…and this is a 
The Minnesota Planetarium Society has ambitious plans to rebuild and expand a planetarium and space discovery center in Minneapolis, and they're trying to spread the news and build more support. They are having an event to do this:
Summer Solstice Celebration
Monday, June 22
4:00pm - 8:00 pm
Minneapolis Central Library
300 Nicollet MallThis event is co-sponsored by the Library Foundation of Hennepin County. Here is your chance to -- travel past the Sun out into the universe through the Society's ExploraDome sky theater, that has been wowing school kids throughout Minnesota -- learn something new about astronomy and telescopes from the Minnesota Astronomical Society, and -- expose your kids to the world of Astronomy through astronomically-related games. We also hope you'll take this opportunity to see the future site of the Minnesota Planetarium and learn more about how we can make it a reality.
ExploraDome shows will be held on the half-hour. The dome holds 25 at a time, so reservations are recommended. To reserve your spot, please send your name, phone number and time (by the half-hour) to the sally@mplanetarium.org OR 651-999-7300. The 6:30pm show is a special presentation in Pohlad Hall featuring our planetarium colleagues live from around the world, and is open to all.
Let's build this!
Physical Science
Comments
Posted by: littlejohn | June 10, 2009 12:19 PM
Sounds great! I love astronomy, because I'm a Leo.
Posted by: Mark F. | June 10, 2009 12:27 PM
And the most fundamental question that the new planetarium should address is:
PLUTO: Is it a planet?
The world awaits the Minnesota answer.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2009 12:28 PM
It isn't.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | June 10, 2009 12:28 PM
Summer solstice! I do hope the area pagans show support.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 10, 2009 12:31 PM
Why, for a temple to materialism?
Sorry, I've ended up arguing with a theistic buffoon who's main term of derision appears to be "materialist," never mind that I think anything smacking of "materialism" is philosophical BS.
Actually, he'd probably support this, and evolution, up until language, morality, and "intuitions" are involved. Then it's time for the magic man.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Mark F. | June 10, 2009 12:32 PM
I agree. It isn't.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 10, 2009 12:35 PM
Let me be the first to respond:
PLUTO: If he's a dog, WTF is Goofy?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 10, 2009 12:36 PM
Well in my sect of atheism, Pluto is a planet. Quit disrespecting me.
Actually, that would have been a good version of atheism to put out there just as the new definition excluded Pluto. You'd have gotten a bunch of schoolchildren to join up. Nerdlings, sure, but nerds and nerdlings aren't exactly unknown among atheists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Mark F. | June 10, 2009 12:39 PM
WTF the Goofy?
Beats the hell out of me.
Posted by: OneMadClown | June 10, 2009 12:56 PM
I am shocked and dismayed, PZ. To think that you'd go all ga-ga over a complex that doesn't appear to house a giant Death Ray, control a swarm of Orbital Death Laser Satellites, or have an explicit mission statement regarding the search for giant star-squid overlords. What kind of mad scientist are you?
Posted by: Nathan | June 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Thanks PZ for getting the word out!
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 10, 2009 1:00 PM
For those posting who do not live in Minneapolis, most of the building in the picture exists. It is our new public library. What is missing is the domed portion which would house a new planetarium to replace the planetarium in our previous library which was torn down to make way for the new structure. (Gee, I am getting old as I remember going to the planetarium in the library that existed before the previous library.)
Posted by: slugboi | June 10, 2009 1:04 PM
I'm on it.
Posted by: Pareidolius | June 10, 2009 1:07 PM
Now wait a minute, isn't this going to require one of those sciency, high-falutin' overhead projectors?
Posted by: Crispy | June 10, 2009 1:09 PM
I thought it was a big no-no to build observatories near cities. The lights from the city can disturb observations (I could be wrong).
With that in mind, the benefit of having such a resource so close could outweigh any negatives. Additionally, it could increase public interaction, usually a plus.
Posted by: pumpkinpie | June 10, 2009 1:11 PM
@Crispy,
You are right, it is futile to build a big observatory in a city, thanks to light pollution. This facility will be a planetarium, where we bring the sky inside! The fake sky, that is.
Posted by: Crispy | June 10, 2009 1:19 PM
My bad, I saw planetarium and thought observatory. Duh
Posted by: Owen | June 10, 2009 1:25 PM
OneMadClown @10 - that dome is totally a death-ray housing. Don't believe the stuff about it being a planetarium. The only stars you'll see there are when the New Atheist Goons cosh you for getting too close to a restricted area...
And the satellite control station's in the basement.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 10, 2009 1:27 PM
I presume, then, that the reference to telescopes in the OP was to exhibits about telescopes and telescopic observing?
