Return to Home Page
>> ...not necessarily scientifically significant. There is enormous
>> diversity in variable stars...
I agree. The 'sky coverage' plot for variables would have to be
"smarter" than for asteroids. For instance, one could show just the
CVs with positive observations brighter than some value above the nominal
quiescent level (i.e. don't need observing unless a special program is
active to acquire astrophysical observations---which could be flagged),
or those CVs without positive observations in the previous xx hours
and brighter than xx when in outburst, etc. Similarly, you could show
long-period variables not observed in the past x.x fraction of phase,
weighted so you'd get more observations near minimum (say), or other
parameters. Thus one's hierarchical observing protocal list could
be displayed graphically, and of course one click on the chart mark to
find out which star was involved and get links to additional information.
>> No one knows if V1668 Cyg is sufficiently
>> monitored when there are enough SS Cyg observations.
Under the smart scheme you probably would because the person who
seeks only SS Cyg likely doesn't have the wherewithal to observe V1668 Cyg,
so "tonight" that guy/gal doesn't care about V1668 Cyg.
>> ...seems to be more superficial than could be inferred
>> from Brian's words.
Just about everything any of us does is more superficial than
could be inferred from words we write about them. B-)
\Brian
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
