Date   

Re: Nebula terminology

Jake
 

First off, my head hurts now.

And second, I think we have now degraded into the silly and the just
plain strange. :)

Jake

On 6/29/12, Georgie June <doublestarjune@msn.com> wrote:
You forgot

Bright stars, not so bright, and dim.

Also, when observing dark nebula don't forget, "You lie! There's nothing
there!"

gg

On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:12 AM, "Jim Tallman" <jctallman@cox.net> wrote:

:- ) Might want to add a few more then as long as you’re going to remake
your notes and stuff.



Stars really, really close ones - twinkly

Stars Sort of really close - Twinkly

Stars far away - twinkly

Stars that are really, really far away – twinkly

Red stars – red stars

Blue stars – blue stars

Yellow stars – yellow stars

UFOs observed

Number of Martians observed with telescope

Number of Martians observed naked eye





:- )





From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:13 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Nebula terminology





I've thought this one out now and I'm still leaning towards using "diffuse
nebula" for these objects. Because "bright nebula" is just as ambiguous
(and not to mention vague), I'll go for the term I dislike less. At least
it will be a step up from "nebula". "Emission/reflection nebula" would be
just as confusing.

Assuming I go through with the change, here's how I'm going to classify
deep sky objects in my journal from now on:

- Galaxies (boy that was easy!)
- Globular clusters (another easy one!)
- Open clusters: does not include open clusters with nebulosity
- Clusters with nebulosity: includes only open clusters with nebulosity
- Planetary nebulae: a type of emission nebula; does not include PPN
- Proto-planetary nebulae: a type of reflection nebula
- Diffuse nebulae: emission/reflection nebulae that are not PN, PPN, SNR,
or C/N; excludes dark nebulae
- Supernova remnants: a special type of diffuse nebula
- Dark nebulae: a special type of diffuse nebula

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "nranderson_deepskyobserver"
<nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:

Not to even mention that some of these nebulae can be clusters with
nebulosity, which also seems to have a loose definition. Remember that
discussion we had several months ago about star-forming nebulae?

Ugh.......I think I'll have to think this one out a bit before I make
any changes. I had the brilliant idea a few minutes ago to classify them
as emission/reflection nebulae, but a minute later I realized PN and PPN
could fall into that! I dislike the term "bright nebula", but I might
just end up using that.

Furthermore, are supernova remnants considered bright nebulae?

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, Ted Forte <tedforte511@> wrote:

I don't think the term diffuse nebula excludes dark nebulae as the
term
diffuse is an adjective that can be applied to any extended object
without
well defined edges. It is not a category of celestial object per se.


The history of astronomy is rife with ambiguous, overlapping and
duplicated
terminology that has been shaped by the progress of our knowledge.
Take
the term planetary nebula - a rather unfortunate term that was
originally
meant only to describe a characteristic rather than define a genre.
How
about spiral nebulae? Isn't it unfortunate that we started out
calling
these external galaxies nebulae? Sure they are nebulous, but once we
started using nebula as a noun to represent a type of object things
got,
well, nebulous.


Bottom line I think, is that you should use the term that best suits
the
particular object, and best reflects what you believe the object to
be. It
is correct (in my opinion) to use the term bright nebula for any
emission
or reflection nebula but not for something you know to be a galaxy or
a PN.
Any of these objects, however, can be diffuse. A known galaxy can be
nebulous but not a nebula. A PN can be nebulous AND can be called a
nebula.
Easy, right?


Just try to be consistent and follow the contemporary conventions.
Future
readers may smirk, but we'll all understand you.



OK, so what is a proto planetary nebula? Is it a stage of stellar
development between the asymptotic giant branch star and a true
(emitting)
planetary nebula? Or is it a circumstellar disk that will eventually
form
planets. The answer is yes.


Can an object be a proto-planetary nebula, a diffuse nebula, a bright
nebula, a reflection nebula, and a nebulous object all at once? Yup.



And you thought precision in terminology was a hallmark of science.
Ha! Fat
chance.


Ted


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, nranderson_deepskyobserver <
nranderson.deepskyobserver@> wrote:

**


In the past in my journal, I've classified emission/reflection
nebulae
such as M42, NGC 7000, NGC 2261, NGC 7635, and NGC 7023 all under
the
category "nebulae". Because the term "nebula" is ambiguous (it
could
include planetary nebulae, supernova remnants, and dark nebulae) I
want to
use a different term.

Does the term "diffuse nebula" exclude dark nebulae? If it is, I
would
prefer using "diffuse nebula" over "bright nebula" because many of
these
nebulae aren't all that bright! As for IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula), I
thought
the nearby dark nebula (B168) was easier to see than the "bright"
nebula.

-Nick Anderson




Re: Andromeda Galaxy collision illustration

Jake
 

You are correct about that, Mark.

If our sun expands to the point it is expected to, the Earth will most
probably be swallowed up in approximately the next 4.5 million years,
give or take.

On 6/29/12, Mark Ost <jimcoble2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a feeling we will not be around (we being humans). Come to think of
it earth will not be around either. But what a view it might have been!



________________________________
From: nranderson_deepskyobserver <nranderson.deepskyobserver@gmail.com>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:57 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] Andromeda Galaxy collision illustration



I meant to post this article before when I first saw this article several
weeks ago. I believe that one of the photos became an APOD earlier this
month. The changing illustrations are pretty neat. It looks like us amateur
astronomers will have to find a new galaxy to observe from in 7 billion
years!

http://www.universetoday.com/95557/its-inevitable-milky-way-andromeda-galaxy-heading-for-collision/

-Nick Anderson



Re: Nebula terminology

Georgie <doublestarjune@msn.com>
 

You forgot

Bright stars, not so bright, and dim.

Also, when observing dark nebula don't forget, "You lie!  There's nothing there!"

gg

On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:12 AM, "Jim Tallman" <jctallman@...> wrote:

 

:- ) Might want to add a few more then as long as you’re going to remake your notes and stuff.

