Planetary gathering unobserved

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:53:29
From: Glenn Holliday
Subject: Planetary gathering unobserved

Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
By the time they should have been above the horizon there
was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.

Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?

--
Glenn Holliday holliday@acm.org

Date: 10 Dec 2006 15:38:06
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

>Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?

Yes indeed! It had rained during the night with fresh snow on the mtns=20
surrounding the valley but the morning sky was clear. I went out about=20
5:55am local time and shared the view through my Tele Vue 76 with an=20
early-rising neighbor from across the street. Jupiter, Mercury and the=20
star Graffias (beta Sco) made a perfect little line.

.Florian
Palm Springs, Calif.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:16:06
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

Glenn Holliday wrote:

> Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
> By the time they should have been above the horizon there
> was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
> Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
> my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
> I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.
>
> Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?

My kids and I saw it from the suburbs midway between Baltimore and
Washington DC. We got to our observing site (a school with a good view
of the eastern horizon) at about 6:35. I'd brought binoculars expecting
to need them to find the planets, but Jupiter and Mercury were quite
obvious naked eye, and I was able to see them that way until about 7:00,
which made aiming at them with my 1x red dot finder possible.

It helped that I'd scouted the site the night before, noting where Orion
was on the horizon and estimating where I'd need to look in the morning,
so I knew exactly where they were supposed to be. I've found Jupiter
and Venus in the daytime that way in the past.

Got the three planets and beta Sco all in the same FOV in a 20mm Plossl
on my TV-85.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:20:25
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

"Glenn Holliday" <holliday@acm.org > wrote in message
news:drTeh.211$HX4.157@trnddc03...
> Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
> By the time they should have been above the horizon there
> was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
> Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
> my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
> I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.
>
> Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?
>
> --
> Glenn Holliday holliday@acm.org

I had a great morning -- up at 0430 and checked out the Moon, Saturn, and
Regulus chasing each other across the sky. Ran five miles. Checked out
Moon-Saturn-Regulus again. Started checking for Jupiter-Mercury-Mars at
0645 -- we had low clouds in the eastern sky but the three planets popped
out of the clouds between about 0650 and 0710 -- quite a sight .

I held my digital camera up to the scope eyepiece and got these photos of
the Moon and Saturn:
http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astronomy/moon_and_saturn.htm

Sweet Thing asked me to wake her up for the show -- I did so at 0650 -- she
came out, checked out the three planets, and went back to sleep.

Temp was 18 deg, dry, mostly clear.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 05:02:48
From:
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

Couldn't see it in outskirts of Miami, FL; The Moon and Saturn were a
nice view.

Jim Rose

Glenn Holliday wrote:
> Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
> By the time they should have been above the horizon there
> was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
> Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
> my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
> I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.
>
> Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?
>
> --
> Glenn Holliday holliday@acm.org

Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:11:53
From: AM
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

jamesd43081@yahoo.com wrote:
> Couldn't see it in outskirts of Miami, FL; The Moon and Saturn were a
> nice view.
>
> Jim Rose
>
> Glenn Holliday wrote:
>> Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
>> By the time they should have been above the horizon there
>> was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
>> Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
>> my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
>> I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.
>>
>> Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?
>>
>> --
>> Glenn Holliday holliday@acm.org
>

My problem was the trees. Place with flat horizon,
many trees. Place with no trees, no horizon as well...

I couldn't travel far, I go to early church services.

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:49:50
From: John Nichols
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:26:57
From: Craig
Subject: Re: Planetary gathering unobserved

I saw it From Fullerton Ca. Got up about 5:30am, drove to a hilltop
resturant that I knoew would have a good view to the east and waited,
and waited and waited.. (Damn clouds). Finally about 6:08 Jupiter
peeked above the low cloud cover and I was able to get all 3 in the FOV
of my Celestron 80ed with a 40mm Koenig and a 20mm Orion Expanse eps.
Then the clouds came back and I went home.
--
Remove My_Skin to E-mail me.

