<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Could have been a really great book
Review: This book really got my attention because I was a hobbyist astronomer many year's back. It's a fascinating subject. Mr. Upgren intended to write a bunch of rambling essays on the subject, while teaching some basics at the same time. This would be in the manner of Arthur C. Clark and H.A. Rey (also of "Curious George" fame). It could have been a much better book if:a) Mr. Upgren did not harp on the dark-skies issue in many of the chapters, and adding up to about 1/4 of the book. Granted, I think he's right about the uselessness of outdoor lighting wasting energy to the night sky. However, he goes way overboard on this, to great detriment of the book. It could have been in one epilogue chapter at the end. b) the author explained what the turtles have to do with the rest of the book cause it's not really clear to me (oh, yeah they can navigate pretty well in dark skies, whoopeee!). c) the writing were of the quality of Arthur C. Clark. It's not, but pretty readable anyway. I did note that the basic math, on distances to the horizon, center of mass of earth/moon system, etc. seemed right. In fact, I noted no math/numerical errors, which is amazing in and of itself. Very interesting; just ignore the preaching about the streetlights.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been a really great book
Review: This book really got my attention because I was a hobbyist astronomer many year's back. It's a fascinating subject. Mr. Upgren intended to write a bunch of rambling essays on the subject, while teaching some basics at the same time. This would be in the manner of Arthur C. Clark and H.A. Rey (also of "Curious George" fame). It could have been a much better book if: a) Mr. Upgren did not harp on the dark-skies issue in many of the chapters, and adding up to about 1/4 of the book. Granted, I think he's right about the uselessness of outdoor lighting wasting energy to the night sky. However, he goes way overboard on this, to great detriment of the book. It could have been in one epilogue chapter at the end. b) the author explained what the turtles have to do with the rest of the book cause it's not really clear to me (oh, yeah they can navigate pretty well in dark skies, whoopeee!). c) the writing were of the quality of Arthur C. Clark. It's not, but pretty readable anyway. I did note that the basic math, on distances to the horizon, center of mass of earth/moon system, etc. seemed right. In fact, I noted no math/numerical errors, which is amazing in and of itself. Very interesting; just ignore the preaching about the streetlights.
<< 1 >>
| 
