mikemarotta

From this month's (January 2021) Sky & Telescope: 

Quote

 

An amateur astronomer has recovered four of five “lost” Jovian moons.

In a first, an amateur astronomer has found four of five "lost" Jovian moons using images from a publicly available archive. The feat allows a recalculation of their orbits, leaving only one of Jupiter's 79 known satellites still missing.

The formerly missing moons are among a group of 23 small (1–4 km) Jovian satellites that Scott Sheppard (Carnegie Institution for Science) and colleagues reported in 2003. Many of these were later lost, though some were later recovered; as of late November, five "lost" moons remained. They are so faint that large telescopes can see them for only about a month every year, when Jupiter is closest to Earth. Early observations were limited, leaving their  initial orbits uncertain, too, all of which made them easy to lose.
ON THE HUNT FOR LOST MOONS
The amateur, who gave his name only as Kenneth, found inspiration in two Minor Planet Electronic Circulars from November, which reported recovery of two previously lost Jovian moons (S/2003 J 16 in MPEC 2020 V10 and S/2003 J 9 in MPEC 2020 V19). Those reports were submitted by professional astronomers, who found the moons in images dating from 2010 through 2018.

Full story here:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/amateur-astronomer-finds-lost-moons-of-jupiter/
 

 

I wrote this and sent it to the six AAS amateurs who formed the first core group to discuss our status as Affiliates within the Society. I have received no replies.

The Amateur’s Credo

My love of astronomy is its own justification.
I am motivated to practice the science of astronomy by my enjoyment of the activity.

I choose my own research projects.
I can change (or abandon) my research programs, goals, and methods.
My funding and my spending are my own.
I schedule my own time.
I choose my own instruments and equipment.
I schedule my own instruments and equipment.
I choose when and how to share my instruments or equipment. 

My amateur colleagues and I call each other by our first names. We also have cool usernames. 

I do not need approval from anyone to engage in and practice astronomy.
My advancement does not depend on approval from another person or group.
When I publicize my work, peer review is after the fact, not as permission to publish.
My publications stand on their own merit, independent of my name or ascribed status.

My learning is continuous and informal, an integrated aspect of my life and lifestyle.
I decide when and how to extend my knowledge, drawing from an open market of learning platforms including self-paced and self-directed studies offered by accredited organizations. I also benefit from public libraries and bookstores. Through social media, I ask questions. My love of the learning is its own justification, motivation, and reward.

(continuing...) But to return to the first point: 

On 10/01/2021 at 04:35, icpn said:

Well since the RAS has been doing this since its beginning I am not sure why the AAS is trying to extend its tentackles over here. The BAA has also been working closely with professionals for the majority of its existence.

There is no "here" here. For the early to mid-19th century the primary place to publish was Astronomische Nachrichten, whether or not you were from somewhere in "Germany" which was not even nation-state back then, and whether or not your report was in German. To draw a parallel between astronomy and numismatics again, I read festschrifts and other anthologies that are in multiple languages, regardless of who publishes them. Moreover, while it was true for some time that if you lived in the UK you were more likely to attend a BAA conference than cross the pond to an RASC or AAS conclave, that is no longer true. The Covid crisis only brought the online media to the fore. Email lists, Usenet, etc., all have been around for 35-40 years or more.

As you can see, there is no requirement to be in America and the Amateur Affiliate is just one such status. Just about every serious society I know of has such tiers and sets. 

On 10/01/2021 at 10:04, andrew s said:

Personally,  I am a lone wolf by instinct but have made contributions to the HOYS project in the short summer nights. While, they acknowledge all who contribute data, I can't say it matters much to me. I did it as I felt like it.

I feel pretty much the same way. One taxonomy I like is the alpha-beta-gamma-omega of social animals. We know the alpha-leaders. They need beta-followers. But every gene pool depends on gammas, those who ride or roam the edges and move from one group to another, bringing in new material (ideas, here), and preventing in-breeding. Omegas are non-participants, hardcore loners. 

