The only amateur astronomy tip I can think of is that for a telescope, it's more about light gathering ability than magnification.  You'd think it would be the other way around but without the ability to gather plenty of light, magnification is no good.  

“The brighter an object, the more the light can be spread out through magnification. When an object is magnified twice (2x), the light is only a quarter as bright. The highest magnifications can only be used on the clearest, stillest nights. Generally a maximum of 300x magnification can be used on any night.”

This site (http://web.utah.edu/Planetarium/Telescopes.html) indicates, "While any telescope can be operated at any magnification, no telescope can perform well at more than about 2 power per millimeter of aperture. This means that a 15cm (6") telescope should usually not be operated at more than 300 power, while a 60mm (2.4") 'scope should not be used at much more than 120 power. If any telescope is advertised at more than this, be warned that it will not perform well at the higher powers."

Another tip I saw was: It's better to start with a small telescope and see the many objects available for a small price tag. If you wish to see more objects or in greater detail, then it's time to move up!

I worry about America losing its lead if only the government is involved.

We need to really encourage the private sector. The government keeps trying but really has not succeeded in lowering costs. If we are to ever become a "space faring civilization" the private sector needs to step in

The government can help by giving tax incentives. Perhaps by not charging fees for launches, and even having a lower "income tax" rate for corporations that  make space accessible.

Instead of building launch vehicles and  space stations, NASA should become a major customer to private companies.

.
.

it's surely frustrating for the agency/country that landed the first astronauts on the moon to be unable to launch a crew in space for 5+ years due to the 2010 Shuttle retirement...

but the solution is simple: "don't retire the Shuttle in 2010"

after all, the Shuttle program yearly budget is "only" $3 billion, just 20% of the annual NASA budget and a minimal fraction of the money spent (e.g.) in Iraq (despite democracy and freedom are invaluable)

the alternative way is: "reduce the (expected) 5+ years gap using ONLY ready available engines and motors"

and my latest suggestion to SAVE (very much) time and money is a "new Ares-I design" explained in this article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/023newAres.html

.
.

To John and kids of Kansas: 

 A fairly good pair of field glasses (binoculars) would be the best place to start. They're not that expensive (200-300$, if you don’t already have some) and you can see an AMAZING amount of NEAT STUFF with them. Jupiter's 4 large moons, Saturn's rings, and the phases (like the Moon's) of Venus [which is currently high in the western sky after sunset] come immediately to mind. If you get to, look at Jupiter 1st, go to the others, then back to Jupiter a couple hours later….you should notice that its moons have moved a little bit; almost like a mini-solar-system (which it is).You won't be able to see any PLANETARY details, but you'll definitely be able to tell who is 'into' planets from the experience.

The Earth’s Moon can be a little problematic, since you’ll find even a brief look at it ‘over-exposes’ your night vision for a good few minutes; best to look at it during a waning (evening) crescent phase, but you’ll almost think you can see Neil’s footprints….

It can be hard to keep hand-held binocs (or telescopes) very steady, but there’re tripods etc. also available if you go further.....I recommend taking along some deck-chairs to sit in, too. In August there are the Perseid meteors, for which you should use NO optical stuff at all; just your eyes looking up.

If you go further, I *highly* recommend a little, but pretty powerful (and inexpensive) table-top telescope called an Astroscan from Edmund Scientific….may *look* cheesy, but it’s an easy ‘next-stepper’ and way better than binocs.

Also, take heart! If you live in a city, you should be able to see most of this stuff  just by finding a reasonably dark place (no trip to ‘the country’ required). “Deep space” stuff (like galaxies and nebulae) would be much tougher . . .

Ps. I’d look up an amateur Astronomy club in your area, but I suspect following messages will deluge you with them . . .

Sorry for the length of this Alan, but I couldn’t resist….

Does anyone else find it troubling that it took about 10 years to get to the moon using computers less powerful than any computer in use today, along with all of the advances in industry since the 60's, and it will take 15+ to get back?

.
.

Alan,

I've read your article about the virtual space adventures on Second Life:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17841125/

I don't know when space adventures was estabilised on Second Life but (probably) the FIRST (or, "one of the first") text-only "Virtual Space Agency" was my ghostNASA "started" in August 9, 2006 at 1:11 AM:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/

from my blog:

ghostNASA is NOT a NASA blog - it's a "parallel dimension NASA" with a "parallel dimension NASA chief" (me) and a "parallel dimension space program" - this is a read-only blog since I don't use it for discussions - I already talk about space in some space forums - also, I don't post here all my ideas about space since I've a personal website to do that - here I post only DECISIONS - each post IS a DECISION of the ghostChief of ghostNASA

in my mind, I've many "decisions" to take for my ghostNASA but, unfortunately, I've not so much time to write them (also write posts needs twice+ the effort to me, since english is not my mother language) then (so far) I've used my spare time to write some new articles for my personal website:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/articles.html

.
.

Gabe, that's because the problems are mostly political and institutional, NOT technological.

(Though some will try to blame technology and physics, instead)

The only 'gap' in prospect in human spaceflight is that of a vastly overpriced U.S Government developed vehicle. With any luck we'll be seeing private US human carrying vehicles flying during that 'gap'

Anyway, when did we last worry about a 'gap' in US government developed civilian airplanes....or for that matter, US government developed computers?

This whole flap is a complete nothing.

Good suggestions, J.C.

