Have you noticed the stars in ABQ? (Albuquerque, Moriarty: middle schools, college)

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

My favorite stargazing spots are in Socorro county (almost close to Albuquerque). It's no coincidence that most of the state's telescopes are there too.

I can imagine. Last summer I drove into Phoenix through Socorro, US-60, and saw the VLA.

Last I checked stargazing was legal everywhere (well, everywhere where driving or walking around was legal). I've never heard of someone getting jacked for their telescope, but I guess it could happen.

I asked that because a lot of parks, picnic areas, parking lots in BLM public lands, national forest areas, etc officially "close" after a certain hour. Whether or not that's actually enforced, I don't know.

[Trkstp Tina]

There was an interesting article in National Geographic recently about light pollution. (You could probably find it by Google; I think it was a cover article.) It had a map of the world designated by levels of light pollution. I thought New Mexico might be one of the areas free from light pollution, but it was not, although its levels were lower than the coasts. I remember Africa on the map had some light-pollution-free zones.

[rybert]

I'm really looking forward to the next major grid collapse... I've got my telescope ready.

[trappedinNM]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the problem is far more serious than expected. According to Al Gore's new book, the threat of Global Dimming is very real. "The stars are not as bright as they used to be", proclaimed Gore at the first conference on Global Dimming. "At the current rate, the stars may not be visible in 100 years, leading to widespread panic."

"Camel herders will lose their bearings without the North Star", he proclaimed. "They might actually deliver their wares to the south instead of the north."

He expanded on the dangers of a starless night: "For centuries poets have relied on the stars for inspiration. What is left for them if there are no stars?"

Al Hadid Jabar, a Somali pirate and attendee, was also worried. "We do not have GPS and other neat gadgets to guide us in our Jihad. We rely on the stars to navigate. What if we attack a warship instead of a tanker?", he asked. "Virgins mean nothing to us - we need Saudi cash!".

To combat the threat, Gore has created a task force, and is petitioning for funds. "Congress needs to act now", he stated. "This GD problem is real!" "Last week while leaving Geneva, my Gulfstar pilot commented how dim the stars looked. This is unacceptable!"

According to some scientists, the number of -1 magnitude stars has decreased substantially since Christ was born in the manger.

"We know from the Bible that there were dozens of -1 magnitude stars 2000 years ago", Gore explained. "Today we are lucky to see one."

"Polaris used to be a solid 1 magnitude. Today its a 2. There is clear scientific proof the stars are dimming", he warned. "This problem will require the brightest minds, clever thinkers with unparalleled wit and skill."

In response to the threat, Congress created its own task force. Henry Reid, Nancy Palosi, and Gore are the founding committee members of the new Council on Global Dimming.

Detractors of Global Dimming are many. "I think they are just as bright as always" said Actor Orion O'neal. If you ask me, Congress and Gore sound like a bunch of "GD Dimwits!"

[trailtramp]

Every night, even when its colder than a witches tit out there, I take a little walk outside and revel at the sparkling bowl of diamonds above my head. Moonless nights are the best. Light pollution is really low here in Placitas, especially here on the north side of Sandia backing up against the mountains.

Brightest have ever seen was the week I spent on Molokai in Hawaii at the Parker Ranch Lodge. Its so overwhelming but an entirely marvelous sight!

[mortimer]

The Albuquerque Astronomical Society TAAS

vegaspilgrim, searching, ... asks quietly:

> ... know of any good dark sky spots close to Albuquerque
> where you can legally and safely bring your telescope ....

I think that the "safety" issue might be regarding personal
safety and not getting arrested for gazing.

There are groups that get together in large (safe) groups
to be nerdular about astronomy for an evening. Search
the above site for more information.

Albuquerque is small enough that anywhere on the edge of
development is likely to be better than most places people
live in the US.

Drive N/S/E/W out of town and turn off at any exit that has
no services and keep going for a mile or so till the highway
noise/lights fade.

Any instrument you are carrying in your car is likely to be 99%
as effective in such a place as it would be in a very remote
area. Just going to one of the equestrian parks in the NE
heights is likely to be good enough and quite convenient.

The suggestion for going to Sandia Crest is a good one, but
remember that it isn't necessarily a horizon-to-horizon view.
The winds are likely to be quite persistant unless you are in a
sheltered hollow which will impede your view in many directions.

Once you are using 40x or more, it doesn't take much of a
wind to mess up your viewing.

