Winter 2005

Comet Machholz C/2004 Q2
Photographed by Mark Edwards

Comet Machholz was quite bright <5th mag object and easy to find just to the right of the bottom of Orion.  Here is my first attempt at it in picture No 1, top, taken on 19th Dec at 20:57 UT.  You can see that the comet seems to be at the fuzzy blob stage with no tail visible.   No2 at bottom, on Jan 2nd 2005, shows the motion of the comet against the stars and if you look closely the plasma tail towards the left and the dust tail towards the bottom right.
Positive and negative images of the comet, with the tail showing up well in the right hand negative images.

Editors Bit

If you glance at the reproduction of an old engraving of the Moon done around 125 years ago, see below.  This was typical of the type of illustration done in many astronomical books of that period and for many years afterwards.  A black and white drawing was used because it was extremely expensive to have anything else and a colour reproduction was out of the question, except for special edition one off's, which sometimes meant hand colouring each and every print by an artist.  Which even then would have been just layers of flat colour laid onto the black and white engraving.  Black and white drawings and engraving were the norm in those days when no books had real reproductions of photographs in them.
The technology of todays method of printing photographs by using an half-tone screen over the print to break down the picture into millions of tiny dots which vary in size depending on the  density of the tones in the print.  This governs the amount of ink to be applied to the paper.  The process was not developed until around 1881 in Philadelphia, USA for a news papers use and this technique was only used sparingly until well into the 20th century.
So for illustrations for their books, the authors had to rely on the skill of the engravers who draw the fine detail onto blocks of wood the size of the finished reproduction; each line was cut into the wood and ink rolled on to it filling the cuts before the surface was wiped clean and the paper pressed into the surface to pick up the ink.  This method was used in many old books and they are often inserted between normal pages of print.  Looking closely at the rear of the print it is often possible to see the slight indentations in the paper where it has been forced into the hollows to pick up the ink.
When drawing the illustration the artist would no-doubt put in, ie. add, his own artistic impression and ideas based on what he knew and from what the authors notes and sketches detailed, probably sometimes with fatal results to the actual factual detail!  How many of the engravers of astronomical subjects had ever looked through a telescope and made drawings.  Not a simple matter as anyone who has ever tried to draw the moon or planets from the view through the eyepiece will know.  Its a cold, backbreaking, necktwisting, eyewatering job!  Even when a photograph did exist of a subject, an engraving had to be done.  Sometimes the engravings where copies of photographic prints with as much tonal range as in the original print up to the limit of detail as necessary to show the scene.
All this makes me wonder what the old engravers would have made of a modern day photograph, say a Hubble picture of a galaxy?  They had no way of representing the fine amount of detail and range of colour which we take for granted.  How could they possible convey the colour and detail present in these shots?  It was impossible with the technology of only 50 years ago let alone 125+!  I can remember books and comics in my childhood with the colours not registered properly, sometimes (if you were unlucky) with all 4 out of register; (CMYK is the 4 colour method of printing with ink and the letters stand for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black))   And don't forget it was only a few years ago that astronomy books printed fuzzy shots of Mars and Jupiter with little in the way of surface detail recorded.  And there were very few good colour pictures of galaxies and nebula around then because colour film was so slow and required extremely long exposures in large instruments.  The only way to make a colour picture was to shoot the object in filtered RGB light.  Three negatives made separately filtered with either a Red, Green or Blue filter and the three negatives combined in the darkroom with a lot of skill and luck and perspiration to make the full colour print.  No computers with Photoshop on them to do the work of pulling all the subtle detail out of the shadows.  This makes the excellent reproductions of today so exciting to look at as they show the unexpected detail which has often taken a huge amount of skill and effort to acquire.  All this added detail today is mostly taken for granted and why not?  To see what colour Mars really is, to see the colours of the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn.  The colours of the Orion and Eagle nebula and the soft colours of galaxies with their dark clouds of dust and bright clouds of the star forming regions.
Once you can read the colours of the universe, even through you can't actually see them with the naked eye, you soon gain a tremendous insight into what the universe is and how it works. The folk how read the old books of the last century had to rely on two colours and their imagination.  Today we are privileged to live in a time that have such a vast supply of never ending fantastic images of the cosmos to stimulate our imagination.
Ed Ivor Clarke