I am working on an article about "astonomy as a collecting hobby" because of the parallels that I find between this and numismatics or philatelics. In all of them, we are alone looking at things through lenses. They appeal to people on the autism spectrum who love to categorize and count. Asperger called the children he studied his "ittle professors" for their penchant for acquiring arcana. Think of how kids who supposedly have a hard time in school love learning the tongue-twisting names of dinosaurs. Anyway... I find that here in myself and others.

On 10/01/2021 at 10:42, theropod said:

My point, which seems to be sailing well over many heads here, is that I don’t see how paying to be used is a reflection of stupendous judgement skills. Neither am I saying this will be the eventuality.

I suppose I should just come out and say it. This looks for all the world to be a money grab attempt. Pay your dues, even though we have excluded you and your ilk for decades, and keep your mouth shut. If there is no room for the notion to be challenged the notion is dogma. Does dogma have a place in science? Has money not motivated many with “good intentions” to screw over the little guy all too often in the past? One wonders why amateurs were ever excluded If they can provide such valuable input. Seriously, nobody else smells the spoilage of fish? 

That is all pretty harsh @theropod. First of all, the AAS says: "Our membership of about 7,700 individuals also includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers, and others whose research and educational interests lie within the broad spectrum of subjects now comprising the astronomical sciences." So, the 300 amateur affiliates are  3/77 or under 4% of the total. And they always could have been members with other designations. The AA program is at a greatly reduced price, also. So, this is not "a money grab."

I will agree with you that the AAS is hierarchically organized and headquartered in the nation's political capital, not its largest city. This initiative was launched in 2016. Two years later the board decided to make a program out of it and it was another year before they formed a committee. But, you get that with any complex organization. The Royal Society is probably the paradigm. The BAAS was founded to provide access to science to people - women - who were denied membership in the offical club. 

On 10/01/2021 at 10:59, JeremyS said:

Payment/money is only one part of the consideration, surely? Therefore it surely can't trump everything else (sorry about the pun).

The basic motivation as I understand it was the realization that for 20 years or more amateurs had been using the very same equipment and instruments as professionals and sometimes better. Amateurs do not need to get committee approval for a budgeted item in a fiscal year. We just buy whatever we want. Anyway, the AAS came to understand that any previous distinctions between "scientists" and "stargazers" no longer applied. And as above, the small numbers and lowered cost of admission deny the claim that this is about money.

On 10/01/2021 at 11:05, Tiny Clanger said:

(engage sarcasm) But ... for $52 p.a.  you can let everyone know you are an actual Amateur Affiliate of the AAS ! And you get a 'free' calendar ! (disengage sarcasm) Call me cynical ( I prefer 'realist' ) but that bit about the owners of 'Sky & Telescope' going bust and them buying it out ... could that be a clue to why a new revenue stream needs tapping ? Heather

Actually, Clanger, Sky & Telescope did not go bust. Their holding company did. You can read the history in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_%26_Telescope#History The fact is F+W was the previous owner and they filed for bankruptcy, but Sky & Tel was profitable on its own. The reality of business accounting is that assets and liabilities must balance. When you take money, you assume a burden of delivery. Every asset represents an obligation. So, the question for the AAS board was: "What now?" They bought Sky&Tel to rescue it. The Amateur Affliate program was already in place.

On 10/01/2021 at 14:19, saac said:

" ultimate benefit from such collaboration is less than that of the pro how can anyone NOT see the inequality inherit to such relationships?"

I think we all measure inequality differently . More so when as an amateur we have freely entered into such a relationship with no obligation, coercion nor promise of reward.  If it is "credit" we seek then indeed should we be amateurs?  ... I don't begrudge the professionals anything, but if they give me some insight to their world I would be both interested and grateful; when I've had enough I can walk away without carrying the pressures of their work - I have my own 

We agree on that much. I wrote up a "credo" about being an amateur and you hit on one point. We set our own goals. We can walk in and walk away. Professionals cannot change their research programs because their funding is tied to it. I agree also that the benefit to me in the pro-am collaboration is working with someone who can teach me something. We do that all the time in our own clubs anyway. 

