready to nuke the living daylights out of each other, American reporters were interviewing both Pakistanis and Indians in the streets. One Pakistani man, probably in his mid-30s, was all smiles, ready to spill his blood for "the sake of Pakistan," and said nuclear war would be okay with him [via an interpreter; he didn't speak English]. The reporter asked the man "Do you know what nuclear war is?" The man confessed that, no, he did not know and did not care; bring on the war.

A man in India wasn't concerned about nukes either, and he seemed to have some working knowledge of what nuclear weapons are. He said Japan was even better off AFTER being nuked twice in World War 2...better economy, better standard of living, technological advancement followed in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for Japan, and maybe India could "benefit" as well.

I honestly cannot understand how people can be so (#^&@! STUPID!! "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

I'd be surprised if a nuclear exchange DOESN'T occur in my lifetime, provided I live to be 60+ years old.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-18 16:32:04

I'd be surprised if a nuclear exchange DOESN'T occur in my lifetime, provided I live to be 60+ years old.

Up until recently I never thought anyone would seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons, but I agree with you now, it appears people are a lot more willing to press the button than I had thought. Yep, ignorance is definately expensive.

Palomar · 2002-08-18 17:37:55

I'd be surprised if a nuclear exchange DOESN'T occur in my lifetime, provided I live to be 60+ years old.
Up until recently I never thought anyone would seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons, but I agree with you now, it appears people are a lot more willing to press the button than I had thought. Yep, ignorance is definately expensive.

*I could be waaaay off base here [I hope I am], but it seems to me that an inordinate amount of frustration and tension is continually building between certain nations--and keeps building. I'm starting to wonder if NATO, the UN, "peace-keeping missions" and the like aren't going to prove to be unfortunate dams of very dangerous energy which keeps building and eventually will explode into nuclear war. I do ::NOT:: want to be misunderstood as promoting war and the like, so please don't get me wrong. However, maybe it's HEALTHIER for countries to be able to blow off a bit of steam toward each other every now and then, rather than always checking and preventing tensions from being expressed in any manner whatsoever...I wonder if all these attempts to FORCE the world to be absolutely free of war, knowing human nature, won't eventually blow up in our faces -- like when a pressure cooker's safety valve finally fails.

I really am wondering if maybe people are getting so frustrated at not being able to settle their conflicts on a small level that they will "fly off the handle" and use an extreme. One party in a conflict usually is more right, more the victim and less the perpetrator, than the other party...and to disallow them a certain level of vengeance, revenge, etc., [knowing human nature] is going to just lead to more and more trouble instead of quelling it.

I hope I'm wrong in these thoughts, however. I really do.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-18 17:42:35

Harrison "Jack" Schmidt was the only scientist to fly with Apollo. The rest were fighter pilots - like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. My reading suggests that making these pilots pay attention in geology class was quite difficult - and funny.
"Hey - I fly jets and shoot down Commies - who cares about a bunch of dumb rocks anyways!"

*As regards the first paragraph of Bill's I quoted: I didn't know that. I guess I presumed there were a handful of scientists amongst the Apollo astronauts.

As regards the other quote: Yeah. ::snicker:: Some of the attitudes we've had are kind of embarrassing to look back on. I know many people who still consider John Wayne the Epitome of The American Spirit -- IMO he was a mediocre actor possessing few good looks and even less charm, with an overbearing and caricaturish image. I hope to god this ISN'T what Americans in general look like to foreigners!

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-18 18:06:32

*Earth's North Magnetic Pole:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/

Are there similar pictures from Mars? I thought Shaun B once mentioned [pardon me if I'm wrong, Shaun, or confused on this] that Mars' magnetic fields are "patchy" -- ?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-18 18:09:05

*I thought this web site might be of some benefit to those new to and interested in amateur astronomy; I recommended it to a cousin, who highly recommends it:

http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-19 09:29:18

Cindy,

Are there similar pictures from Mars? I thought Shaun B once mentioned [pardon me if I'm wrong, Shaun, or confused on this] that Mars' magnetic fields are "patchy" -- ?

Unfortunately there aren't, but that's an interesting idea. There are plenty of high color Viking images one can use.

With regard to Mars' magnetic fields: Mars does not have a molten core, or at least, one substantional enough to create a true magnetic field (I believe the former, since Mars has no large moon- but it's still an unknown).

The patchy stuff you're talking about is Mars' ?crustal remnant field.? Planetary crusts contain natural magnetic deposits. Heat and other geologic processes destroy magnetism. So you get holes where, a meteorite impacted, a volcano erupted, or where large quantities of water existed (my opinion about the water- I believe oceanic processes over time would eventually dissipate magnetism- again, my opinion).

Interestingly, at one point in Mars' history, the magnetic poll reversed (indicated by different polarization in the crust). So perhaps that was what led to the eventual death of the planet.