For Christmas my wife got me a couple of small old Victorian books on astronomy which are part, I think, of a larger set.  One is called The Stars and the other is The Sun, Moon and Planets.  I don't know who wrote them as the  publisher (T Nelson & Sons) has not included the authors name on any page of the books!  This picture, above, is from the latter book's frontispiece and shows a very strange world indeed, which no-one today would recognise.  But it's the surface of the Moon as imagined in the 1880's.  This was a very different place from the post Apollo one today with its gentle rolling hills and gritty small craters.  You cannot imagine a more hostile place to try and land the fragile LEM of the Apollo moon missions.  All the hills and mountains are impossible steep as are the crater walls and what are the termite hill like foreground objects??
It is strange that such an alien world was popular with artists at that time, for telescopes where getting very good by then and astronomers where measuring the diameters of craters as well as heights of mountains and depths of crater floors by working out the suns angle and length of shadows.  This showed that some mountains were higher than ones on earth with steep sides.  How ideas change with time.
Ivor Clarke, Ed

NASA Redefines Boundary of Space After

SpaceShipOne Flights

Sent in by Steve Payne

In an apparent fit of institutional pique following SpaceShipOne's successful claim on the X-Prize, NASA has unexpectedly raised the official boundary of space to 150 miles above the Earth's surface.
"Obviously, going into outer space is a major endeavour which really ought to be left in the hands of our planet's only capable space agency; namely us" said NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe. "We congratulate the fine engineering which went into the production of this novelty plane dubbed 'SpaceShipOne', but must point out with regret that it hasn't reached space yet by our standards."
SpaceShipOne is a privately funded, manned rocket ship powered with laughing gas and rubber fuel built by Scaled Composites.  It reached the edge of suborbital space Monday - nearly 70 miles high - to claim the $10 million Ansari X Prize, intended to spur private spaceflight.
However, now that NASA has raised the boundary for space, SpaceShipOne is officially nothing more than a high-flying airplane.
"Well, let me tell you one thing: we're not giving back the prize money," said SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan.  "We owe Paul Allen a lot of money, and frankly I don't want to mess with someone who's on Bill Gates' speed-dial list."  Billionaire Allen earned his fortune with Microsoft, and reportedly invested over $20 million in the SpaceShipOne project.
"That price tag alone should be a warning sign to people," said O'Keefe.  "Twenty million?  That would barely cover the cost of the food on a typical NASA Space Shuttle flight."
NASA has come under heavy criticism recently for continuing to invest heavily in its ageing fleet of Space Shuttles, which are notoriously expensive to operate and have experienced serious safety problems, including the loss of two shuttles to accidents.
"It's no coincidence that NASA set the 'new' boundary of space just below the average altitude of typical Space Shuttle flights," said Rutan.  "I would bet that, if we managed to reach an altitude of 150 miles, NASA would raise the boundary to 151."
It is unclear what effect the NASA announcement will have on the future of SpaceShipOne, or newly-founded company Virgin Galactic's plans to purchase a fleet of the craft to offer tourists brief visits to what was formerly considered outer space.
"I think we're going to move ahead with the plans anyway," said Virgin CEO Richard Branson.  "I'll bet that people willing to pay $100,000 for a 20-minute flight that brings you back to the point you left from aren't going to be conversant with trivialities such as the legal definition of space."

Visual Solar Observing With An Eyepiece 


By Geoffrey Johnstone

Solar observing is normally performed by one of two methods.  Either projection without an objective filter or direct visual with one.  Using the projection method it is possible to determine the latitude, longitude and, size of active areas. Described here is a direct method that makes it possible to carry out the same measurements as you would normally only be able to do by projection.

In order to measure the size and position of active areas the normal procedure is to project an image onto a ruled template, such as Fig. 1 above  The sunspots are then copied onto a thin piece of paper clipped over a card on which is drawn a similar template. The drawing can then be analysed as required.
When I bought my ETX 90 RA I was immediately disappointed in not being able to record the sunspots in the same way as I had done previously.  As I do not believe that there are any suitable graticules or eyepieces available on the open market, I decided to try to make a graticule that would fit inside an eyepiece that would enable more accurate drawings to be made.  After a period of blood sweat and tears and a number of graticules later I believe I have devised the easiest, quickest and cheapest method of construction.