On 10/01/2021 at 14:37, Merlin66 said:

The AAS seems to be restricted to US members? Many amateurs already submit data to various ProAm spectroscopic campaigns. Their work is recognized by the professionals.

See above, the AAS is not restricted to US members and professional off-shore can join at a lower rate. Several pro-am initiatves have been running for several years. It has been a fact that the databases (data warehouses) have more images and other recorded signals than the professionals can process. And many self-direct hobbyist scientists jump at the opportunity. 

I posted this here because it is interesting on its own merits as news. I do not speak for the AAS and I have no "tentacles" to extend. Having started the topic, allow me to respond as possible or necessary to as much as was posted in reply. Zeroeth, however, I did "heart" everything because I believe in dialog and discussion as a means of supporting the community of which I am a member. 

On 10/01/2021 at 04:35, icpn said:

Well since the RAS has been doing this since its beginning I am not sure why the AAS is trying to extend its tentackles over here. The BAA has also been working closely with professionals for the majority of its existence.

The viewpoint of the AAS is that amateurs chose to not join. The AAS also underscores the fact that technical hardware often separated us from them. Now, that has changed. Over the years, amateurs always could join the AAS. It was just that they had various "affiliate" niches to put themselves into and now Amateur Affliliate is a designation.

On 10/01/2021 at 05:27, John said:

We have quite a few members who are USA / Canada based on this forum though so the AAS would be more relevant to them

It is not a matter of scouring for members as telling the news. The AAS is a large organization. It's doings are relevant to any who care to know, otherwise not. Myself, we all like "space travel" but the internal doings of the ESA are less interesting to me. So, I understand your point of view.

On 10/01/2021 at 07:44, JeremyS said:

I view it as more of a spirit of collaboration and I’ve many positive experiences of pro-am collaboration in the field of variable star astronomy. 
Looking at who stands to gain more in a collaboration is setting out on the wrong foot.

See the comments below. "Gain" can be subjective. If you are self-motivated, if self-actualization is important, then the laurels from others carry less weight than if you are dependent on their good will for your advancment or self-esteem.

On 10/01/2021 at 07:54, mikeDnight said:

Throughout history there have been amateurs that were right up there with the best professionals, except they don't get paid and have to fund their research using ingenuity and limited finance.  Today, amateurs astronomers in that category are probably greater in number, and so may well be able to contribute significantly. They are also very happy to pay to be members of organizations that they may gain very little from personally. So the AAS may be right up their street.  Others like me, don't get involved in anything too deeply, and flit and flirt with any aspect of astronomy that floats our boat this week. Next week we might be studying something entirely different. Not sure I like the idea of having to pay to join one organisation just so I can pay to be affiliated to another. 

Well, that is the significant point, is it not. I mean, until the late 19th or 20th centuries, astronomy was an amateur pursuit. In some cases, astronomers had patrons whether the crown or the state, and then the universities. But many people just financed their own efforts.

On 10/01/2021 at 08:26, theropod said:

Not looking at this aspect is self serving for those that do get the most out of such a collaborative effort.

I have different definition of self-interest and self-service. If you depend on other people, then self-interest can be challenging to define. If you are truly selfish in the sense of Aristotlean eudaimonia, then what other people do is of less concern. 

On 10/01/2021 at 08:41, JeremyS said:

Looking at who gets the most out of a pro-am collaboration is a recipe for unhappiness. The question is how can each side contribute to the outcome. The outcome may be many things, including scientific results and enjoyment (this is a hobby for most, after all).

I agree, of course. I do see the other side, also. And I have to nod to the fact that when amateurs fund their own efforts so that professionals can get ahead in their careers, it seems unfair. But, as I said above, that worry over the status of others is not truly self-directed.