Celestron makes a type of guide/sighter called SkyScout ... I guess you look at a celestial object through the finder, and the device will tell you what you're looking at. It also has GPS capability (that's how it knows what you're looking at) and can suggest objects to look at. The thing costs about $400 ... I'm not sure if it's worth it, or whether it's better to make contact with a real live skywatcher through an astronomy club.  ;-)

If anyone is familiar with the SkyScout or other gadgets, please feel free to chime in.

http://www.celestron.com/skyscout/new/index.php

I couldn't possibly let this subject drop without mentioning Heavens-Above.com, the site that provides free customized sky maps, etc.

http://www.heavens-above.com

As far as telescopes go, there are at least two approaches ... get the biggest light-gathering capability you can with a simple mount, like the Dobsonian 8-inch reflecting telescope I have; or get a small refracting "go-to" telescope that may not bring in as many objects under optimal viewing conditions, but will make it easier to find the objects worth seeing. At least that's the way I see the choice. For a casual observer, I wonder if the "go-to" route is better; I'm not sure. I'd love to hear what others have to say about that.

Another route, particularly if you're working with a group of teens, is to make your own telescope. I've always wanted to do this but just haven't gotten around to it ... and you would definitely want to do this under the tutelage of people who know what they're doing. But I can imagine that this would be a cool project for a scout troop or school club.

.
.

I've found (and posted here) many 3-D images (to see with red-blue glasses) about space and spacecrafts, but (so far) this is the BEST found:

http://www.fourth-millennium.net/
stereo-spacecraft/mars-scout-airplane-3d.html

it's an artist concept of the Ares ("Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey") a small automated scout airplane for Mars

if you watch the image two feet away from the PC display and wait a few seconds (to allow your eyes to find the right focus) the plane (literally) "exits" out of the screen and floats between the screen and you!!!

you can also try to take it with your hands... but without success... :)

.
.

Agree with Charles from Brookline.  The gap is a tin cup for billions of dollars of tax money to tinkle into.  And as with any tin cup, the receiver will find himself far less enriched than he imagines, but more than he deserves.

I can see where NASA is coming from here, in that there's still no proven commercial design and/or business plan for manned orbital vehicles.  But I also don't see that there's going to be any hurry here.  I suspect even people in NASA know that the racket is coming to an end sooner rather than later.  Most of them are even at the point where they're willing to embrace that fact with the more romantic side of their nature.

The Ares is a paper tiger to keep the military industrial types, and their shuttle hardware, gainfully employed in aerospace just in case something doesn't work out elsewhere.  It's an insurance fund, nothing else.  Worst comes to worst, the US can live without a launcher for 5 years - we do it for 3 every time a shuttle blows up.

To John and kids II:

My own feeling is that a hand-pointed (ie, not 'go to' or otherwise motor driven) telescope is the best way to start out. My experience (granted, from 10+ years ago) is that anything motor-driven that is inexpensive is pretty poor: loose, plastic gears, weak motors with alot of 'play' in them, weak battery-paks, require care to engage/disengage the drive to move more than a small arc, and prone to irreparable breakdowns. They require quite a bit of effort, and there's little that'll turn kids off faster than waiting in the dark, while an adult tries to point the thing (especially, in my case, if it's deeply cold or mosquito-ridden outside).

A 6+ inch telescope is something to get only once Spock-itis has definitely set in. If/when it does, an 8” ‘reflecting’ telescope (also called a ‘Newtonian’ telescope) on a Dobsonian mount is definitely ‘the thing to get’ next…. but start with some inexpensive binoculars (one pair per kid if possible). And pick up a copy of Astronomy magazine, look over the ‘centerfold’ sky map and familiarize yourself with the night sky, before hand.

One final tip: Observe the path the Sun takes across the sky during the day and remember it . . . where it rose, where it was at Noon, and where it set. This path is the “Ecliptic”; bright objects you see in this same path, at night, are probably planets! Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are easy to identify in this manner, if they’re up during night hours, even from a city, with binoculars.

One STRONG WARNING: never, EVER look anywhere NEAR the Sun this way! Jupiter and especially Venus can be visible even in semi-daylight; make sure Sol is good-and-down before doing any looking.

Happy hunting, John from Kansas….

I don't often agree with Gaetano, but the clear solution for the "gap" is to not retire the shuttle fleet on schedule. Perhaps as a stopgap (or a future venture), the government could turn over ownership and control of the shuttle fleet to a venture capitalist -- maybe there's some money to be made in stripping down a shuttle and flying it on automatic as a cargo hauler?

In the 1930's the U.S. Army Air Corps found their aircraft were far behind their civilian counterparts for one good reason: competition. Civilian aircraft companies were developing more reliable, cheaper, faster aircraft capable of flying in the dark and poor weather because they owners/investors saw the potential for success was enormous. I believe in much the same way, we need to let NASA take the role of the FAA, namely setting standards for safe operation, and coordinating the legislative/regulatory infrastructure across national and international boundaries to allow our fledgling space companies thrive.

Hi Doug, I see what you are saying, but I honestly don't think we can discount government funding so quickly.  Even before WWII, the Army Air Corps was commissioning the design of ALL the famous bombers of WWII.  Even the six-engined B-36 was contracted before the war and there was a massive cargo derivative of that.  Such massive planes easily dwarfed anything the civilian sector dared to try and lead to modern commercial airlines like we see today.  The airline industry is so well along and fully developed that I do think that the competition between Boeing and Airbus far outpace military development, but even they continue to need government funding to develop such amazing aircraft.

I'm not sure if the DC-3 was a civilian or government/military derived aircraft.  That plane [had] a major role in the airlines after WWII.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):