 

Stars really, really close ones - twinkly

Stars Sort of really close - Twinkly

Stars far away - twinkly

Stars that are really, really far away – twinkly

Red stars – red stars

Blue stars – blue stars

Yellow stars – yellow stars

UFOs observed

Number of Martians observed with telescope

Number of Martians observed naked eye

 

 

:- )

    

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:13 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Nebula terminology

 

 

I've thought this one out now and I'm still leaning towards using "diffuse nebula" for these objects. Because "bright nebula" is just as ambiguous (and not to mention vague), I'll go for the term I dislike less. At least it will be a step up from "nebula". "Emission/reflection nebula" would be just as confusing.

Assuming I go through with the change, here's how I'm going to classify deep sky objects in my journal from now on:

- Galaxies (boy that was easy!)
- Globular clusters (another easy one!)
- Open clusters: does not include open clusters with nebulosity
- Clusters with nebulosity: includes only open clusters with nebulosity
- Planetary nebulae: a type of emission nebula; does not include PPN
- Proto-planetary nebulae: a type of reflection nebula
- Diffuse nebulae: emission/reflection nebulae that are not PN, PPN, SNR, or C/N; excludes dark nebulae
- Supernova remnants: a special type of diffuse nebula
- Dark nebulae: a special type of diffuse nebula

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@..., "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:
>
> Not to even mention that some of these nebulae can be clusters with nebulosity, which also seems to have a loose definition. Remember that discussion we had several months ago about star-forming nebulae?
>
> Ugh.......I think I'll have to think this one out a bit before I make any changes. I had the brilliant idea a few minutes ago to classify them as emission/reflection nebulae, but a minute later I realized PN and PPN could fall into that! I dislike the term "bright nebula", but I might just end up using that.
>
> Furthermore, are supernova remnants considered bright nebulae?
>
> -Nick Anderson
>
> --- In backbayastro@..., Ted Forte wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the term diffuse nebula excludes dark nebulae as the term
> > diffuse is an adjective that can be applied to any extended object without
> > well defined edges. It is not a category of celestial object per se.
> >
> >
> > The history of astronomy is rife with ambiguous, overlapping and duplicated
> > terminology that has been shaped by the progress of our knowledge. Take
> > the term planetary nebula - a rather unfortunate term that was originally
> > meant only to describe a characteristic rather than define a genre. How
> > about spiral nebulae? Isn't it unfortunate that we started out calling
> > these external galaxies nebulae? Sure they are nebulous, but once we
> > started using nebula as a noun to represent a type of object things got,
> > well, nebulous.
> >
> >
> > Bottom line I think, is that you should use the term that best suits the
> > particular object, and best reflects what you believe the object to be. It
> > is correct (in my opinion) to use the term bright nebula for any emission
> > or reflection nebula but not for something you know to be a galaxy or a PN.
> > Any of these objects, however, can be diffuse. A known galaxy can be
> > nebulous but not a nebula. A PN can be nebulous AND can be called a nebula.
> > Easy, right?
> >
> >
> > Just try to be consistent and follow the contemporary conventions. Future
> > readers may smirk, but we'll all understand you.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, so what is a proto planetary nebula? Is it a stage of stellar
> > development between the asymptotic giant branch star and a true (emitting)
> > planetary nebula? Or is it a circumstellar disk that will eventually form
> > planets. The answer is yes.
> >
> >
> > Can an object be a proto-planetary nebula, a diffuse nebula, a bright
> > nebula, a reflection nebula, and a nebulous object all at once? Yup.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you thought precision in terminology was a hallmark of science. Ha! Fat
> > chance.
> >
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, nranderson_deepskyobserver <
> > nranderson.deepskyobserver@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > In the past in my journal, I've classified emission/reflection nebulae
> > > such as M42, NGC 7000, NGC 2261, NGC 7635, and NGC 7023 all under the
> > > category "nebulae". Because the term "nebula" is ambiguous (it could
> > > include planetary nebulae, supernova remnants, and dark nebulae) I want to
> > > use a different term.
> > >
> > > Does the term "diffuse nebula" exclude dark nebulae? If it is, I would
> > > prefer using "diffuse nebula" over "bright nebula" because many of these
> > > nebulae aren't all that bright! As for IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula), I thought
> > > the nearby dark nebula (B168) was easier to see than the "bright" nebula.
> > >
> > > -Nick Anderson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: Nebula terminology

jimcoble2000
 

how bout number of Martians observed while naked??


From: Jim Tallman
To: backbayastro@...
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:12 AM
Subject: RE: [backbayastro] Re: Nebula terminology

 
:- ) Might want to add a few more then as long as you’re going to remake your notes and stuff.
 
Stars really, really close ones - twinkly
Stars Sort of really close - Twinkly
Stars far away - twinkly
Stars that are really, really far away – twinkly
Red stars – red stars
Blue stars – blue stars
Yellow stars – yellow stars
UFOs observed
Number of Martians observed with telescope
Number of Martians observed naked eye
 
 
:- )
    
 
From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:13 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Nebula terminology
 
 
I've thought this one out now and I'm still leaning towards using "diffuse nebula" for these objects. Because "bright nebula" is just as ambiguous (and not to mention vague), I'll go for the term I dislike less. At least it will be a step up from "nebula". "Emission/reflection nebula" would be just as confusing.

