Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: Mike Simmons <mikes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:13:21 -0800
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:19:37 GMT, William R. Mattil wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for this information. Having grown up, relatively speaking, in S.
> Calif I spent many summers climbing in the Sierra. Whitney's East Face
> numerous times and Keeler once as well. I can remember that as being an
> excruciating climb. Hot, I mean "solar" kind of hot and opressive and we
> naturally didn't bring enough water, or didn't climb fast enough
> <laughs>. Sunrise from atop that ridge though is something else. And the
> milky way simply incredible. Regardless of what they say about
> alititude. I could see *plenty* of stars. I surmised that it had to be
> the same Keeler though... now Langley ! That's something completely
> unexpected. Somehow seems right though doesn't it ?
Bill,
I also did a bit of hiking and climbing in the area but just easy routes.
I recongized Langley for what it is but the Keeler connection never
occurred to me before.
I've never had a problem seeing lots of stars at altitude in the Sierra. I
got great views of Kohoutek during a sky mountaineering trip to the Bishop
Pass area one January. But when I exceeded those altitudes on a trip to
the Andes (for the 1994 total solar eclipse) I couldn't see a darned thing
in the sky at our 15,500-foot base camp on Mt. Sajama. Even with
sufficient acclimatization to be able to run around at 16,000 feet the
night sky always looked like there were thin clouds or haze (there
weren't). What a difference a few thousand feet make (in more ways than
one!).
> PS: When are you going to get me one of those old Photographic plates
> from the 100 inch ? Soon ??? <g>
You did ask about that once a long time ago, didn't you? I think you
wanted to get a Palomar plate although I'm sure you'd accept one from the
lowly 100-inch. Not going to happen.<g> There are some surplus plates
from the 48-inch Schmidt that could be sold off some time, though. They're
duplicates, not glass that's been in the telescope, but you can't tell the
difference except that the glass is thicker (the originals are very thin so
they can be bent to match the Schmidt's curved focal plane). They're qutie
amazing.
Mike Simmons
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: G.T.
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- References:
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: William C. Keel
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: William R. Mattil
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: Mike Simmons
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- From: William R. Mattil
- Re: Mt.Wilson
- Prev by Date: Re: Sun, Moon magnification
- Next by Date: A Consequence of Improper Science Lessons
- Previous by thread: Re: Mt.Wilson
- Next by thread: Re: Mt.Wilson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|