wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"jeff" wrote in message
m...
Donal wrote:



I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays
were
so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed
the
screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little
red
dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror
system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby
galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html



I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep
space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste
of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their
inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans
and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

Wilbur Hubbard


As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who
could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun.

Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition.

Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is
THAT?


So, you're saying the reward is in the finesse? The ability to finesse
inferior technology and like it? Be satisfied with it? I just don't have
standards that are that low.

And, I agree with you on running marathons - pretty stupid. Any sane athlete
pedals a lightweight, aero, race bicycle. That's where the money is. That's
where true physical fitness and stamina is developed. That's where the
respect and glory is. That's where real men compete.

Wilbur Hubbard