A. Nylon bead thread obtainable from art and craft shops.  This is made up of a large number of individual strands, each of which is thinner than a human hair, and almost transparent.  The strands are surprisingly strong and very difficult see.  I used magnifying glasses as used for intricate craft work, but even then some pieces of thread disappeared without trace.
B.  A washer that will sit on the eyepiece diaphragm to reduces the field of view.  The object being to make the field size such that the image of the Sun virtually fills the field of view.  It might be possible to make a washer, but this is beyond my capability and so I merely found something suitable from the washer tin in my garage.
C.  A spacer between the body of the telescope and the eyepiece to render the image, in mid-winter the correct size to fill the field of view created by the washer.  The need for this is dependant on the telescope eyepiece combination.  The eyepiece will need to be raised and lowered to compensate for the variation in solar diameter throughout the year, Fig. 2, below.

I tried several ways of setting out and fixing the threads to the washer, and the following proved comparatively easy.
1.  Cut off about 150mm of thread and remove a few individual strands.  My graticule required 10 all together.
2.  Measure the diameter of the hole in the washer and divide that by 5 to determine where the threads will subsequently need to be positioned.  Set this out on a piece of A4 card as Fig. 3 below.

3.  Position the washer at the intersection of the lines and hold it in place with tiny pieces of Blutac or similar.
Fix a thread to one end of line number 1, then stretch the thread across to the other end of the line and fix it into position.  Rotate the paper through 90∞ and repeat the process with thread number 2 and line number 2.  Carry on until all threads are in position.  Check the position of the threads over the washer and adjust any that are misaligned with the point of a pin.  Glue into place with super glue.
4.  When the glue is dry trim the threads close to the washer using nail scissors, and with matt paint or a marker pen blacken the rim of the washer to prevent internal reflections when in the eyepiece, Fig. 4 above.
In order to position the threads I found that four hands were needed.  As I only had two I had to borrow two from my wife!  The individual strands of thread slip through the hands very easily and I held each one over the lines while my wife stuck them down with small bits of Selotape.  I tried doing it on my own with double sided tape and Blutac, but neither method worked.  Using the four hands system, the whole job was finished in a few minutes.
The only thing left to do is to place the graticule in the eyepiece and rotate it until a sunspot trails along one of the threads, and then record the sunspots as for the projection method using the template. Fig 4.

The Day Charlie Came to Town

By Pam Draper

Friday Oct 8th 5.30pm
Royal Court Hotel, Tamworth Rd, Coventry

We picked up our 3 day passes and walked into the main hall threequaters full of autograph sales people.  Larry Hagman on our right complete with stetson.  In the three days we visited he never left his post once!
We looked through many space autograph books, but our main aim was to get Charlie Dukes (Apollo 16) who was supposed to be there.  Next moment we were at the Lost in Space stands (there was an Irwin Allen celebration going on).  One of the stars, we still don't know his name — leapt across at us and told us that since the show he had become interested in astronomy and space science.  I have to say this only happened due to the fact we were wearing our C&WAS sweat shirts!  Anyway he produced a copy of A Brief History of Time from under the table which he put in my hand.  Totally surprised by this (you don't expect the stars to leap-out at you) we had a chat much to the amusement of the rest of the cast about astronomy not lost in space, he had become a teacher.  Later we gave him 2 copies of Astronomy Now for the flight home!
Angela Cartwright (Penny Robinson) was not as hospitable and I couldn't help it but I wished the robot was there!  Anyway Land of the Giants cast next, the girls just as beautiful as their mini-skirt days.  Steve had a good chat with Don Marshall who had also been in the original series of Star Trek along with Michelle Nichells one of the first male black actors on TV in America.  After an hour I still hadn't found my astronauts so I asked and they were down a corridor — there was no sign!
Through the doors and there he was Colonel Charles Duke, chatting to a space enthusiast.  The room was fairly empty and Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14) was quite alone and I felt sorry for him.  Scott Carpenter was also there.  I got his autograph last year.  Helen Tereshkova, first woman in space and a Shuttle astronaut.  Our time came and he turned to us, we shook his hand "Hello, I'm Charlie Duke."  Great accent I think Charlie's been my favourite astronaut since I can remember, I heard him as Cap-Com on Apollo 11's landing — "Roger, Tranquillity, we copy you're down, there's a bunch of us guys down here about to turn blue, thanks a lot."  I love his accent, humour, personality, he cares deeply about his fellow astronauts especially the remaining Mercury ones.  We had a quick chat, photo and he gave me his autograph "Aim high" he wrote and it was over, another guy pushed in at that point.
Saturday came, we returned.  All the astronauts were busy signing and there were a lot more people.  The funny thing was to get from one room to the other you had to pass Don Marshall and Larry Hagman, who by now knew us by sight. Having gone past so often.  There was a lecture at 12.00pm with Charlie and we and 30 others crammed into a hot, claustrophobic room to hear him.  He spoke for 45 minutes and took questions afterwards being filmed and photographed all the time.  Apparently he has a twin brother, who at the time he landed on the Moon was at Houston Mission Control, not everyone there knew this and wondered if the conspiracy theorists were right!
There was a drinks reception at 7.00pm with the stars, we sat in front of the glass window at the swimming pool.  To our amazement all the astronauts came and stood and chatted right in front of us, and I watched Ed Mitchell stroll through the crowd unrecognised.  All of a sudden Scott Carpenter came over to me and Steve with another perplexed guy and said "Sorry for staring, but it looks from where we're standing that there a Stingray in the pool; it must be the reflection of your top — Oh and by the way you look lovely!"
I sat gob-smacked and could just smile at him.  At 79 this Mercury astronaut hadn't lost his touch.  But I was relived they didn't send him to the Moon for observational purposes.  Charlie gave a speech, Gordon (Gordo) Cooper was supposed to have come to Autogrphica.  He had a heart attack on the Monday and passed away — so these men were really sad and we had a moments silence with them.  There was to be a memorial service when they returned with John Glenn and others.  You could tell Scott was upset, these men were life long buddies and had gone through the NASA process from the early days, families and all.
Sunday we went back and I bought an Apollo 16 mission patch for my collection in honour of Charlie.  I hope and pray they can return next year, it was a weekend of pure magical memories and I would recommend anyone to go.  You can just get a day pass.  Check the website next June for upcoming details.