Glenn Holliday wrote:

> Got up for the Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - beta Scorpii party.
> By the time they should have been above the horizon there
> was way too much morning twilight. I couldn't even find
> Jupiter in binoculars. Some industrial lighting from
> my vantage point in that direction didn't help.
> I'm just inland from Virginia's east coast.
>
> Was it actually dark enough for anybody to see this?

Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:47:24
From: William Elliot
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:

> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>
> this is for the wankers in america who like to think they achieved
> something by depleting so many human resources into such an arsewank of
> a project consisting in going off to the moon a la wallace n grommit
> but without the charm only to find that the place is such a sad-ass
> wank of a place you could never believe. loads of loads of the same
> homogenous extremely boring place the ''adventurous astronauts'' find
> themselves with, while one of the sad wankers exclaims ''it is in man's

Illiterate slob, learn how to write.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:28:41
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
> you space geeks are such a waste of energy.

Oh, please, save your energy then and don't waste it on us!

Austin

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:36:09
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Bob Schmall wrote:
> > Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
>
> His parents won't allow him to have real address until he's 12.

A brief glance at his posting history revealed that he needs someone to
buy him a new word. It seems the only word he ever uses is "wank" and
it's derivitives.

Austin

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:22:44
From: Pat Flannery
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:

>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>
>this is for the wankers in america who like to think they achieved
>something by depleting so many human resources into such an arsewank of
>a project consisting in going off to the moon a la wallace n grommit
>but without the charm only to find that the place is such a sad-ass
>wank of a place you could never believe.
>
>

Either this is Brad Guth, or someone's been playing around with The
Gilbert Amateur Cloning Set again. :-)

Pat

Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:04:41
From: Rand Simberg
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:22:44 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flanner@daktel.com > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>
>
>sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>>
>>this is for the wankers in america who like to think they achieved
>>something by depleting so many human resources into such an arsewank of
>>a project consisting in going off to the moon a la wallace n grommit
>>but without the charm only to find that the place is such a sad-ass
>>wank of a place you could never believe.
>>
>>
>
>Either this is Brad Guth, or someone's been playing around with The
>Gilbert Amateur Cloning Set again. :-)

No, it's quite a different style than Brad, actually. Brad knows
where the shift key is, and occasionally punctuates.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:13:43
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>
> this is for the wankers in america who like to think they achieved
> something by depleting so many human resources into such an arsewank of
> a project consisting in going off to the moon a la wallace n grommit
> but without the charm only to find that the place is such a sad-ass
> wank of a place you could never believe. loads of loads of the same
> homogenous extremely boring place the ''adventurous astronauts'' find
> themselves with, while one of the sad wankers exclaims ''it is in man's
> nature to explore'' as he jumps from one nothingy part of the moon to
> the next. how pathetic and sad. a treausre for american to, erm,
> treasure. congratulations.
>
> this is the opposite of riding the giants that surf mooee i saw, this
> is the anti-sensual experience par-excellence. it does indeed quote
> that stupid wanker kennedy pleasing it's country's right wing wishes of
> nihilism with his great speech, which goes something like this:
>
> '' it is true and truer than it be, that in this decade, i promise that
> we shall head off into a certain vacuum and in that vacuum we shall
> wank, for as the great soothsayer did say, in vacuums one doth not need
> no vacuum cleaners if one requires wanking getting done''.
>
>
> for the technofile moronic crowd that as adolescents are fans of star
> trek, in college maths geeks and in old age hope to wank their life
> away in some space probe in a life-long experimental attempt at getting
> their dicks perpetually horizontal.
>
Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:23:30
From: Jonathan
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

"Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com > wrote in message
news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
> >
> >
> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.

Why does that matter? How does it change the message?
Were you going to mail him something, call his place
of employment or home if you had his real name?
Will you retaliate against someone that disagrees
with you? Or harass him? What would you do
with his real name if you had it?

Why does it matter if someone posts with a alt name?
It only means someone can be less restrained, more
honest and able to create a seperate world for
experimentation or play.

In fact, only an idiot posts their real name on the
internet. Or those driven by vanity.

