X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sc1IdJG00WBw4EHk4H>;
Fri, 12 Apr 91 01:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oc1IdDe00WBwIEG05s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 01:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #397
SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 397
Today's Topics:
Re: Space technology
new gif's available
Digitized Australian Coastline File Needed
Re: Launch Technology
Re: Space technology
Astronaut Gardner to head USAF Test Pilot School (Forwarded)
Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
Re: I want to go to orbit...
Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
Light pollution slowed
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
In article <1991Apr9.162115.11094@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
In article <1991Apr9.091742.12288@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>By the way, the suit is against NASA
>and not the government...
A curious assertion. NASA *is* the government, being a government agency.
I'd be very surprised if you can sue NASA as a separate entity; I know
you can't give them money separately.
We certainly are part of the US Government and suing us is suing the Gov't.
Incidentally (and I have no idea if it has any relationship to this
case) you can't sue the government without its permission. Nice deal,
huh?
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 91 21:57:30 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!ephillip%magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Earl W Phillips)
Subject: Light pollution slowed
Following is a copy of a story I wrote that explains how I was
recently involved in trying to slow the spread of light pollution
here locally; thought you'd be interested!
TRYING TO STEM THE TIDE OF LIGHT POLLUTION
By Earl W. Phillips, Jr
The issue of light pollution is one that affects many people
in many different ways. It obviously affects those of us whose
vocations, or avocations happen to be astronomy; but it also
affects those whose main interests are not the sky. I'm talking
about all the future generations of children who, with an
increasingly light polluted sky, will not look up and wonder;
"What's out there"? For it's from that wondering kid that all
astronomers, professional and amateur alike, spring from.
Here in Central Ohio where I live, we recently actually had
a chance to do something about it. I live in Columbus, Ohio, and
nearby is Perkins Observatory. This beautiful structure once
housed a 69-inchreflector, but due to the high percentage of
cloudy nights here, plus the encroaching light pollution from
Columbus, the 69-inch was dissasembled and moved to Flagstaff,
Arizona in 1961. It was replaced with a 32-inch F/17 reflector,
which seems dwarfed by a dome originally built to house a much
more massive scope.
The land upon which Perkins Observatory sits is situated in
Liberty Township. One of the Township's Zoning Committee members,
Dr.Robert Dixon, who is himself an avid amateur optical
astronomer, as well as a professional radio astronomer,
introduced lighting regulations into the zoning code. These
proposed regulations call for:
A) Use of fully shielded cut-off fixtures;
B) Directing light fixtures downward rather than upward;
C) Shielding the light in such a way that the light emitting
portion of the fixture cannot be seen at a reasonable
distance.
The specific requirements of the proposed regulations were:
A) Where used for security purposes or to illuminate
walkways, roadways, equipment yards and parking lots,
only fully shielded cut-off style outdoor light fixtures
shall be utilized.
B) Where used for signs or for decorative effects or
recreational facilities, such as for building, landscape
or ballfield illumination, the outdoor light fixtures
shall be equipped with automatic timing devices and
shielded and focused to minimize light pollution.
C) All outdoor light fixtures installed and maintained upon
private property within all zoning districts shall be
turned off between 11:00 PM and sunrise EXCEPT when used
for security purposes or to illuminate walkways,
roadways, equipment yards and parking lots.
D) All illuminated signs for commercial purposes shall be
turned off between 11:00 PM and sunrise, EXCEPT that
signs may be illuminated while the business facility is
open to the public. All forms of flashing, rotating,
moving or digital lights shall be prohibited.
E) All outdoor light pole fixtures shall not exceed a
maximum height of thirty (30) feet.
F) In addition to these provisions, all outdoor light
fixtures shall be installed in conformity with all other
applicable provisions of the resolution.
Exemptions are made for light fixtures producing light directly
by the combustion of fossil fuels, as well as low-voltage
lighting and holiday lighting.
The proposed lighting regulations seemed sensible, and
something everyone in the as-yet sparsely populated Liberty
Township could live with. It was hoped that, if adopted, these
lighting regulations would slow the harm that the ever-increasing
development would bring.
There were some that were against the code, however. Their
main arguement seemed to be that of over-regulation and
enforcement.
The final meeting that would decide the fate of the proposed
lighting regulations was held on Wednesday, March 20, 1991 at
7:30 PM. Myself, Dr.Wing of Perkins Observatory, Dr.Mitchell, an
Astronomy Professor at Ohio State University, and Dr.Barnhart, of
Big Ear, the Ohio State University Radio Telescope (where
Dr.Dixon is the Assistant Director), attended to speak in favor
of the proposed regulations if necessary. As it turned out, it
was necessary. There were two parties that requested the complete
removal of the proposed regulations, again citing over-regulation
and enforcibility as the primary reasons. I spoke up in favor of
the codes, citing examples such as Tulsa, Oklahoma and their
success with lighting codes. Dr.Wing then spoke up in favor,
stating that sometime, we all need reminders such as these
proposed regulations to be courteous. Then, Dr.Barnhart spoke up
in favor, from the standpoint of conservation of energy, and
thus, money.
In the end, the proposed regulations were indeed adopted. I
believe that this is the very first instance of such code here in
Central Ohio. But this is a small victory. It is obvious that
those of us here in Central Ohio, and everywhere, must pick up
this issue and carry it further, in ever-widening circles to the
Municipalities, Townships, and Counties all around us. Only by
such action can we have hope of securing reasonably dark sky for
the next generation of kids, to look up and wonder;"What's that"?