Whilst I've been in Serbia, I've started the "Great Astronomers in History" remote learning course run by the University of Central Lancashire.  I just submitted my first assignment, for which I had to do a book review.  Fortunately I had one of the books on the approved list, Allan Chapman's "Gods in the Skies".  Here's the review!  I've borrowed some of the ideas from previous articles, but there should still be some stuff of interest to C&WAS members.
P.S. I haven't done much astronomy yet in Serbia.  I have the "penthouse" apartment in my block with an outside balcony are which is perfect from viewing.  Smederevo isn't over-endowed with street lights and Serbia would win Cfds awards for lack of sky glow.

A Book Review By Mike Frost

Gods in the Sky

by Allan Chapman

In 2003, Dr. Allan Chapman, the eminent historian of science, presented a Channel 4 series, "Gods in the Sky", on the history of astronomy and its symbiotic relationship with the development of religious belief.  The series was something of a curate's egg - good in parts.  The good parts were those presented directly to camera by Dr. Chapman; the rest was an embarrassing mishmash of puppetry, modern dance, and cameo performances from Sir Patrick Moore.
One might argue that the TV series demonstrated an inherent weakness with television as a medium; namely, the need for images to fill up the screen, regardless of what the material actually required for clarification.  For some of the creation stories, it must have been a challenge to present accompanying images that did not cross boundaries of taste.  In other cases (the modern dance comes to mind here), the televisual material didn't seem to add to the narrative.
The shame was that Allan Chapman really doesn't need accompaniment.  He is a renowned speaker on the amateur astronomy circuit, lecturing fluently and authoritatively on a range of subjects, without notes and visual aids (he may show a few apt slides at the end of his talk).  The pot pourri of special effects accompanying Gods in the Sky detracted from the central message of the series, and I for one longed to hear Dr. Chapman's material without distraction.
Fortunately, Channel 4 obliged by issuing a book to accompany the series, so we can hear what he has to say, undiluted.  The thesis of Dr. Chapman's book is that the western traditions of monotheism, and particularly Christianity, have been powerful forces that have aided rather than hindered the development of the west as a scientific society.  Or, as Dr Chapman concludes his book, "modern Western scientific culture came into being through recognising the presence of a design principle in nature that was imparted to it by a singular and supreme God", (p. 317).
The book takes loosely the form of a chronological history; beginning with the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, who worshipped "Gods in the Sky".  It moves forward through the single God of Judaism, to the logos and nous, which are held to be the intellectual principles behind the rise of Greek philosophy, and presents a Rough Guide to the leading thinkers of Greece and Rome.  Dr. Chapman is particularly fascinating on the neglected history of astronomy during the (so-called) Dark Ages, before Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Horrocks and Newton make their expected appearances.  Perhaps most controversial, and entertaining, are the two chapters which top and tail the book.  The first chapter, "on scientific myths", lays into some familiar targets; Columbus and the Flat Earth, Galileo's trial; but also takes on "scientific fundamentalism", or the belief that "scientific and religious thinking [are] fundamentally antagonistic"  (p. 3).  The final chapter, whilst bringing the history of astronomy up to the present day, also takes a  further swipe at deism and positivism, not to mention paganism and its New Age cousins.
Dr. Chapman presents an impressive sweep of evidence to support his theories; to take one amusing example, he presents convincing arguments for the threat of purgatory as a powerful stimulus towards the endowment of educational establishments.  But of course, there are areas where one has to disagree with his interpretation of events.  He takes the gradual understanding of the rainbow; a tortured, achingly slow crawl towards real insight as an example of what medieval science was able to achieve.  To be sure, Arabic scholars such as Alhazen and Europeans such as Roger Bacon and Theodoric of Freiburg made important discoveries.  Yet later, towering figures in the theory of optics, such as Johannes Kepler, seem to step backwards with their explanations.  In the end it took the mathematical insights of Descartes and Newton to "unweave the rainbow".  Furthermore, Dr. Chapman's assertion that the tales of pots of gold at the end of the rainbow are "hoary legends" is misleading.  Carl Boyer's The Rainbow from Myth to Mathematics 157; [1] details pages of medieval superstitions about the rainbow.  Many of these superstitions tie in with religious beliefs: for example, Germans mutter "Gruss Gott" when they see a rainbow, in celebration of the superstition that there will be no rainbows in the last forty years of the world.