Assuming I go through with the change, here's how I'm going to classify deep sky objects in my journal from now on:

- Galaxies (boy that was easy!)
- Globular clusters (another easy one!)
- Open clusters: does not include open clusters with nebulosity
- Clusters with nebulosity: includes only open clusters with nebulosity
- Planetary nebulae: a type of emission nebula; does not include PPN
- Proto-planetary nebulae: a type of reflection nebula
- Diffuse nebulae: emission/reflection nebulae that are not PN, PPN, SNR, or C/N; excludes dark nebulae
- Supernova remnants: a special type of diffuse nebula
- Dark nebulae: a special type of diffuse nebula

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@..., "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:
>
> Not to even mention that some of these nebulae can be clusters with nebulosity, which also seems to have a loose definition. Remember that discussion we had several months ago about star-forming nebulae?
>
> Ugh.......I think I'll have to think this one out a bit before I make any changes. I had the brilliant idea a few minutes ago to classify them as emission/reflection nebulae, but a minute later I realized PN and PPN could fall into that! I dislike the term "bright nebula", but I might just end up using that.
>
> Furthermore, are supernova remnants considered bright nebulae?
>
> -Nick Anderson
>
> --- In backbayastro@..., Ted Forte wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the term diffuse nebula excludes dark nebulae as the term
> > diffuse is an adjective that can be applied to any extended object without
> > well defined edges. It is not a category of celestial object per se.
> >
> >
> > The history of astronomy is rife with ambiguous, overlapping and duplicated
> > terminology that has been shaped by the progress of our knowledge. Take
> > the term planetary nebula - a rather unfortunate term that was originally
> > meant only to describe a characteristic rather than define a genre. How
> > about spiral nebulae? Isn't it unfortunate that we started out calling
> > these external galaxies nebulae? Sure they are nebulous, but once we
> > started using nebula as a noun to represent a type of object things got,
> > well, nebulous.
> >
> >
> > Bottom line I think, is that you should use the term that best suits the
> > particular object, and best reflects what you believe the object to be. It
> > is correct (in my opinion) to use the term bright nebula for any emission
> > or reflection nebula but not for something you know to be a galaxy or a PN.
> > Any of these objects, however, can be diffuse. A known galaxy can be
> > nebulous but not a nebula. A PN can be nebulous AND can be called a nebula.
> > Easy, right?
> >
> >
> > Just try to be consistent and follow the contemporary conventions. Future
> > readers may smirk, but we'll all understand you.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, so what is a proto planetary nebula? Is it a stage of stellar
> > development between the asymptotic giant branch star and a true (emitting)
> > planetary nebula? Or is it a circumstellar disk that will eventually form
> > planets. The answer is yes.
> >
> >
> > Can an object be a proto-planetary nebula, a diffuse nebula, a bright
> > nebula, a reflection nebula, and a nebulous object all at once? Yup.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you thought precision in terminology was a hallmark of science. Ha! Fat
> > chance.
> >
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, nranderson_deepskyobserver <
> > nranderson.deepskyobserver@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > In the past in my journal, I've classified emission/reflection nebulae
> > > such as M42, NGC 7000, NGC 2261, NGC 7635, and NGC 7023 all under the
> > > category "nebulae". Because the term "nebula" is ambiguous (it could
> > > include planetary nebulae, supernova remnants, and dark nebulae) I want to
> > > use a different term.
> > >
> > > Does the term "diffuse nebula" exclude dark nebulae? If it is, I would
> > > prefer using "diffuse nebula" over "bright nebula" because many of these
> > > nebulae aren't all that bright! As for IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula), I thought
> > > the nearby dark nebula (B168) was easier to see than the "bright" nebula.
> > >
> > > -Nick Anderson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>



Re: Andromeda Galaxy collision illustration

jimcoble2000
 

I have a feeling we will not be around (we being humans). Come to think of it earth will not be around either. But what a view it might have been!


From: nranderson_deepskyobserver
To: backbayastro@...
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:57 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] Andromeda Galaxy collision illustration

 
I meant to post this article before when I first saw this article several weeks ago. I believe that one of the photos became an APOD earlier this month. The changing illustrations are pretty neat. It looks like us amateur astronomers will have to find a new galaxy to observe from in 7 billion years!

http://www.universetoday.com/95557/its-inevitable-milky-way-andromeda-galaxy-heading-for-collision/

-Nick Anderson




Re: Nebula terminology

Jim Tallman
 

:- ) Might want to add a few more then as long as you’re going to remake your notes and stuff.

 

Stars really, really close ones - twinkly

Stars Sort of really close - Twinkly

Stars far away - twinkly

Stars that are really, really far away – twinkly

Red stars – red stars

Blue stars – blue stars

Yellow stars – yellow stars

UFOs observed

Number of Martians observed with telescope

Number of Martians observed naked eye

 

 

:- )

    

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:13 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Nebula terminology

 

 

I've thought this one out now and I'm still leaning towards using "diffuse nebula" for these objects. Because "bright nebula" is just as ambiguous (and not to mention vague), I'll go for the term I dislike less. At least it will be a step up from "nebula". "Emission/reflection nebula" would be just as confusing.

Assuming I go through with the change, here's how I'm going to classify deep sky objects in my journal from now on:

- Galaxies (boy that was easy!)
- Globular clusters (another easy one!)
- Open clusters: does not include open clusters with nebulosity
- Clusters with nebulosity: includes only open clusters with nebulosity
- Planetary nebulae: a type of emission nebula; does not include PPN
- Proto-planetary nebulae: a type of reflection nebula
- Diffuse nebulae: emission/reflection nebulae that are not PN, PPN, SNR, or C/N; excludes dark nebulae
- Supernova remnants: a special type of diffuse nebula
- Dark nebulae: a special type of diffuse nebula