On 10/01/2021 at 09:42, theropod said:

...and when the outcome is reached it isn’t a larger feather in the cap of the pro?

As a retired professional scientist I’ve seen both sides of the door. An eager, talented and knowledgeable amateur, no matter how vital his/her contribution, is nearly always denied the credit due them. ...  All I’m doing is playing devil’s advocate. ... I’ve seen the decades long efforts of amateur paleontologist outright ripped off, belittled and dismissed out of hand. Horner (of egg mountain fame) didn’t do any of the leg work to find what put him “on the map”, and he sure didn’t object when issued an honorary doctorate as a result. 

Paleontology and archaeology are notorious for using amateurs as unpaid labor. I see astronomy as being more akin to numismatics in how amateurs and professionals both advance the study.

(to be continued)

Christmas morning at 3:30 AM, I was out looking at Leo and the Bears. 

I already posted my views of zeta Ursa Majoris (Alcor-Mizar) and Polaris to a discussion about Polaris. So, I will not repost those here. 

I read in Parallax by Alan Hirshfeld, that it was 200 years after Galileo that William Herschel became convinced that binary stars are just that: gravitationally locked. It had been assumed that the stars were like our sun, solitary. Astronomers attempted to find a bright star and a dim star together on the theory that the brighter one was closer and could be used to measure parallax. Similarly, it was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that astronomers were able to categorize stars by temperature and color.  One of the initiatives of citizen science is to join AVSO (Association of Variable Star Observers). But, here, too, I believe that all stars are "variable." We just keep to the paradigm that we inherited from naked-eye views of Algol. Anyway, that's what I got from viewing binary stars.

Albireo was first, of course. I read the story in Turn Left at Orion and at a star party, one of the docents put it in his telescope for me. Back in September, I found it for myself and viewed it often before it set for the season. On another board, one of the moderators suggested epsilon Lyrae. It took a new (larger objective) telescope to achieve that. I found a few more by reading tables and lists to look for, eta Cassiopeia, for example. I accidentally found eta Piscium one night when lining up Mars. It just looked like a binary. So, I noted the time and approximate location and looked it up later. I am not interesting in pursuing 100 binaries for the Astronomical League certificate. I am interested in knowing some easy targets that I can demonstrate when we get back to public outreach. (My local club is pretty big that: one a week is easy; we've done three in a week a few times.) Anyway, here are the out-takes from my observing log. I draw a circle that is proportional to my field of view and I use a millimeter rule with both eyes open to help keep the distances approximately correct. After I scan the page into a JPEG, I annotate it.

I tried over three different nights to view epsilon Lyrae in my smaller 70mm refractor, but it just does not gather enough light. I can get the primary binary, but not the double-double. The 102 mm was fine.

On 06/01/2021 at 04:50, Nik271 said:

Hi Doug, I don't think there is any other star nearby to confuse it with. Nikolay

On 06/01/2021 at 04:23, cloudsweeper said:

At x56, I saw the very bright A star, and close by was a fainter, clear star, well out of the glare.  I thought that was the B star, but it sat at about 1 or 2 o'clock. 

The problem is relating what I saw with the stated Position Angle of 233deg.  Doug.

Here is my sketch of Polaris. I had been using an architect's stencil for the nice little circles, but I lost it in the grass, so the stars are irregular by my handiwork. Just for one thing about your concerns: how to you align your eyepiece and prism to assure that you are squared up with the sky? If you are little off, or you turn it to be comfortable, you change the apparent angles, right?

I draw circles that are proportional to my field of view. I also view with two eyes so that I can hold a millimeter ruler at a convenient distance. I also speak out loud what I see.

Final works. The night of maximum (or, minimum, actually) was cloudy here. My telescope pierced the haze enough to let me see bright spots. Saturn was an oval. That was it. The sky was clouded until the 24th. Here is what I had. 

Left-Right inversion in the refractor. Saturn is to the west.