Still, you could do certain kinds of observing even from an urban site, couldn't you? Lunar observations don't require a particularly dark sky, and solar observations quite obviously aren't affected by artificial lighting. And modeling these sorts of observing might encourage kids who don't have access to dark-sky sites not to give up on astronomy.
Just a thought....
Posted by: Schmeer | June 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Your public library has a planetarium?! Woah. I want one in my library.
Glen, what the hell are you talking about 'materialism is bullshit'?
Posted by: spurge | June 10, 2009 1:36 PM
Isn't the summer solstice the 21st not the 22nd of June?
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | June 10, 2009 1:36 PM
Anybody know a really knowledgeable and popular astronomer who could open this thing?
Posted by: pumpkinpie | June 10, 2009 1:46 PM
@spurge
Yes, the solstice is the 21st but it worked better to schedule the event on the 22nd. Since the solstice starts just after midnight central time, technically the 22nd is the first full day of summer!!
Posted by: tariqata | June 10, 2009 1:48 PM
Not that I'm an astronomer, but I think it does depend on the type of work you're doing. The observatory in my hometown (which started out its life in a rural area, but a city grew up around it) was in use for spectroscopic observation, up until the University of Toronto sold the property to a real estate developer in 2008. The word is that the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada will be able to continue to operate it as a community education project, though, which is at least one piece of good news. (I understand that U of T also owns Toronto's defunct McLaughlin Planetarium, and I keep hearing rumours that they'd really like to sell that property too, and it's a crying shame; some of my earliest memories are of attending star shows there.)
Good luck with the planetarium in Minneapolis! (I understand that U of T also owns Toronto's defunct McLaughlin Planetarium, and I keep hearing rumours that they'd really like to sell that property too, and it's a crying shame; some of my earliest memories are of attending star shows there. I wish that we had people getting behind reactivating it!)
Posted by: littlejohn | June 10, 2009 1:59 PM
Don't interfere with my free speech. In my book, "Of Pluto and Pandas", Pluto certainly is a planet, and an intelligently designed one at that.
The designer: Goofy.
Posted by: BJ | June 10, 2009 2:13 PM
Has John McCain heard about this?
Posted by: rob | June 10, 2009 2:37 PM
i remember the old planetarium in the old Minneapolis library. i often wondered why they didn't build a new planetarium when the built the new library.
guess this is phase 2. i am looking forward to going to see it when the build it!
Posted by: Chief | June 10, 2009 2:39 PM
As long as we're not spending $3 million of pork on an overhead projector!!
Posted by: jj | June 10, 2009 2:40 PM
mmmm My favorite beer, I wonder if it is out yet this year...
Posted by: Dahan | June 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Why are you wasting my tax dollars on this? All these places do is show boring stuff anyways. Ooohh! A planetary nebula black hole thingy! WELL WHO CARES!!!! When will they show where Heaven is? That's teh stuff I want to see! The libral astomeners are just to scared to show it.
Posted by: Evan | June 10, 2009 2:43 PM
Oh please oh please oh please don't let them crap up their planetarium like the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco did.
A big round TV set with visible scan-lines in the display is no match for a star projector. Ugh.
Posted by: Puck | June 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Screw it. I just made the effort to contact coca cola and tell them that the 'creation museum' was a waste of money and I'd no longer give them any of mine to waste like that, but this planetarium would be a fine place to put the money to use, and they were fund raising right now. Maybe if a few of us bitch at them, they'll throw some money to the new planetarium. Maybe not, but I felt like bitching at them.
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/presscontacts.html
Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | June 10, 2009 3:14 PM
Wow, what a beautiful building!
Posted by: Goofy | June 10, 2009 3:55 PM
@7
Garsh!! WTF do you think I am? Ah-hyulk, ah-hyulk, ah-hyulk!
Posted by: Roberto Aguirre
|
June 10, 2009 4:21 PM
I assume Phil Plait must be blogging about squids right now...
Posted by: Roberto Aguirre
|
June 10, 2009 4:23 PM
I assume Phil Plait must be blogging about squids right now...
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | June 10, 2009 6:58 PM
Mr. Myers, please do include Pluto with the planets instead of blindly accepting the controversial decree of a tiny minority of astronomers. Pluto is still a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. I am a writer and amateur astronomer and proud to be one of these people. You can read more about why Pluto is a planet and worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion on my Pluto Blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | June 10, 2009 7:01 PM
Mr. Myers, please do include Pluto with the planets instead of blindly accepting the controversial decree of a tiny minority of astronomers. Pluto is still a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. I am a writer and amateur astronomer and proud to be one of these people. You can read more about why Pluto is a planet and worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion on my Pluto Blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
Posted by: Tatil | June 10, 2009 7:14 PM
I would like to live in such a beautiful building
Posted by: felixthecat
|
June 10, 2009 8:40 PM
The building is an eyesore, but is it worthy of being a Kunstler Eyesore of the Month? Only time will tell.