Phobos · 2002-08-19 18:02:37

*I thought this web site might be of some benefit to those new to and interested in amateur astronomy; I recommended it to a cousin, who highly recommends it:
http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/
--Cindy

Speaking of astronomy, are you still planning to get a new scope? I want to get one but everytime I get close the cheapskate comes out of my body and runs off with my checkbook. I was reading about the "Zodiacal light" the other night. The impression I got was that the Zodiacal light was different from the Milky Way. Do you have any idea what that is? Anyways, I'd love to be in an area so dark and free from light pollution that the Milky Way actually casts light on the ground. Light pollution really sucks.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-20 07:11:03

Hi Josh!
It looks like polarity reversals were quite common on Mars, at least during its early history.
Earth has a polarity reversal about every million years or so. And, although there is some evidence of increased extinction rates at these times, most species seem to weather the change without too much trouble.
One of the best places to see evidence of Earth's magnetic reversals is at the mid-Atlantic ridge, a tectonic plate boundary where magma pushes up to the surface from deep inside the planet. New crust is thus created and, as a result, Africa and South America are getting farther apart by a few inches each year. The fresh lava assumes the magnetic polarity of the Earth at the time it surfaces and "freezes" (or solidifies) in the ocean depths. So, each side of the ridge, we see "stripes" of relatively new crust with alternating north and south magnetisation, in accordance with Earth's polarity at the time of formation.
Cindy's August 19th post gave a website with the title: Earth's North Magnetic Pole. If you access this site and go to the May 4th 1999 picture, you will see remnant magnetic striping in the crust of Mars. The satellite which made the measurements was passing over the terrain in a north-south mapping mode as the planet revolved beneath it. But the magnetic stripes, revealed in different false colours, are easily discerned lying in an east-west orientation.
This is incredible stuff! It looks like incontrovertible proof that Mars, at least in its early days, had plate tectonics like Earth! This contrasts completely with recently held views that the crust of Mars has always been a "monoplate" ... a single monolithic and unmoving shell. It also indicates two more things: An erstwhile energetically-churning hot interior, and lots of water. (Water is the lubricant that allows crustal plates to move relative to one another.) It also indicates, at least to me, that our understanding of the history and geology of Mars is almost nil! The more we learn, the more confusing and enigmatic Mars becomes. It's a fantastic place!!
But, if Mars had life in its younger days (and my personal opinion is that it did), the polarity reversals it apparently experienced would have been unlikely to kill it off. We've had at least as many such events here on Earth, but life carries on regardless.
Cindy, yes! The Martian crustal magnetic field is patchy. It's really quite strong in some areas ... strong enough to reach up high above the surface and actually shield the atmosphere from solar wind "erosion", called sputtering. While in other regions it is very weak.
Actually Josh, I believe now that Mars does have a global magnetic field, though very much weaker than Earth's. This is an important point because relatively young lava flows have been identified on Mars. In fact, they're so young that they might have occurred only thousands of years ago! Though figures of up to ten million years are also possible. In either case, it means Mars must still be volcanically active. And this would tie in with the magnetic field evidence, since it is believed that a molten interior is associated with the production of a magnetic field.
All this makes me think Mars is a dynamic place. At the moment it's sleeping and appears quite dull. But I suspect all of its spectacular activity is not necessarily confined to its halcyon past! I think it's a place of cyclical activity and anything could happen.
Wouldn't it be mind-numbing if Odyssey or Global Surveyor were right there when one of those amazing volcanoes decided to erupt?! It might even cause a major climatic change for the better ... a real kick-start for terraforming!
Well! ... I can dream, can't I?!!

Palomar · 2002-08-20 15:39:50

*Be sure and say "hi" to Captain Kirk for me in a few hundred years!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....er_dc_3

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-07 13:34:08

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#27 2002-07-07 19:57:53

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#28 2002-07-08 09:35:41

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#29 2002-08-15 18:21:51

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#30 2002-08-15 18:25:24

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#31 2002-08-15 21:44:45

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#32 2002-08-16 07:07:53

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#33 2002-08-16 08:56:18

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#34 2002-08-16 09:24:12

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#35 2002-08-16 10:02:38

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#36 2002-08-16 11:34:35

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#37 2002-08-17 01:16:11

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#38 2002-08-17 01:55:20

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#39 2002-08-17 08:49:47

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#40 2002-08-17 08:55:31

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#41 2002-08-17 09:04:06

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#42 2002-08-18 16:32:04

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#43 2002-08-18 17:37:55

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#44 2002-08-18 17:42:35

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#45 2002-08-18 18:06:32

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#46 2002-08-18 18:09:05

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#47 2002-08-19 09:29:18

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#48 2002-08-19 18:02:37

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#49 2002-08-20 07:11:03

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

#50 2002-08-20 15:39:50

Re: New Discoveries - Extraplanetary, deep space, etc.

Board footer