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@..., "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:
>
> Not to even mention that some of these nebulae can be clusters with nebulosity, which also seems to have a loose definition. Remember that discussion we had several months ago about star-forming nebulae?
>
> Ugh.......I think I'll have to think this one out a bit before I make any changes. I had the brilliant idea a few minutes ago to classify them as emission/reflection nebulae, but a minute later I realized PN and PPN could fall into that! I dislike the term "bright nebula", but I might just end up using that.
>
> Furthermore, are supernova remnants considered bright nebulae?
>
> -Nick Anderson
>
> --- In backbayastro@..., Ted Forte wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the term diffuse nebula excludes dark nebulae as the term
> > diffuse is an adjective that can be applied to any extended object without
> > well defined edges. It is not a category of celestial object per se.
> >
> >
> > The history of astronomy is rife with ambiguous, overlapping and duplicated
> > terminology that has been shaped by the progress of our knowledge. Take
> > the term planetary nebula - a rather unfortunate term that was originally
> > meant only to describe a characteristic rather than define a genre. How
> > about spiral nebulae? Isn't it unfortunate that we started out calling
> > these external galaxies nebulae? Sure they are nebulous, but once we
> > started using nebula as a noun to represent a type of object things got,
> > well, nebulous.
> >
> >
> > Bottom line I think, is that you should use the term that best suits the
> > particular object, and best reflects what you believe the object to be. It
> > is correct (in my opinion) to use the term bright nebula for any emission
> > or reflection nebula but not for something you know to be a galaxy or a PN.
> > Any of these objects, however, can be diffuse. A known galaxy can be
> > nebulous but not a nebula. A PN can be nebulous AND can be called a nebula.
> > Easy, right?
> >
> >
> > Just try to be consistent and follow the contemporary conventions. Future
> > readers may smirk, but we'll all understand you.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, so what is a proto planetary nebula? Is it a stage of stellar
> > development between the asymptotic giant branch star and a true (emitting)
> > planetary nebula? Or is it a circumstellar disk that will eventually form
> > planets. The answer is yes.
> >
> >
> > Can an object be a proto-planetary nebula, a diffuse nebula, a bright
> > nebula, a reflection nebula, and a nebulous object all at once? Yup.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you thought precision in terminology was a hallmark of science. Ha! Fat
> > chance.
> >
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, nranderson_deepskyobserver <
> > nranderson.deepskyobserver@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > In the past in my journal, I've classified emission/reflection nebulae
> > > such as M42, NGC 7000, NGC 2261, NGC 7635, and NGC 7023 all under the
> > > category "nebulae". Because the term "nebula" is ambiguous (it could
> > > include planetary nebulae, supernova remnants, and dark nebulae) I want to
> > > use a different term.
> > >
> > > Does the term "diffuse nebula" exclude dark nebulae? If it is, I would
> > > prefer using "diffuse nebula" over "bright nebula" because many of these
> > > nebulae aren't all that bright! As for IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula), I thought
> > > the nearby dark nebula (B168) was easier to see than the "bright" nebula.
> > >
> > > -Nick Anderson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: Nebula terminology

Nick Anderson
 

I've thought this one out now and I'm still leaning towards using "diffuse nebula" for these objects. Because "bright nebula" is just as ambiguous (and not to mention vague), I'll go for the term I dislike less. At least it will be a step up from "nebula". "Emission/reflection nebula" would be just as confusing.

Assuming I go through with the change, here's how I'm going to classify deep sky objects in my journal from now on:

- Galaxies (boy that was easy!)
- Globular clusters (another easy one!)
- Open clusters: does not include open clusters with nebulosity
- Clusters with nebulosity: includes only open clusters with nebulosity
- Planetary nebulae: a type of emission nebula; does not include PPN
- Proto-planetary nebulae: a type of reflection nebula
- Diffuse nebulae: emission/reflection nebulae that are not PN, PPN, SNR, or C/N; excludes dark nebulae
- Supernova remnants: a special type of diffuse nebula
- Dark nebulae: a special type of diffuse nebula

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:

Not to even mention that some of these nebulae can be clusters with nebulosity, which also seems to have a loose definition. Remember that discussion we had several months ago about star-forming nebulae?

Ugh.......I think I'll have to think this one out a bit before I make any changes. I had the brilliant idea a few minutes ago to classify them as emission/reflection nebulae, but a minute later I realized PN and PPN could fall into that! I dislike the term "bright nebula", but I might just end up using that.

Furthermore, are supernova remnants considered bright nebulae?

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, Ted Forte <tedforte511@> wrote:

I don't think the term diffuse nebula excludes dark nebulae as the term
diffuse is an adjective that can be applied to any extended object without
well defined edges. It is not a category of celestial object per se.


The history of astronomy is rife with ambiguous, overlapping and duplicated
terminology that has been shaped by the progress of our knowledge. Take
the term planetary nebula - a rather unfortunate term that was originally
meant only to describe a characteristic rather than define a genre. How
about spiral nebulae? Isn't it unfortunate that we started out calling
these external galaxies nebulae? Sure they are nebulous, but once we
started using nebula as a noun to represent a type of object things got,
well, nebulous.


Bottom line I think, is that you should use the term that best suits the
particular object, and best reflects what you believe the object to be. It
is correct (in my opinion) to use the term bright nebula for any emission
or reflection nebula but not for something you know to be a galaxy or a PN.
Any of these objects, however, can be diffuse. A known galaxy can be
nebulous but not a nebula. A PN can be nebulous AND can be called a nebula.
Easy, right?


Just try to be consistent and follow the contemporary conventions. Future
readers may smirk, but we'll all understand you.



OK, so what is a proto planetary nebula? Is it a stage of stellar
development between the asymptotic giant branch star and a true (emitting)
planetary nebula? Or is it a circumstellar disk that will eventually form
planets. The answer is yes.


Can an object be a proto-planetary nebula, a diffuse nebula, a bright
nebula, a reflection nebula, and a nebulous object all at once? Yup.



And you thought precision in terminology was a hallmark of science. Ha! Fat
chance.


Ted


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, nranderson_deepskyobserver <
nranderson.deepskyobserver@> wrote:

**


In the past in my journal, I've classified emission/reflection nebulae
such as M42, NGC 7000, NGC 2261, NGC 7635, and NGC 7023 all under the
category "nebulae". Because the term "nebula" is ambiguous (it could
include planetary nebulae, supernova remnants, and dark nebulae) I want to
use a different term.

