Slashdot Mirror


Pluto's Discoverer's Backyard Telescope For Sale

Schart writes "My dad, an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer, sent me this link detailing the potential selling of Clyde Tombaugh (the man who discovered Pluto)'s backyard telescope. It features a 16 inch f/10 mirror which was hand-ground by the astronomer himself as well as a massive superstructure and 1-ton tube."

7 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Belonngs to a museum by ChaoticPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps, some philantrophist can buy this piece of history to donate to a museum? Such pieces of history deserve more exposure than in the home of a private collector.

    1. Re:Belonngs to a museum by REBloomfield · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the telescope that he discovered Pluto with though, so I don 't think it's all that intriuging[sic].

  2. Re:Not the pluto 'scope by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, but it does come with "hey I got Clyde Tombaugh's telescope" bragging rights.

  3. Re:Pluto and Sedna as planets by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem my friend is that we will discover dozens more in that size range. It is terribly inconvenient, and pretty inaccurate, to momorize the list of 30-50 planets when clearly there is a difference between merc-neptune and the rest. we need to chance the way we picture the solar system. it isnt a defined planet of ten spheres that suddenly stop. it goes on and on and on and thins to the point where its just arbitrary to define the end. no problem naming the solar orbital objects sedna and pluto and etc, but its impractical to classify every such thing a planet just to make scientists feel warm

  4. OT: Pluto and Sedna as planets - why? by linoleo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    COuld someone just accept Pluto and Sedna as planets regardless of size?

    Why? Because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling? Will you still feel the same when the 10'000th Kuiper Belt "planet" the size of Sedna will be discovered? And it will, eventually - there's a huge amount of ill-light space that far from the sun, and we've barely scratched the surface of all that's bound to be lurking out there. We should really reserve a term (or two) to denote a) the four sizeable rocky bodies orbiting the sun inside the asteroid belt, and b) the four gas giants orbiting the sun between the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt.

    Pluto is a special case: on one hand it looks like what we would expect from a typical Kuiper belt object (KBO), on the other it is bound to be the closest large KBO by far. Historically it was discovered (the same as Neptune) by its perturbative effect on another planet's orbit, long before any other KBOs, so it gets grandfathered in as an honorary "planet". Fair enough.

    Sedna, on the other hand, is three times (!) as far out from the sun as Pluto; at that distance we expect to find thousands of KBOs of comparable size. Calling them all "planets" would be like starting to call all schools of whatever level "university" - a status grab that would ultimately achieve nothing but a devaluation of the more prestigious term, and a muddling of the underlying factual distinctions.

    --
    Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
    1. Re:OT: Pluto and Sedna as planets - why? by brunes69 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I don't know which is sadder....

      1. That someone has enough time on his hands to push such a small issue.

      2. That you have enough time on your hands to write such a huge rebuttal.

      Come on, who the freak really cares? Does it matter what it is named? I wouldn't care if all the planets in our system were re-named "giant floating rocks", who the fuck cares? It's not like it changes their properties. And trust me, I doubt the residents of pluto care either.

  5. Re:Not the pluto 'scope by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PL is for Perceval Lowell, but Tombaugh was the discoverer. He used Lowell's calculations, which he trusted so much that he SCOURED the area where X should have been, and managed to find a KBO decades before he had any right to. Even so, it wasn't quite where Lowell said it would be. That's pure, unadulterated, good observing. That's why this is such an interesting scope: because it was built by a guy who was good enough to discover something very, very new.