Which are you?

His criticism of going to the moon is an entirely valid topic.
Held by a majority of the American taxpayers. Which
makes you the minority in need of criticism.

Jonathan

s

Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:13:22
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Jonathan wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>>>
>>>
>> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
>
>
> Why does that matter? How does it change the message?

*PLONK*

Date: 13 Dec 2006 03:45:47
From: Rand Simberg
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:23:30 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <beals@bellsouth.net > made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>
>"Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>> >
>> >
>> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
>
>
>Why does that matter? How does it change the message?
>Were you going to mail him something, call his place
>of employment or home if you had his real name?
>Will you retaliate against someone that disagrees
>with you? Or harass him? What would you do
>with his real name if you had it?
>
>Why does it matter if someone posts with a alt name?
>It only means someone can be less restrained, more
>honest and able to create a seperate world for
>experimentation or play.

i.e.,..more nuts.

I've occasionally run across people who have something worthwhile to
say, and have to say it pseudonymically, but it's a rare occasion.
Usuallly, it's to say things to which no decent person would want to
attach their name.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:52:40
From: Scott Hedrick
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

"Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com > wrote in message
news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:

> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.

And you're dumbass enough to quote the entire post.

He's just upset at realizing how little he's contributed to the world
considering the resources wasted on him.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 20:19:45
From: AM
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Scott Hedrick wrote:

> And you're dumbass enough to quote the entire post.
>

>

Well now.... How bright are YOU for cross posting
to three other news groups ??

Well.... were waiting....

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:59:53
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
>
>
> And you're dumbass enough to quote the entire post.

Fuck you.

Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:25:19
From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Bob Schmall <rschmall@wi.rr.com > wrote:

:Scott Hedrick wrote:
: > "Bob Schmall" <rschmall@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
: > news:457eff67$0$11188$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >
: >>sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
: >
: >
: > And you're dumbass enough to quote the entire post.
:
:Fuck you.

Plonk you.

<plink >

Awww, I guess he's just too tiny to make much sound when he hits the
bottom of the bin...

Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:27:34
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Bob Schmall wrote:
> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.

His parents won't allow him to have real address until he's 12.

Interesting list of newsgroups this was posted to. Don't we know
somebody who regularly posts to all of them...?

Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:18:30
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
>> Bravely posted via hotmail under a pseudonym.
>
>
> His parents won't allow him to have real address until he's 12.
>
> Interesting list of newsgroups this was posted to. Don't we know
> somebody who regularly posts to all of them...?

Whatever else can be said of you-know-who, he never uses the kind of
language seen in that post.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 01:15:47
From: Ho Ho Ho
Subject: Re: for all mankind, another crappy mooee from 1989

my my my - the ape types!

sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:

> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/
>
> this is for the wankers in america who like to think they achieved
> something by depleting so many human resources into such an arsewank of
> a project consisting in going off to the moon a la wallace n grommit
> but without the charm only to find that the place is such a sad-ass
> wank of a place you could never believe. loads of loads of the same
> homogenous extremely boring place the ''adventurous astronauts'' find
> themselves with, while one of the sad wankers exclaims ''it is in man's
> nature to explore'' as he jumps from one nothingy part of the moon to
> the next. how pathetic and sad. a treausre for american to, erm,
> treasure. congratulations.
>
> this is the opposite of riding the giants that surf mooee i saw, this
> is the anti-sensual experience par-excellence. it does indeed quote
> that stupid wanker kennedy pleasing it's country's right wing wishes of
> nihilism with his great speech, which goes something like this:
>
> '' it is true and truer than it be, that in this decade, i promise that
> we shall head off into a certain vacuum and in that vacuum we shall
> wank, for as the great soothsayer did say, in vacuums one doth not need
> no vacuum cleaners if one requires wanking getting done''.
>
> for the technofile moronic crowd that as adolescents are fans of star
> trek, in college maths geeks and in old age hope to wank their life
> away in some space probe in a life-long experimental attempt at getting
> their dicks perpetually horizontal.