Does the term "diffuse nebula" exclude dark nebulae? If it is, I would
prefer using "diffuse nebula" over "bright nebula" because many of these
nebulae aren't all that bright! As for IC 5146 (Cocoon Nebula), I thought
the nearby dark nebula (B168) was easier to see than the "bright" nebula.

-Nick Anderson



Andromeda Galaxy collision illustration

Nick Anderson
 

I meant to post this article before when I first saw this article several weeks ago. I believe that one of the photos became an APOD earlier this month. The changing illustrations are pretty neat. It looks like us amateur astronomers will have to find a new galaxy to observe from in 7 billion years!

http://www.universetoday.com/95557/its-inevitable-milky-way-andromeda-galaxy-heading-for-collision/

-Nick Anderson


Re: Veil, Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site

Paul
 

I agree, Bill, I think transparency is a huge factor. In fact, looking at objects like the veil may be the best way to rate transparency for a given night. Rating transparency is a bit more subjective (at least to me) than rating seeing which I do by looking at stars at high magnification.

I've seen the veil unfiltered before, but only once or twice. I've also had nights where it was practically invisible, even with a filter.

Best view I ever had of the Veil was from Coinjock last October. I've viewed it from darker locations, but the transparency was quite good that night. View was using my Ultrablock (recommended by Bill) and the detail that night was breathtaking.

Congrats on the dark skies, Nick. We know you'll put them to good use!

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, William McLean <preciousmyprecious@...> wrote:

It's funny now that I think of it, I've had sessions where I could hardly make out the Veil with a filter. Moisture in the air. I think. 
 
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


________________________________
From: nranderson_deepskyobserver <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site


 
Agreed for both. I just looked through my past observations of the Veil and all of the ones from Blacksburg were done either before summer began or during only average transparency. Interestingly enough based on my records, it seems that I had a better observation of the Veil here this week than from that remarkable night we had in Coinjock during the ECSP. Maybe it has something to do with its better placement or my eyes have gotten even better?

I also forgot to mention, I had a friend out with me for this particular observation of the Veil Nebula this week. He's a beginner and unbelievably (with difficultly) he was actually able to make out the southernmost part of the East Veil unfiltered (which is the brightest portion). He didn't see the entire "waterfall" as I did nor any of the West Veil unfiltered. I didn't write down the specific time, but it was sometime between 3:15 and 4:15 am. The zenith would've been placed in Cygnus at the time.

Ok it's settled: I'm reclassifying my morning site as a solid yellow zone. Because my evening site is a quarter mile closer to downtown and less elevated, I'm reclassifying it only as a borderline orange/yellow zone (I have seen M13 from there).

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, William McLean <preciousmyprecious@> wrote:

2 things: Veil no filter=wow.
Seasonal yellow?
 
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


________________________________
From: Nick Anderson <nranderson.deepskyobserver@>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:42 AM
Subject: [backbayastro] Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site


 
Because half of Blacksburg's population is made up of college students, I've noticed that the skies are considerably darker since I've been here for the summer. During the school year, I previously estimated the limiting magnitude of my site at 5.8 - 6.0 mag, placing it in a high orange zone (Bortle class 5). Now I've begun to question that based on a few nights with perfect transparency.

These are some of the reasons I'm thinking of reclassifying my site as a yellow zone (Bortle class 4):
- The skyglow is considerably less from Blacksburg (still about the same from neighboring Christiansburg)
- I'm about 1 mile from the center of VT's campus, which according to a light pollution map puts me in an orange zone
- If I were to travel an additional mile away from campus, the light pollution map would put me in a yellow zone
- If I were to travel 5 miles away from campus in my direction, the light pollution map would put me in a green zone
- M13 can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (5.9 mag)
- M8 (Lagoon Nebula) can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (6.0 mag)
- M20 (Trifid Nebula) is not visible to the unaided eye, meaning the limiting magnitude is less than 6.3
- With perfect transparency and appropriate placement, fainter portions of M8 can be seen to the east and west of the center, giving the nebula an oblong shape
- I saw the East Veil Nebula unfiltered in its entirety this week with 8/10 transparency
- I saw the "broom's handle" of the West Veil Nebula unfiltered this week with 8/10 transparency
- The Milky Way is not just a faint washed out cloud; it exhibit's some patchy structure, but not as stunning as a rural site
- The zodiacal light is apparent on nights with good transparency (took me until this month to figure out it wasn't skyglow)
- The clouds are always brighter than the background sky, so it is probably not a green zone

I would estimate 6.0 - 6.2 to be the limiting magnitude (for the summer). Before I go back and edit my journal for this summer, do you think that my justification for reclassifying this site as a yellow zone is appropriate?

-Nick Anderson


Veil, Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site

preciousmyprecious
 

It's funny now that I think of it, I've had sessions where I could hardly make out the Veil with a filter. Moisture in the air. I think. 
 
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


From: nranderson_deepskyobserver
To: backbayastro@...
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site

 
Agreed for both. I just looked through my past observations of the Veil and all of the ones from Blacksburg were done either before summer began or during only average transparency. Interestingly enough based on my records, it seems that I had a better observation of the Veil here this week than from that remarkable night we had in Coinjock during the ECSP. Maybe it has something to do with its better placement or my eyes have gotten even better?

I also forgot to mention, I had a friend out with me for this particular observation of the Veil Nebula this week. He's a beginner and unbelievably (with difficultly) he was actually able to make out the southernmost part of the East Veil unfiltered (which is the brightest portion). He didn't see the entire "waterfall" as I did nor any of the West Veil unfiltered. I didn't write down the specific time, but it was sometime between 3:15 and 4:15 am. The zenith would've been placed in Cygnus at the time.

Ok it's settled: I'm reclassifying my morning site as a solid yellow zone. Because my evening site is a quarter mile closer to downtown and less elevated, I'm reclassifying it only as a borderline orange/yellow zone (I have seen M13 from there).