Moreover, Dr. Chapman fails to even allow the possibility of religion as a reactionary force, stifling new ideas through indifference or co-opting them for utilitarian purposes completely removed from physical explanation.  Bede, for example, is presented to us as "the first English astronomer", but was he really interested in the skies for their own sake, or as a means to an end for the synchronisation of the religious calendar?  Similarly (but moving on centuries!) the monks who put together what we now know of as the Anglo-Saxon chronicles were adept at recording astronomical events, but sometimes underhand with their interpretation and presentation.  For example [2], the chroniclers accurately recorded the total solar eclipse of August 2nd 1133, but managed to move the date back by precisely two years, so that the eclipse became a sign of the imminent death of King Henry I.
I would make a stronger claim.  By my reckoning, Bede's history [3] and the Anglo-Saxon chronicles record five of the eight total and annular solar eclipses over England in the period 664 to 1140, not to mention twelve lunar eclipses, twelve comets (including Halley's in 1066) and miscellaneous aurorae and haloes.  Yet they completely fail to mention what may have been the most spectacular event of all: the supernova of 1054 (mentioned in passing by Dr. Chapman on P. 261).  According to Chinese astronomers this was visible in daylight for three weeks in July 1054 [4].  Perhaps the weather was especially bad in Britain that summer; but there are no European records either.  Could it really have been clouded out for weeks on end right across Europe? Likewise, there are precious few records of the 1006 supernova in Lupus, too far south to be seen from Britain, but scarcely observed elsewhere in Europe.  To my knowledge [5], only the monks of St Gallen, in Switzerland, left behind a written record.
It is my suspicion that the chroniclers of medieval Europe, almost entirely based within the church, proved themselves quite capable of observing the skies and recording the mundane, but were not up to the task of acknowledging new stars in the firmament.  The new stars of 1006 and 1054 went largely unacknowledged; the new stars of 1572 and 1604 were a spur to the Renaissance. It's my contention that the difference lay not in the brightness of the novae, but in the intellectual courage of their observers.  And I believe that this intellectual courage did not arise from the religious beliefs of Brahe, Kepler and Galileo, rather their confidence in their own ability to understand the Universe, independent of its (supposed) creator.
This leads me to what I think is the flaw in the book.  I accept Dr. Chapman's assertion, well supported, that the persecution of science by the church has been over-stated.  I am prepared to concede that Christianity and the monotheistic religions played a big part in the lives of the famous astronomers. How could they fail to?  In the same way,  the politics, economics, even the climate of Western Europe shaped its scientific history.  But was religious belief the spur that led astronomers to their discoveries?  I fail to be convinced.  To my mind Dr. Chapman fails to establish that it was a particular belief system, rather than, say, economic  prosperity or a temperate climate, which led to the intellectual flowerings of ancient Greece or Renaissance Italy.
However, I would still conclude by saying how much I enjoyed this book.  Even if one does not agree entirely with Dr Chapman's thesis, one cannot help but be entertained by his book.  There will not be many readers who are not informed by it, often in some unexpected way.  For example I was delighted to discover that John Sacrobosco, the only English author mentioned by Jeremiah Horrocks in his list of authorities, was probably another northerner, hailing from Halifax. (Dr. Chapman is also a northerner, as am I, and we  both take pride in our North Country astronomers)
Above all, one cannot help but admire the style and voice of the writer, the marshalling of his material.  Quite simply (one of Allan's favourite phrases), who else would organise an entire chapter to conclude with the words: "Quite simply, without those Angels Ascending the Spheres, so much of the content and metaphor of modern science and civilisation would not have existed." (P 217)?  This is a writer who revels in performing his material.
Which leads me to one final suggestion.  Why doesn't Dr Chapman appear on the radio?


