Over at cloudynights.com, in the classic telescopes forum, someone recently posted some photos of telescopes at an observatory in Copenhagen. They were on the order of 12- and 20-inch scopes, originally built in the 1920s. It got me thinking: I tend to admire smaller (less than, say, 40 inches) scopes because I can imagine myself actually using them; as opposed to a big scope which seems so "remote" (perhaps because of the complex instrumentation used instead of jamming the old eye up to the eyepiece for a look-see). Anyone have a similar opinion? Different?

A Famous Telescope

There are famous telescope makers and there are famous telescopes. Like the Clarks, makers of incredibly gorgeous, high-performance refractors prized even today, George Willis Ritchey was a unique personality in telescope making history. His 24-inch reflector, currently on display at the Chabot Science Center in Oakland, California, was a ground-breaking telescope that proved to a grudging astronomical community that reflectors could take high-resolution photographs. To be sure, Isaac Roberts and Henry Draper had used smaller reflectors for astrophotography before Ritchey, but Ritchey's 24-inch and Lick Observatory's Crossley 36-inch (after Perrine extensively modified it) paved the way for modern reflectors over the increasingly cumbersome refractor in astrophysical research. Donald Osterbrock's "Pauper and Prince: Ritchey, Hale, and Big American Telescopes" is a fascinating account of Ritchey's life.

Here's Chabot's museum description of the telescope.

http://www.chabotspace.org/vsc/exhibits/califastronomy/ritchey.asp

And here's a really neat article on the Crossley.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4c.htm

Burnham Memorial Project

For those of you who haven't discovered it yet, "Burnham's Celestial Handbook" is quite possibly the most wide-ranging astronomy book every published. At something over 1,000 pages (in 3 volumes), Burnham wrote about virtually every object of interest that is viewable in telescopes between two- and 12-inches aperture. Based on his own experience viewing the skies from (and using the library of) Lowell Observatory, the book instantly became a classic in amateur astronomy circles.

Burnham's rather tragic life was documented by a writer in 1997 in the Phoenix New Times, a weekly newspaper. It turned out that, after assisting with a proper motion survey at Lowell, Burnham had a sort of a mental "breakdown" and disappeared. No one knew where he was. He later surfaced at Balboa Park in San Diego selling paintings of cats, and died a few years later of heart failure.

Now, some amateur astronomers have put together a memorial website and are working with the Lowell Observatory to possibly erect a small memorial to Burnham at Lowell. Check out

http://rbjm.org/

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog. I created this blog as my (admittedly) curmudgeonly response to the proliferation of computerized telescopes and expensive imaging devices that litter your nearby star party. I've been to too many star parties where people exclaim "Aw, geez, my computer's reset!" or "What time is it? I need to align my computer." I find this bothersome because the object of being out in a field in the middle of the night isn't to interface with more computers, in my opinion. It's to interface with the night sky.

I'll be sure to post more on the subject. Meanwhile, enjoy this link:

http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/TwoWeeksOnMars/