(Viewed 1,618 times)

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Seeing in the Dark

I saw the hour long PBS presentation of "Seeing in the Dark" this Wednesday evening, the 19th of September 2007.

I liked it.

I have not read the book, but here are my impressions of the presentation:

The personal observatories that these amateur astronomers use are outstanding and near professional caliber if not equal. It encourages me to construct one on my garage next year.

The show really had no point, other than showing astronomers having a good time observing the heavens...and that's cool. The fancy homemade telescopes were incredible and works of art. I was smiling throughout the entire show as they talked about eyepieces, OTA's, drives etc...all nomenclature familiar to me.

What I did not like was when an observer explained to the viewer what he saw through the eyepiece - and the producers are displaying a glorious and detailed image of the object. Andromeda (M31), for example was shown as a bright, highly detailed and colorful object, where in fact, it's a dim, ghostly image at best from modest to large telescopes. Also, a little too much of the musical interests of the astronomers for my liking at the expense of astronomy, but it's ok.

I was impressed on the retired football player and his great astronomical interest and sharing with others. Modern astronomy is embracing amateur involvement like never before, and area which was once the domain of the University or museum astronomer.

I thought some of the segments were a bit dis-jointed and incomplete. It started with the individuals, but then went into famous astronomers, then into astrophysics...then back to the individual. The Hershel bit I thought was glossed over and did not William Herschel discover Uranus? Wasn't mentioned.

Also an observation. Some GCI was involved showing a sky full of stars while filming the astronomers in moderate lighting. In the real world this would not occur, but for a presentation like this, it lends a sense of nighttime mystery and wonder to an evening of observing. Nice.

But overall I enjoyed a leisurely one hour show about astronomers and their scopes...enjoying and sharing what they like best.

#Thumbsup#

[Kalvis]

I too have not read the book, but saw and enjoyed the PBS movie yesterday.

I agree with much of Joe's critique. Here are just a few extra impressions from my armchair...

The football player said something that sounded simply incorrect when explaining the workings of his telescope. He said that because it was equipped with GPS it could follow the stars as they slowly travel across the sky. I thought that the main GPS feature was not having to tell the go-to computer exactly where on the earth you are located so that it can properly calculate the frame of reference for the celestial coordinates you desire to find and follow. However, the computer guided tracking motors are what really give the ability for a driven telescope to keep an object from drifting out of the field of view. Ain't this so?

I also liked hearing the amateur astronomers describe what fascinates them about the sky. Both they as well as Timothy Ferris himself expressed a number of satisfying deep thoughts in this regard, especially about how long and far light travels across the expanse of the universe.

I also wish that they would have paid some attention to equipment for the true beginner. I don't recall hearing about what you can see with $100 binoculars. Most of it seemed to require multiple thousand dollar astro imaging equipment, personal observatories and remotely operated scopes.

Notwithstanding these shortfalls, the program was overall worthwhile. It will have to be viewed again so as to get the most out of it.

Kalvis

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Kalvis,

I recall that statement too about the GPS, but perhaps the producers felt that "GPS" is more commonly known than "Motorized go-to" and appealed to a more broad audience.

I too thought that this would be an introduction to beginning astronomy, basic equipment, methods and instruction. But it was a love affair with the sky...and that's just fine.

But I liked it.

[John]

Hi Joe and Kalvis,

I agree that the program, "Seeing in the Dark" had some flaws. Still, the overall theme of the beauty of the night sky prevailed.

It is unfortunate that concepts like the functions of GPS, and telescope tracking motors weren't cleared up. Also, I agree with Joe that showing the detailed, long exposure composits of celestial objects - and making it seem like that's what people see through the eyepieces of their telescopes - is very misleading.

The night sky is one of the most beautiful aspects of nature. Setting people up for the "disappointment" of seeing what we see in the eyepiece is irresponsible at best. Though the images we see are, as Pat Frendries of the Adler Planetarium calls them, faint fuzzies, their beauty is enhanced when your love of the sky drives you to learn more about what you're seeing.

Timothy Ferris has been doing this for a long time. He should have been more responsible in overseeing his project (assuming this wasn't deliberate).

I did enjoy seeing the artwork that adorned some of the telescopes. I am considering using my 10" OTA as a canvas myself. I've always enjoyed Joe's methods of artwork on the telescope, mood music, and views of the heavens - as the total "surround sight and sound experience." It may be rubbing off on me (and my scope, which Joe named "Helter Skelter.")

I'll view the show again just to enjoy it and see if I gave it a fair shake.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

John,

Here is the "concept" artwork I had in mind for your Newt...

Astronomy with an attitude!