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@..., William McLean wrote:
>
> 2 things: Veil no filter=wow.
> Seasonal yellow?
>  
> Carpe Noctem
> Bill McLean
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nick Anderson
> To: backbayastro@...
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:42 AM
> Subject: [backbayastro] Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site
>
>
>  
> Because half of Blacksburg's population is made up of college students, I've noticed that the skies are considerably darker since I've been here for the summer. During the school year, I previously estimated the limiting magnitude of my site at 5.8 - 6.0 mag, placing it in a high orange zone (Bortle class 5). Now I've begun to question that based on a few nights with perfect transparency.
>
> These are some of the reasons I'm thinking of reclassifying my site as a yellow zone (Bortle class 4):
> - The skyglow is considerably less from Blacksburg (still about the same from neighboring Christiansburg)
> - I'm about 1 mile from the center of VT's campus, which according to a light pollution map puts me in an orange zone
> - If I were to travel an additional mile away from campus, the light pollution map would put me in a yellow zone
> - If I were to travel 5 miles away from campus in my direction, the light pollution map would put me in a green zone
> - M13 can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (5.9 mag)
> - M8 (Lagoon Nebula) can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (6.0 mag)
> - M20 (Trifid Nebula) is not visible to the unaided eye, meaning the limiting magnitude is less than 6.3
> - With perfect transparency and appropriate placement, fainter portions of M8 can be seen to the east and west of the center, giving the nebula an oblong shape
> - I saw the East Veil Nebula unfiltered in its entirety this week with 8/10 transparency
> - I saw the "broom's handle" of the West Veil Nebula unfiltered this week with 8/10 transparency
> - The Milky Way is not just a faint washed out cloud; it exhibit's some patchy structure, but not as stunning as a rural site
> - The zodiacal light is apparent on nights with good transparency (took me until this month to figure out it wasn't skyglow)
> - The clouds are always brighter than the background sky, so it is probably not a green zone
>
> I would estimate 6.0 - 6.2 to be the limiting magnitude (for the summer). Before I go back and edit my journal for this summer, do you think that my justification for reclassifying this site as a yellow zone is appropriate?
>
> -Nick Anderson
>




Re: Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site

Nick Anderson
 

And it's going to be a real disappointment when fall semester begins again. I think I might be getting too spoiled with these skies! The zodiacal light was annoying bright in the east this morning. It must have stretched at least 15-20 degrees above the horizon!

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:

Agreed for both. I just looked through my past observations of the Veil and all of the ones from Blacksburg were done either before summer began or during only average transparency. Interestingly enough based on my records, it seems that I had a better observation of the Veil here this week than from that remarkable night we had in Coinjock during the ECSP. Maybe it has something to do with its better placement or my eyes have gotten even better?

I also forgot to mention, I had a friend out with me for this particular observation of the Veil Nebula this week. He's a beginner and unbelievably (with difficultly) he was actually able to make out the southernmost part of the East Veil unfiltered (which is the brightest portion). He didn't see the entire "waterfall" as I did nor any of the West Veil unfiltered. I didn't write down the specific time, but it was sometime between 3:15 and 4:15 am. The zenith would've been placed in Cygnus at the time.

Ok it's settled: I'm reclassifying my morning site as a solid yellow zone. Because my evening site is a quarter mile closer to downtown and less elevated, I'm reclassifying it only as a borderline orange/yellow zone (I have seen M13 from there).

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, William McLean <preciousmyprecious@> wrote:

2 things: Veil no filter=wow.
Seasonal yellow?
 
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


________________________________
From: Nick Anderson <nranderson.deepskyobserver@>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:42 AM
Subject: [backbayastro] Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site


 
Because half of Blacksburg's population is made up of college students, I've noticed that the skies are considerably darker since I've been here for the summer. During the school year, I previously estimated the limiting magnitude of my site at 5.8 - 6.0 mag, placing it in a high orange zone (Bortle class 5). Now I've begun to question that based on a few nights with perfect transparency.

These are some of the reasons I'm thinking of reclassifying my site as a yellow zone (Bortle class 4):
- The skyglow is considerably less from Blacksburg (still about the same from neighboring Christiansburg)
- I'm about 1 mile from the center of VT's campus, which according to a light pollution map puts me in an orange zone
- If I were to travel an additional mile away from campus, the light pollution map would put me in a yellow zone
- If I were to travel 5 miles away from campus in my direction, the light pollution map would put me in a green zone
- M13 can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (5.9 mag)
- M8 (Lagoon Nebula) can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (6.0 mag)
- M20 (Trifid Nebula) is not visible to the unaided eye, meaning the limiting magnitude is less than 6.3
- With perfect transparency and appropriate placement, fainter portions of M8 can be seen to the east and west of the center, giving the nebula an oblong shape
- I saw the East Veil Nebula unfiltered in its entirety this week with 8/10 transparency
- I saw the "broom's handle" of the West Veil Nebula unfiltered this week with 8/10 transparency
- The Milky Way is not just a faint washed out cloud; it exhibit's some patchy structure, but not as stunning as a rural site
- The zodiacal light is apparent on nights with good transparency (took me until this month to figure out it wasn't skyglow)
- The clouds are always brighter than the background sky, so it is probably not a green zone

I would estimate 6.0 - 6.2 to be the limiting magnitude (for the summer). Before I go back and edit my journal for this summer, do you think that my justification for reclassifying this site as a yellow zone is appropriate?

-Nick Anderson


Re: Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site

Nick Anderson
 

Agreed for both. I just looked through my past observations of the Veil and all of the ones from Blacksburg were done either before summer began or during only average transparency. Interestingly enough based on my records, it seems that I had a better observation of the Veil here this week than from that remarkable night we had in Coinjock during the ECSP. Maybe it has something to do with its better placement or my eyes have gotten even better?