Welcome aboard! You should take all opinions with a grain of salt but we are all here to help each other and, ultimately, we are all beginners one way or another.

Myself, because you have the Barlows, I would go with the 7mm because it has a better field of view and eye relief. Most seeing is done with the brain. The eye - and its instrumentation - just provide raw data. The well-known case of the Full Moon on the Horizon should be proof enough of that.  To me, it is not so much what the telescope reveals - though that is important - as how much time I actually spend looking into it, studying a target, thinking about what I am seeing. I speak to myself often out loud about what I see. 

To me,  that is the benefit in sketching and keeping a notebook generally. It is not so much that I can produce a realistic picture (nice though that might be) as that I have put into my brain what my eyes delivered, even if what my hand produces on paper is not at all similar. It is like taking notes in class. The point is not to get your professor's brogue into your notes, but to get the concepts into your head.

So, from my point of view, the 7mm is a shade better for all of the above.

Anyway, it seems to me that you have a win-win, whatever you decide. I mean, having recommended the 7mm, if the 6 mm showed up on my doorstep, I would give it a home.

Best Regards,

Mike M.

My life is not that stressful, I confess. However, when I have found my targets for the night I will tilt back in the lawn chair and just look up for long time.

I consider myself a rational-empiricist. And I write for a living. But I have no words for the experience. It just feels good.

MEM

A new initiative to include amateurs in the professional organization is being launched at the American Astronomical Society's 237th Meeting, 10-13 January 2021. In 2016, Amateur status was added to the membership categories. Now, the AAS is extending its initiatives for inclusion by actively seeking engagement at the conferences. Ahead of that, an ad hoc committee of correspondence was launched by several AAS members. We held our first meeting online on 16 December.
 
Speaking to the group, AAS publicist Rick Fienberg underscored the fact that when the AAS was founded in 1899 a significant fraction were amateurs. However, the birth of astro-physics with spectroscopy meant that by the early 20th century the communities already were diverging. Amateurs fell away. Then, by the 1990s, amateurs were equipped with CCD cameras, spectrographs, and now are doing good science in collaboration with professionals. It made sense for the AAS to open its arms to the amateurs in 2016. Now we have 300 Amateur Affiliates. Also, the AAS recently purchased Sky & Telescope magazine. That being as it may, the AAS opened the membership to amateurs ahead of a defined rationale. So, in the summer of 2019, the Board of Directors created a task force to develop a coherent set of programs and benefits.

An 8 August 2018 press release said:
As long as amateurs do not depend on the field of astronomy as a primary source of income or support, they are now welcome to join the AAS as Amateur Affiliates.

Applicants are required to be a member of an affiliated organization, such as an astronomy club that belongs to the Astronomical League; the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO); the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP); the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO); the Society for Astronomical Sciences (SAS); the International Meteor Organization (IMO); the International Occultation Timing Association (IOTA); the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers (SARA); or the Citizen Science Association, to name a few.

Dues for Amateur Affiliates will be $52 for 2019. Inaugural benefits include reduced registration fees to AAS meetings, access to the AAS family of journals, and the annual AAS Wall Calendar. Additional programs and opportunities are expected for this group once a critical mass is established for survey and feedback purposes.

The Session Notes from the Convention Schedule
Jan 14 2021 6:50PM
 Amateur Astronomers Meet & Greet
"Recognizing the increasingly important role of backyard stargazers in astronomical research, science advocacy, and public outreach, the AAS recently created a new membership class: Amateur Affiliate. Subsequently the Society became the owner/publisher of Sky & Telescope after the magazine’s former owner went out of business. As 2021 begins, the AAS has about 300 Amateur Affiliate members. Many of them, as well as many S&T readers and other amateur astronomers who haven’t yet joined the Society, have registered to attend AAS 237. If you’re among them, please join us for this virtual get-together. (Others interested in meeting an engaged group of astronomy enthusiasts are welcome too!) In addition to getting to know each other, we’ll hear from Rick Fienberg, AAS Press Officer and former S&T Editor in Chief, about how the AAS plans to bring professional and amateur astronomers closer together for our mutual benefit. You’ll also have an opportunity to offer your own ideas about how the AAS can be more supportive and encouraging to amateur astronomers."

