Return to Home Page
I think most amateur observers think that the ideal is as much coverage as possible of *all* stars. You never know when something will do something interesting. Both the AAVSO database and the VSNET database have huge gaping holes. I know you pros could easily argue that finite observing time should be spent on subjects most likely to yield valuable information. That type of direction is very valuable to the amateur community. Lead and we will follow. The AAVSO bulletin is a very worthy effort to help fill the vacuum. The NMO campaign is an effort to passively organize observations of stars the AAVSO has determined to be under observed. It's hard for amateurs to find any drawbacks to that. Michael Koppelman On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 08:33 PM, Taichi Kato wrote: > Okay, these objects almost always satisfy my suggestion (2). > Concentrating > on the objects which have sufficient history is a good choice, and I > would > feel such a campaign somehow needs to more explicitly address this in > its > scientific justification. "Need more observations" sounds > conceptionally > misleading.
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