I also forgot to mention, I had a friend out with me for this particular observation of the Veil Nebula this week. He's a beginner and unbelievably (with difficultly) he was actually able to make out the southernmost part of the East Veil unfiltered (which is the brightest portion). He didn't see the entire "waterfall" as I did nor any of the West Veil unfiltered. I didn't write down the specific time, but it was sometime between 3:15 and 4:15 am. The zenith would've been placed in Cygnus at the time.

Ok it's settled: I'm reclassifying my morning site as a solid yellow zone. Because my evening site is a quarter mile closer to downtown and less elevated, I'm reclassifying it only as a borderline orange/yellow zone (I have seen M13 from there).

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, William McLean <preciousmyprecious@...> wrote:

2 things: Veil no filter=wow.
Seasonal yellow?
 
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


________________________________
From: Nick Anderson <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:42 AM
Subject: [backbayastro] Bortle classification for my Blacksburg site


 
Because half of Blacksburg's population is made up of college students, I've noticed that the skies are considerably darker since I've been here for the summer. During the school year, I previously estimated the limiting magnitude of my site at 5.8 - 6.0 mag, placing it in a high orange zone (Bortle class 5). Now I've begun to question that based on a few nights with perfect transparency.

These are some of the reasons I'm thinking of reclassifying my site as a yellow zone (Bortle class 4):
- The skyglow is considerably less from Blacksburg (still about the same from neighboring Christiansburg)
- I'm about 1 mile from the center of VT's campus, which according to a light pollution map puts me in an orange zone
- If I were to travel an additional mile away from campus, the light pollution map would put me in a yellow zone
- If I were to travel 5 miles away from campus in my direction, the light pollution map would put me in a green zone
- M13 can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (5.9 mag)
- M8 (Lagoon Nebula) can be seen with the unaided eye with averted vision (6.0 mag)
- M20 (Trifid Nebula) is not visible to the unaided eye, meaning the limiting magnitude is less than 6.3
- With perfect transparency and appropriate placement, fainter portions of M8 can be seen to the east and west of the center, giving the nebula an oblong shape
- I saw the East Veil Nebula unfiltered in its entirety this week with 8/10 transparency
- I saw the "broom's handle" of the West Veil Nebula unfiltered this week with 8/10 transparency
- The Milky Way is not just a faint washed out cloud; it exhibit's some patchy structure, but not as stunning as a rural site
- The zodiacal light is apparent on nights with good transparency (took me until this month to figure out it wasn't skyglow)
- The clouds are always brighter than the background sky, so it is probably not a green zone

I would estimate 6.0 - 6.2 to be the limiting magnitude (for the summer). Before I go back and edit my journal for this summer, do you think that my justification for reclassifying this site as a yellow zone is appropriate?

-Nick Anderson


Re: Chippokes presentation

Jim Tallman
 

Do both J it will take time to get dark if this starts at 8

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:24 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation

 

 

Just a suggestion: How about meteors & meteorites? Lots of interest in those and the biggest shower of the year is coming up ~Aug.11-12

/\\ark

--- In backbayastro@..., George Reynolds <pathfinder027@...> wrote:
>
> I can be there and put on a presentation.  Any particular thing to cover?  How long should it be?
>
> George
>  
>
> George Reynolds
>
> "Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
> Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
> http://www.backbayastro.org
>
>  
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Greg Doughty <ki4bbl@...>
> >To: backbayastro@...
> >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:02 AM
> >Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation
> >
> >
> > 
> >Hey folks,
> > 
> >I called, but who knows if you got the message knowing my phone.  I can participate, and I can bring a projector if need be.  My suggestion is to project it to the outside wall of the white building close to the parking lot.  People can sit on the lawn and watch. 
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 
> >>Sorry Mark.  I've been on the road.  I can help with the observation part and set up in the mansion parking lot if someone is going to do the presentation.
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:19 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>>Supposed to be. I put a confirmation on here 6/15; tho no one has called me to volunteer for it.
> >>>
> >>>I will chk w/ George
> >>>
> >>>/\\ark G.
> >>>
> >>>--- In backbayastro@..., Jim Tallman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey is this still a go?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


Re: Chippokes presentation

Jim Tallman
 

HMMMM.. well your constellation presentation goes over well and you know them pretty well so I can just point at you if it comes up in the viewing session.  I’d say 30-45 min? Think I might bring the 14” out.

 

 

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of George Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:13 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation

 

 

I can be there and put on a presentation.  Any particular thing to cover?  How long should it be?

 

George

 


George Reynolds

"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia

Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
http://www.backbayastro.org


 

 


From: Greg Doughty <ki4bbl@...>
To: backbayastro@...
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation

 

 

Hey folks,

 

I called, but who knows if you got the message knowing my phone.  I can participate, and I can bring a projector if need be.  My suggestion is to project it to the outside wall of the white building close to the parking lot.  People can sit on the lawn and watch. 

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:

 

Sorry Mark.  I've been on the road.  I can help with the observation part and set up in the mansion parking lot if someone is going to do the presentation.

 

Jim


On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:19 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:

 

Supposed to be. I put a confirmation on here 6/15; tho no one has called me to volunteer for it.

I will chk w/ George

/\\ark G.

--- In backbayastro@..., Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:
>
> Hey is this still a go?
>
> Jim
>

 

 


Re: Chippoaks presentation

gerlach.mark
 

Just a suggestion: How about meteors & meteorites? Lots of interest in those and the biggest shower of the year is coming up ~Aug.11-12

/&#92;&#92;ark

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, George Reynolds <pathfinder027@...> wrote:

I can be there and put on a presentation.  Any particular thing to cover?  How long should it be?

George
 

George Reynolds

"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
http://www.backbayastro.org

 



________________________________
From: Greg Doughty <ki4bbl@...>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation


 
Hey folks,
 
I called, but who knows if you got the message knowing my phone.  I can participate, and I can bring a projector if need be.  My suggestion is to project it to the outside wall of the white building close to the parking lot.  People can sit on the lawn and watch. 