Gods in the Sky, Allan Chapman (Channel 4 Books, 2002)

[1]  The Rainbow from Myth to Mathematics, Carl B Boyer (Princeton, 1987).  The Germanic rainbow legend is on p 26, chapters 1 and 3-5 are relevant.

[2]  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (trans/ed GN Garmonsay,  Everyman 1994).  The entry for 1135 reads as follows: -  "King Henry went over sea at Lammas, and the second day as he lay and slept on the ship the day darkened over all lands; and the Sun became as it were a three night old Moon, and the stars were about it at mid-day.  Men were greatly wonder-stricken and were affrighted, and a great thing should come hereafter.  So it did, for the same year the king died on the following day after St Andrew's Mass-day",  December 2nd in Normandy.  There is no doubt that the eclipse actually occurred on 2nd August 1133.  I first came across the story in UK Solar Eclipses from Year 1157,  (Sheridan Williams, Clock Tower 1997)

[3]  Bede's Ecclesiastical History of Britain (trans/ed JA Giles, Bell 1894)

[4]  The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy  (Jonathan Cape, 1979), p 297.

[5]  Pro-Am collaborations in astronomy,  Guy M Hirst (J Br Astron Assoc. 114, 5, 2004, p 260)


Another selection of obscure song titles and weird lyrics with astronomical themes.
By Mike Frost (with help from Vaughan Cooper)

Round 1 — The Heavy Metal Round

In astrophysics, any element heavier than helium is regarded as a metal.  In my pop quizzes to date, however, heavy metal questions have so far been notable by their absence.
Fortunately Vaughan Cooper has helped me out.  Who recorded the following song titles?

1.   Stairway to Heaven
2.   Stargazer
3.   Starstruck
4.   2000 Light Years from Home
5.   Bark at the Moon
6.   Rocket
7.   Symptom of the Universe
8.   Planet Caravan
9.   Hole in the Sky
10. Sign of the Southern Cross
11. Under the Sun
12. Space Trucking
13. Fireball
14. Highway Star
15. Maybe I'm a Leo
16. Black Night
17. Heart of the Sunrise
18. Interstellar Overdrive

Round 2 — Lyrics

A few more lyrics dredged from the recesses of my memory!

Who wrote the following?  One of them isn't actually a pop lyric but which?

1.  "We're headed for Venus,
    But still we stand tall,
    'Cos maybe they've seen us,
    And will welcome us all. . ."

2.  ". . .you're a star in the face of the sky"

3.  "We go waiting for the stars,
    To come showering down,
    From Moscow to Mars,
    Universe falling down. . ."

4.  ". . .if you say hello and I take a ride
    Upon a sea, where the mystic Moon
    Plays havoc with the tides. . ."

5.  "Continuous as the stars that shine,
    and twinkle on the Milky Way,
    They stretched in never-ending line,
    Along the margin of a bay"

6.  "Look at the Stars
    Look how they shine for you
    And everything you do
    Yeah they were all yellow"

7.  "Better come back down to Mars,
    Girl, quit chasin' cars"

8.  "As around the Sun the Earth knows
    she's revolving,
    And the rosebuds know to bloom in early May"

Round 3 — Courtesy of the Sky at Night

The January 2004 edition of the Sky at Night featured 'Music in Astronomy'.  Here are a few contributions from that program that haven't featured in any quizzes so far:

1.  Who wrote a song called "Betelgeuse"?
2.  Who wrote an opera called "Perseus"
3.  Who wrote a ballet called "Lyra's Dream"
4.  Who wrote the "Transit of Venus march"
5.  Which planet-discovering astronomer was originally conductor of Lord Darlington's Durham militia band, and organist of the Octagon Chapel in Bath?
6.  Which comet-discovering astronomer sang as a soprano in her brother's orchestra?

Answers in next issue of MIRA