Does anyone know why? Was it a loss of heat shield material?
Or the couldn't keep the correct angle coming in? Something else?
Rich
>
>This is just terrible.
>
>At 2/1/2003, you wrote:
>
>>The shuttle burned up on re-entry at 12000mph and at 200k in
>>altitude!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Eric
>>
>> Mark Wagner <mgw@No-Spam> wrote:
>>At 1/31/2003, you wrote:
>>
>> >I agree. One main issue here is that locked gate. There shouldn't be any
>> >gate at the Peak. It's the taxpayers park--all of it.
>>
>>That's the key.
>>
>> >The FPOA as nothing to do with this. They are subject to the Park policy
>> >just as we are. It's the State Park that's created this issue.
>>
>>Here, I have to respectfully disagree.
>>
>>The FPOA has allowed the State to use it to segregate, to create a
specific
>>class of park user that has extra privileges.
>>
>>The FPOA on the one hand has appeared to limited its interest to only what
>>is within the walls of their observatory. Yet, they are the determinant
>>regarding who is (effectively) allowed to do astronomy on park land behind
>>"the gate"...
>>
>>Rich Neuschaefer related a story about the trees, and how reluctant the
>>FPOA was to represent the interests! of the greater astronomical community
>>in matters beyond the observatory walls. Similarly, I suspect, they have
>>been anything but vocal about the state making FPOA membership a
>>requirement to access behind "the gate"...
>>
>>Or, one could speculate that the FPOA saw the requirement as a way to
>>increase their membership.
>>
>>Either way, it is divisive. I suppose they know this. I hope they know
>>this! ;-)
>>
>>I would like to see the FPOA repudiate the situation. Perhaps they might
>>give away membership cards, free, upon request, to anyone who wanted to
use
>>the area behind "the gate"...
>>
>> > I'm going to make more phone calls to the ranger's office and talk to
>> > Curtis and then to the Monterey office about the locked gate and the
>> > "policy", what ever it is, about these points.
>>
>>Talking to Monterey is what will tell the tale. There is simply no reason
>>for the situation to change via either the FPOA or CDPR withou! t some
form
>>of impetus. The best way I can think of is for FPOA to work toward
>>allowing everyone in, and telling the state to not use them in a divisive
>>manner. The amateur astronomers can make a statement by staying away, and
>>telling the FPOA and CDPR why they are doing so. Lack of support is the
>>most direct method I can think of to achieve a change.
>>
>>The important message is that it is a state park, not a private club.
>>
>> >About the FPOA and the Park's upgrade money being spent on that side of
>> >the Peak only, the Park did what it wanted to do with regards to the
>> >building of
>> >pads and roads and tree cutting. It was their money and they spent it
the
>> >way they wanted to from last year's surplus budget.
>>
>>I rather suspect the FPOA had some input in plans.
>>
>>Still, after all this writing, I do commend the CDPR for removing the
>>trees. It is the one real positive I have read of thus far. Too bad it is
>>! only of benefit primarily to club members.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>Eric Ayres
>>
>>37.62N 122.10W, William Optics GT-1, Celestron C8, LOMO 133.5, MX-916.
>>
>>And yes a Discovery 10" Dob.....
>>
>><http://eayres.darkhorizons.org/>http://eayres.darkhorizons.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>><http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Mail
>>Plus - Powerful. Affordable.
>><http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>Sign up now
>