On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:


 
Sorry Mark.  I've been on the road.  I can help with the observation part and set up in the mansion parking lot if someone is going to do the presentation.


Jim

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:19 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:


 
Supposed to be. I put a confirmation on here 6/15; tho no one has called me to volunteer for it.

I will chk w/ George

/&#92;&#92;ark G.

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, Jim Tallman <jctallman@> wrote:

Hey is this still a go?

Jim



Re: Chippoaks presentation

George Reynolds
 

I can be there and put on a presentation.  Any particular thing to cover?  How long should it be?

George
 

George Reynolds

"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
http://www.backbayastro.org


 


From: Greg Doughty
To: backbayastro@...
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Re: Chippoaks presentation

 
Hey folks,
 
I called, but who knows if you got the message knowing my phone.  I can participate, and I can bring a projector if need be.  My suggestion is to project it to the outside wall of the white building close to the parking lot.  People can sit on the lawn and watch. 

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:
 
Sorry Mark.  I've been on the road.  I can help with the observation part and set up in the mansion parking lot if someone is going to do the presentation.

Jim


On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:19 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:

 
Supposed to be. I put a confirmation on here 6/15; tho no one has called me to volunteer for it.

I will chk w/ George

/\\ark G.

--- In backbayastro@..., Jim Tallman wrote:
>
> Hey is this still a go?
>
> Jim
>





Cub Scout Day Camp at Elks Lodge June 28

gerlach.mark
 

I anyone else planning on attending this??

So far it looks like I am alone. George R is not sure if he can make it.

We could use a couple of other scopes.

Mark G.


Re: Chippoaks presentation

Greg Doughty <ki4bbl@...>
 

Hey folks,
 
I called, but who knows if you got the message knowing my phone.  I can participate, and I can bring a projector if need be.  My suggestion is to project it to the outside wall of the white building close to the parking lot.  People can sit on the lawn and watch. 

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jim Tallman <jctallman@...> wrote:
 

Sorry Mark.  I've been on the road.  I can help with the observation part and set up in the mansion parking lot if someone is going to do the presentation.

Jim


On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:19 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:

 

Supposed to be. I put a confirmation on here 6/15; tho no one has called me to volunteer for it.

I will chk w/ George

/\\ark G.

--- In backbayastro@..., Jim Tallman wrote:
>
> Hey is this still a go?
>
> Jim
>



Re: Boardwalk on the 3rd

Jim Tallman
 

The new 6"


On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:23 AM, "Mark" <gerlach.mark@...> wrote:

 

I will be there. Shoudl I bring 6" Dob or 12" Dob or 8" SCT?

/\\ark G.

--- In backbayastro@..., "Charles JAGOW" wrote:
>
> Back Bay Amateur Astronomer's Board Walk Astronomy next week is going to be a "barn burner" with large crowds expected and let's all hope for good weather!
>
> I plan on bringing the 12" and the 60mm solar scope and the solar funnel!
>
> I am looking forward to it!
>
> v/r
> Chuck Jagow
> Rott’n Paws Observatory
> 36:46:23N / 76:13:31W
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: George Reynolds [mailto:pathfinder027@...]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 07:30 AM
> >To: backbayastro@...
> >Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd
> >
> >I'll be there.
> >
> >George
> > 
> >
> >George Reynolds
> >
> >"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
> >Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
> >http://www.backbayastro.org
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >> From: Jeff Goldstein
> >>To: backbayastro@...
> >>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:23 PM
> >>Subject: RE: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>I’ll be there.  I’ll try to bring the LXD75 & AR6 Refractor J
> >> 
> >>Sincerely,
> >> 
> >>Jeff Goldstein
> >>www.jeffgold.net
> >>NAR #81619 L3
> >>TRA#04764 L3
> >> 
> >>From:backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of Dale Carey
> >>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 PM
> >>To: backbayastro@...
> >>Subject: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd
> >> 
> >> 
> >>OMG - the 3rd?????????   July 4th week???????????   we are going to be mobbed
> >> 
> >>city page  http://www.beachstreetusa.com/calendar/2012-07-03?mini=calendar%2F2012-07
> >> 
> >> 
> >>I'll be there at 5pm - see ya there
> >> 
> >>Dale Carey
> >>web site  -  http://mysite.verizon.net/vbstargazer/
> >>
> >>
> >>
>


Re: Boardwalk on the 3rd

gerlach.mark
 

I will be there. Shoudl I bring 6" Dob or 12" Dob or 8" SCT?

/&#92;&#92;ark G.

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "Charles JAGOW" <chuck@...> wrote:

Back Bay Amateur Astronomer's Board Walk Astronomy next week is going to be a "barn burner" with large crowds expected and let's all hope for good weather!

I plan on bringing the 12" and the 60mm solar scope and the solar funnel!

I am looking forward to it!

v/r
Chuck Jagow
Rott’n Paws Observatory
36:46:23N / 76:13:31W


-----Original Message-----
From: George Reynolds [mailto:pathfinder027@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 07:30 AM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd

I'll be there.

George
 

George Reynolds

"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA) 
http://www.backbayastro.org

 



________________________________
From: Jeff Goldstein <jeffgold1@...>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd


 
I’ll be there.  I’ll try to bring the LXD75 & AR6 Refractor J
 
Sincerely,
 
Jeff Goldstein
www.jeffgold.net
NAR #81619 L3
TRA#04764 L3
 
From:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale Carey
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Boardwalk on the 3rd
 
 
OMG - the 3rd?????????   July 4th week???????????   we are going to be mobbed
 
city page  http://www.beachstreetusa.com/calendar/2012-07-03?mini=calendar%2F2012-07
 
 
I'll be there at 5pm - see ya there
 
Dale Carey
web site  -  http://mysite.verizon.net/vbstargazer/


15521 - 15540 of 53550