======================
Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Assistant Editor
History of Astronomy Division 
American Astronomical Society

Vice President
Austin Astronomical Society

Member: BAA, ASP, SPA
=====================
 

I found Atlas Coeli II by Antonín Bečvář at ABE Books. The price was reasonable (USD 50 with S&H & tax). It is worn but it was used well by the astronomer whose personal library bookplate is inside. I found Harry Grimsley listed, for example in early issues of The Walking Astronomer magazine of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO).  I bought the atlas because it gives orbital elements for some binaries. The example here of 26 Aurigae is not a target that I will pursue but is just to show the tables. 

59 minutes ago, MBErdogan said:

Is there any chance of seeing a clear image of saturn with his rings with just the standard eyepieces and with my iPhone X?

21 minutes ago, MBErdogan said:

Well unfortunately, I live in an apartment in a street with many streetlights and often clouds. I think my dream is being crushed at this point. My parents are divorced, when I am with my mother I can only look through the window with quite a wide fieldview, and when I am with my father I can only look from the balcony which I have a pretty limited view from

I live in a major metropolitan area, 2 km from a major shopping mall. I have viewed Saturn and its rings many, many times. It is a common target. The same with the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus. All that and more can be seen from the city.  

Do not just take all the advice given here. These people mean well. But they are in love with their own choices which they developed over many years.  The lens and filter kit is very typical. Many companies sell the same thing. They all come from the same factory in China. I bought mine for my first scope because I met people at star parties with much larger instruments with exactly the same kit. I get a lot of use from mine. And again, three of my four telescopes are smaller than yours.

======================
Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Assistant Editor
History of Astronomy Division 
American Astronomical Society

Vice President
Austin Astronomical Society
STELLAE AVTEM HARENAE.
======================

As much as I like going out to observe, my passions are for the maths. I am taking an online class in astrophysics. These arrived yesterday.

35 minutes ago, MBErdogan said:

I want to be able to see all the planets in our solar system crystal clear, is the ''Skywatcher Telescope N 150/750 Explorer 150P EQ3-2'' what I am searching for? Is it recommended for a beginner? 

That is a very nice telescope and better (larger) than my first one. Just a couple of notes:

1. You will want other oculars ("eyepieces") to go with it. They usually come with two 20mm and 10mm or in that range. You will want a 30mm and a Barlow lens to double the magnifications. That will give you a good range to work with. 

2. You may not be able to see "all of the planets in the solar system" but you will be able to find at least six of the eight.  Uranus and Neptune can be challenging. But if you can locate them, your telescope will at least show you a disk for Uranus and something for Neptune. 

3. It is not so much the viewing - though we all love that - as understanding what you are looking at. Libraries, bookstores, and websites will deliver the information you need. 

On that last point, consider Mars. It is easy to find right now. However, it is very small, even in a nice 6-inch telescope like yours. However, if you understand what you are looking at, you will be able to appreciate the very subtle shadings that are surface features. 

Many stars that appear as one to the naked eye are easily revealed to be binaries or complex systems. Close to the track of the planets from your balcony this spring, you ought to be able to find the Beehive Cluster, for instance. 

There's much more. You have taken the first step. And we are all beginners here.

On 27/12/2020 at 17:22, PXR-5 said:

One of my pet peeves is junky department store scopes.   People buy them and then can't see a thing.  And if they finally see the Moon, the darn mount is too shaky.  Go inside and watch TV

Nonsense. We could go around on this. I have a shaky 70 mm National Geographic that I use while my 10-inch RCT sits in the garage. It weight 65 lbs to my 68 kg.

https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2019/12/in-support-of-entry-level-telescope.html

This past October I bought myself an Explore Scientific First Light 102 mm refractor. It was $239 retail and the best thing about it is that I can carry it through the back door and out into the yard.  The best telescope is the one that gets used.