BTW, for those who aren't astrononerds, you can see Jupiter's moons
with a 7x pair of binoculars. Jupiter will appear as a little disc rather
than a point of steady light. You can see Venus as a crescent.

40x will resolve Saturn's rings. You can see Mercury as a crescent.

100x will see some details on Mars and is good enough for evening
entertainment for houseguests, kids and such. You can see galaxies
and nebulas and such. Some of Saturns moons will be visible.

Such a telescope will be about 3" thick.

You can also see people walking around on the crest from the UNM area.

"Department store" telescopes are only good for about half the
magnification power that they will have written on the box.

[ziaAirmac]

Solid info, mortimer.

mortimer, being helpful, serenely shares:

Originally Posted by mortimer

...Such a telescope will be about 3" thick.
... "Department store" telescopes are only good for about half the
magnification power that they will have written on the box.

If you're on the low end, look for a REFLECTOR telescope as opposed to a REFRACTOR. A refractor has that classic long, thin shape that you picture on a tripod with a bow on it next to the Christmas tree. On a standard alt azimuth mount with the highest power lens in, it's pretty much useless. The quality of the optics doesn't support the power (what mortimer was alluding to.). Also, you can easily start bumping into the limits of what you can see clearly through our atmosphere. If you don't know how to set up the mount, every time you change one setting, you're affecting the other making for a really poor viewing experience. To give you an idea, the magnification is high enough you can see the relative motion of the moon, which is cool until you realize you now have to constantly adjust your mount to keep it in view.

By 3" thick, mortimer was speaking to the diameter of the main tube, and then generally: the size of the main mirror or lens.

Good viewing is all about gathering steady light through quality optics, and a reflector design (The short, fat looking ones that you generally look in from the side) are much better at this. They don't win the marketing wars because the larger mirror (one of the most expensive bits in the design.) cost more to produce and they operate at lower magnifications compared to the refractors. To the shopper it looks like you get less magnification for more money. The truth is you get more light gathering ability and better quality optics, and that's what actually leads to the point: a nice image to look at.

Would you rather have a 3 megapixel camera with a 20x zoom or a 12 megapixel camera with a 6x zoom? It's a similar situation. The higher zoom will lure many buyers, but at that zoom, there's hardly enough light for a decent picture and it's nearly impossible to keep the image still and crisp. On top of that, the low true resolution limits the amount of detail you can capture.

Finally, pop for the new computerized mounts. It's just so much more enjoyable to let the computer do the 'star finding' for you, and remember the moon's motion? The computerized mounts constantly make up for the Earth's rotation, minimizing any image crawl. Also, all of the computerized mounts I've been around offer a setting equivalent to a 'tour of this evening's sky.' where it automatically goes from one point of interest to the next in the sky you're looking at. At the low end, consumer level you can can get a reflector on a computerized mount at reasonable prices. I've seen unreal pricing on 4" computerized reflectors at the 'Vision Centers' in front of Wal-Marts after Christmas.

[mortimer]

ziaAirmac advises:

> If you're on the low end, look for a REFLECTOR telescope as
> opposed to a REFRACTOR.

The problem with a reflecting telescope is that it is much less
intuitive to aim and operate than a refractor - which is just a
long version of a normal pair of binoculars ( and is monocular ).

> ... pop for the new computerized mounts ...

You are making the generous assumption that the buyer will
ever use the scope more than a couple of times before it
goes to the garage or storage shed for the final time.

A kid can start with a $50 department store scope and if they
give it constant use, then graduate to a better used scope that
a weathy "toy buyer" ( you know who I'm talking about ) has
finally decided to get rid of. My dad did this for me more than
30 years ago and I'm still sporting a decent piece of equipment.

Someday when I grow up, I want a Schmidt-Cassegrain 12-16" unit.

[rybert]

I'm looking into a new Meade 8"... what are your thoughts on this?

[ziaAirmac]

mortimer: Points taken. I just think it's more likely it won't end up in the garage or storage shed if they get something that takes some of the work out. The computerized mount and a 'red-dot' alignment tube mitigate most of the counter-intuitiveness of the reflectors.

As for your hoped for Schmidt-Cassegrain 12-16", is there anyone that doesn't want one of those one day?


rybert: An 8" is plenty of performance for general astronomy and a nice balance of performance and portability if you're looking to go to dark sky. Like a TV's dimensions, the 8" diameter belies a huge improvement in total light gathering area over say, a 4". I could make out Jupiter and Saturn's rings with a 4" viewing in Peralta (in between Los Lunas and Belen.). You'll have fun with the 8.