> I think seeing conditions deserve much more attention than they
> usually get when choosing observing sites. The steadiness of the
I agree. What I was trying to say is that I don't think that we'll see
tremendous differences in seeing between Coe, Fremont Peak, Coyote, ...
I would be glad to be completely wrong though, which it seems I may be
from the descriptions. That's pretty exciting.
I still think the horizon exposures would be a good idea.
I'm planning on going to FP next time.
-Ralph
> sky makes a huge difference in the amount of detail that can be seen
> in an observing session, and how faint you can go when pushing the
> limits for hard objects. Seeing often depends on local topology and
> is not well captured by light pollution maps or typical measures of
> sky darkness. I think there is a lot of variation in seeing from
> one site to another, and that some sites tend to have better steadier
> average skies because of a combination of altitude, topology, and
> proximity to other features that may disrupt laminar flow. My own
> experience has been that Bumpass Hell parking lot tends to have
> steadier skies than other sites around Mt. Lassen. In the Bay Area,
> both Mount Hamilton and Fremont Peak have had more consistently good
> seeing than the other sites I have tried.
>
> There was a pretty good example of this from just last Thursday night
> if you compare observing reports from observers at four different
> locations. (This is one of the reasons I enjoy reading observing
> reports on TAC- simultaneous experience collected from a range of
> locations).
>
> 1) Henry Coe (4/22/2004):
>
> "Star images were not crisp. Jupiter was swimming, though it offered
> a wonderful sight as
> always with its satellites." ---- William Schultz
>
> 2) Montebello (4/22/04):
>
> "The sky was good... seeing on the planets seemed good... I had saturn
> at about 240x mostly solid w/ occasional bluriness" ---Jeff Crilly
>
> 3) Courtyard/driveway on the east side of Morgan Hill (4/22/04)
>
> "Jupiter was initially doing the backstroke, but was definitely
> looking better as time went on. Although the initial seeing was
> pretty soft, it was still far from the worst I've ever experienced."
> ----Bob Czerwinski
>
> 4) SW lot of Fremont Peak (4/22/04) Two reports
>
> "The seeing was remarkably sharp throughout the breezy period until it calmed
> down by 10pm. Planetary detail was very good on Jupiter with many whit ovals
> following the GRS at mid-disk. .... I was able to split doubles as
> tight as 0.5 arc-sec and
> tries alpha Coma B. at 0.4 arc-sec. It didn't split but was a clean oblong
> airy disk shape with nice diffraction all around. " ----Peter Natscher
>
> "The wind disappeared and the seeing only got better as the night progressed."
> ---John Gleason
>
>
> That's just one night, but is a good example of how much seeing
> conditions can vary from site to site. It is also a good example of
> why I still often head to Fremont Peak when I am looking for
> altitude and steady skies in the Bay Area.
>
> --David Kingsley
Received on Mon Apr 26 13:32:23 2004