On 27/12/2020 at 07:52, Tiny Clanger said:

In the 1960s my dad worked for J.R Gaunt & sons, one of many button makers in Brum ( https://www.oldcopper.org/makers/buttons_birmingham.php, ) they also made military badges and medals , they were I believe taken over in the 70's by the Birmingham Mint , around that time my dad went to work for Hoskins and Sewell another company founded in Victroria's reign , who made metal bed frames, specifically hospital ones when dad worked for them.

Good money Birmingham button makers, the Royal Mint, and the beginnings of modern coinage, 1775-1821 ; private enterprise and popular coinage by George A Selgin; 2011     
Ann Arbor, Mich: Univ. of Michigan Press.

Also, Jane Jacobs, The Economy of Cities. [Middlesex] : Penguin, [1972, 1969] Jacobs contrasts Birmingham with Manchester. Here in the States, Manchester would be Detroit: a town dependent on a single industry.  What inform me as the "Brummie metal bashers" was a complex and changing array of businesses, not a single line of work, as were spinning cotton into cloth or assembling automobiles.  

4 hours ago, Hals said:

Be pretty boring if everyone was an astronomer. It's nice to be in a niche hobby. I'm sure everyone who has a hobby says the same thing, no matter what their interests are. My missus loves crafting for instance and I can't see the appeal of it personally but I can see how passionate she is about it. There you are.

Well,  yes, that is true. I mean, why does everyone not make their own telescopes? I believe that the diversity of a complex society comes from a fundamental "field-level" aspect of reality. Complexity is spontaneous. So, even if we were all astronomers, we would practice it differently. (For better or worse. Think of how people practice driving their cars differently!) Anyway, my passions are not for observation. I mean, I do go out almost any clear night. But if you do not understand what you are looking at, then you are just a slack-jawed simian gaping up at an incomprehensible universe. So, for myself, observation is like the frosting on the cake of astronomy. I just signed up for a class in astrophysics offered through edX, an online delivery founded here in the States by MIT and Harvard. My class comes from EPFL: Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausanne. I already worked through two different self-paced books. I had a couple of college classes in astronomy, but, as interesting as it was then, it is all the moreso now that I have more opportunity to find my own way among the stars.

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Sometimes, when I tell my wife that I'm going to observe something, she asks me: "Haven't you seen that already?"

On the other hand - she can "observe" TV channel on interior decoration for hours - while I think to myself - "Well, haven't you seen that one already"

With us, it is the attention span. Myself, like many here, I had a telescope as a child and used it up to about age 14 or 15. I also had a microscope. To me, the skills are very similar. But my wife had neither growing up and for years, she insisted that she could not see anything when she looked into the telescope. I think that one shift for her was being at local star party and her running into someone she knew from work-life (same market, different company) and those social circles. So, she chatted with him and looked through his telescope - which, admittedly was a totally different kind than anything else on the field that night.  

So, maybe you just need a magic moment.

6 hours ago, Moonshed said:

When I look through my telescope at the incredible beauty of countless stars twinkling against the darkness of the infinite universe, I am genuinely struck by the wonder of it all, by the sheer awesomeness of what I am seeing. I am looking at stars that were created within colossal clouds of gas and dust billions of years ago, some of which will no longer even exist, they will have come and gone in a blink of an eye compared to the cosmological time scale of the universe which is measured not in decades, centuries or even millennia, but in cycles of time beyond our human comprehension.

To be able to look through even the smallest of telescopes, or binoculars, or even just using the naked eye, enables us all to witness for ourselves these celestial marvels, these cosmological creations, there for all to see and experience. I feel that very often that first eagerly awaited look through a telescope, be it of our nearest neighbour the Moon, or a planet, star cluster, nebula or galaxy, can be so impactful as to create a lifelong memory, but even more incredibly it can connect us to the universe in some strange and powerful way that affects us for the rest of our lives, we become astronomers.