Posted by: Kevin Schreck | June 10, 2009 9:41 PM
I haven't been there in years. Hope the project works out! I'd love to visit it sometime.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 10, 2009 10:11 PM
Didnt realize people make a religion out of classifying rocks in space !
And embedded Skype phone link,very impressive !
Posted by: MadScientist | June 11, 2009 2:40 AM
That looks like a giant cephalopods - well, cephalus. If you can convince the artist to add tentacles dangling over the edge and down two sides of the building, I'll throw some money at it.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 11, 2009 4:40 AM
@Pareidolius: I haven't read the plan (which is available via the web), but the skies can be projected using any number of techniques:
1. Classic 'Zeiss projector' and its variants such as the modern Zeiss projectors and the Goto projectors.
2. Multiple data projectors carefully matched and masked to cover a large portion of, or the entire ('full dome') planetarium screen. With modern projectors and modern computers this will probably become an increasingly popular option because it does not require space at the center of the theater to accommodate a large projector. Depending on what you're projecting, it can be difficult to convince people like myself that color consistency and pixel brightness are satisfactorily preserved across the entire dome.
3. Single data projector using a fisheye lens: perhaps one of the earliest was produced by Evans and Sutherland (who did a lot of similar work for military simulations). If you enjoy watching green stars and a green moon, that was the projector to have. More recent versions can now project in full color. With a fairly small array of computers you can do all sorts of neat tricks as in (2). A chunk is still taken out of the middle of the room to house the projector.
4) It remains a challenge for the grand masters of shadow puppetry to produce a believable night sky.
Every type of planetarium projector has its own quirks, so I won't complain in detail about the different types.
Posted by: Jen | June 11, 2009 5:35 AM
The clear solution to the question of Pluto's status:
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/demoteearth/
(teach the controversy!)
Posted by: llewelly | June 11, 2009 6:44 AM
OneMadClown | June 10, 2009 12:56 PM
Some idiots just don't know how to keep a secret, do they?
Posted by: pumpkinpie | June 11, 2009 10:11 AM
@MadScientist
Great summary of projectors.
We have not chosen the hardware we have used. We are >3 years away from opening. The vendors you mention, and more, have advised us not to make any decisions before 1 year out, because the technology advances so quickly. All I can say for sure is that it will have full dome video.
For those interested, come to the event PZ posted to see an example of the kind of content it will contain. What we're doing now in our portable system is all live--no movies.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 11, 2009 3:16 PM
OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleeeeaaaase include a classic (Zeiss-style) planetarium star projector!! They have a certain mechanical loveliness, a steampunk-like beauty, that makes the machine itself almost as wonderful as the images it projects!
Jus' sayin'....
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 3:30 PM
and emphatically!
From "Goofy's" link @#34:
Ah. There's our answer: Pluto's a dog; Goofy's an Actor.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 11, 2009 3:41 PM
Yeah. [sigh] I didn't want to waste any more of PZ's pixels confessing my all-too-obvious HTML FAIL. Thanks ever so much for mentioning it! Only the first line after the blockquote was supposed to be italicized: As near as I can reconstruct it, I must have omitted the </i> that should've followed the </b>.
In any case, though, I really do think star projectors are frikkin' cool.
Posted by: Elliot Robert | June 13, 2009 4:06 PM
What a great project. Too bad that building is ugly as hell. Makes me want to walk across the street to get away from it.
Posted by: Otelelr | July 1, 2009 4:57 PM
I am shocked and dismayed, PZ. To think that you'd go all ga-ga over a complex that doesn't appear to house a giant Death Ray, control a swarm of Orbital Death Laser Satellites, or have an explicit mission statement regarding the search for giant star-squid overlords. What kind of mad scientist are you?
Posted by: tatil yerleri | July 1, 2009 5:03 PM
For those posting who do not live in Minneapolis, most of the building in the picture exists. It is our new public library. What is missing is the domed portion which would house a new planetarium to replace the planetarium in our previous library which was torn down to make way for the new structure. (Gee, I am getting old as I remember going to the planetarium in the library that existed before the previous library.)
Posted by: haberler | July 1, 2009 5:07 PM
Yeah. [sigh] I didn't want to waste any more of PZ's pixels confessing my all-too-obvious HTML FAIL. Thanks ever so much for mentioning it! Only the first line after the blockquote was supposed to be italicized: As near as I can reconstruct it, I must have omitted the that should've followed the .
Posted by: tatil hotel | July 2, 2009 4:11 AM
Actually, he'd probably support this, and evolution, up until language, morality, and "intuitions" are involved. Then it's time for the magic man.