Yes, the telescope was a marvelous invention. We have reason to believe that ancient Greek die cutters for coins used "crystals" to see fine details. So, the telescope was really waiting for thousands of years before chance brought it to fruition.  I believe that in an earlier time, some of us here would have been stargazers--but not all. The instruments were new doorways to new understandings and that is somewhat different than just admiring the grandeur of the skies--which we do, of course. For myself, I like to understand what I am looking at. Of course, that rests on the actually looking at. There are times when I will run through a set of targets with my telescopes and then just sit back and look up and take it all in.

Abdera c. 480 BCE. Hemi-obols. 0.33 grams 5 mm.  Lifetime of Democritus. (I was inspired by Carl Sagan's Cosmos, "Backbone of the Night" and pursued ancient Greek coins woth a day's wages from the towns and times of philsophers. I had 50 from Thales of Miletus to Hypatia of Alexandria. After I lost my passion for collecting, I got rid of most of them.)

5 hours ago, Paz said:

I think people get inspired into different hobbies for different reasons depending on their interests but also their circumstances and what they happen to experience. I got into astronomy by a chance coming together of circumstances.

 Life takes us down paths with forks and junctions.  I think that you are saying that we should not just pat ourselves on the back (as much as we deserve it).

5 hours ago, Moonshed said:

It is sad. I have grandchildren aged 18 and 20 and they don’t have the slightest interest in astronomy, not even enough to come and take a peek through my telescope when I am actually outside  using it! I do find it sad, hurtful to be honest.

My other hobby is numismatics. (My daughter is into neither but is an official in a fantasy football league. See above here to Paz.) And, there, too, we have the same complaint. Most people think of numismatics as "coin collecting" but it is far more than that and for the active numismatist, these are artifacts of history. They speak of times and places and people. But we have grandchildren with no interest. One of the ANA presidents called collecting "a gene you do not inherit." It is something ineffable. Sometimes you find it across generations in the same family.  We have the Herschells and the Struves. But mostly, the passion for astronomy is a gene you do not inherit.

World banknotes are dirt cheap compared to US dollars or UK pounds.  Google "Physicists on Banknotes" and you can find a couple of university sites. I bought a run of a hundred Iraqi 250s at 70 cents each to give out at local astronomy club meetings when we have "Quiz Bowls." 

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/'

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbourj/money.htm

So, why isn't everyone an astro-numismatist? We all have our passions and it is hard to understand why others do not share them.

Sir Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day 1642. The calendar was changed in 1752, and that moved his birthday to 4 January 1643. So, you can celebrate Sir Isaac Newton's Birthday for 11 
days, if you wish.

Newtonmas 2020 on my blog
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2020/12/merry-newtonmas-2020.html

I have celebrated Newtonmas off and on for 40 years. 

Below, Newtonmas argument from Big Bang Theory "Maternal Congruence" 14 December 2009.

No one in the office got the joke below.

It was cloudy, but I was able to see the planets, though no moons or rings.

This was last night, the 19th. MIllimeter scale. Different ocular, so a different FOV calculation, but still to scale.

On the 17th, I drew this. The scale is in decimal inches for my convenience. (The mms were hard to read in the dark.)

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

... Ford Transit full of Tupperware products to various London destinations with the A - Z of London Streets open on my lap ...  I very quickly learned my way around whereas today using a sat nav drivers can cover the exact same route ten times and still have no idea without it. 

Well, we are getting away from the Moon here, but that point came out in one of my classes. Our professor was taking some other grad students to a project and the prof complained to me once that the driver relied on the GPS. (This was 2010.) And after several trips to the same place still did not know the route -- or apparently recognize it when they arrived.  Ground truth. In geography, we call it "ground truth." And it applies here to astronomy with spectroscopy, etc. You can have "yellow." But is it a radiation, an absorption of colors not-yellow with reflection, or filtering? You don't know until you go there and get the ground truth.