[vsnet-chat 2925] vsnet lists and traffic

[Brian Skiff <bas@lowell.edu>]

     In re the reporting of outbursts and such, it seems to me that the regular
AAVSO alerts (news flashes or whatever) posted to vsnet-alert pretty well take
care of the "mundane" outbursts that Patrick complains about.  There probably
don't need to be additional announcements about them.  Likewise, I think
Kato-san does an amazing job of picking out the gems he finds in vsnet-obs
contributions for things that could lead to additional follow-up.  I could also
do with far less frequent summaries of supernova magnitude progress.  Once in
five days or a week is plenty often---those that want them more often can
observe them themselves.
     I wonder if there is or could be some way of deciding on priorities based
on the likelihood of there being some follow-up physical observations
(photometry or spectroscopy).  Although there is probably some value in visual
observations of "ordinary" CV outbursts in the long-term, I do worry that
perhaps the time is past for recording them just to record them.  A parallel
might be made with synoptic observations of planets, where the time is long
past for detailed inventories of the movements of features in Jupiter's clouds
each apparition.  It might be fun and interesting for some observers to do
that, but they should not be misled that it is somehow "valuable to science",
because about 30 years ago planetary science moved on from that sort of thing.
     More specifically, is there any point, for instance, in Danie Overbeek
diligently checking scores of dwarf novae each night if no physical
observations are ever made of any outbursting object he finds?  Are vsnetters
really looking at these mag. 17-18-19 supernovae?  On any given night it seems
that there are a several dozen CVs and supernovae doing their thing, but the
combined resources present of vsnet/CBA/AAVSO et al. can only handle maybe
three or four "campaigns" at once, and so far only the very brightest events.
There needs to be a larger cadre of "master amateur observers" or better
selection of targets, or both.
     I don't know that there's an easy answer to the problem of how to allocate
resources.  It would be better for the community here if we had a couple more
PhD observational types engaged who could identify some good projects important
to their work, act as honcho on campaigns, and get stuff analyzed and
published.  Joe Patterson and Taichi Kato have done a terrific service to the
amateur community by their willingness to do just this (they've done the pros
a favor, too, but most of them haven't figured it out yet!).  But we need a
couple more like them outside the CV field.  I have a couple of ideas, but
won't "volunteer" anyone specifically.
     I'd also like to see a couple of amateur digital sky patrols something
like the ROTSE and STARE cameras.  I would suggest sacrificing some of their
raw efficiency for precision by observing in two colors and with sharper
optics (just stopping down the lenses will do), and have it set up for more
rapid analysis of the data.  The MISAO project provides a model here, though
the quick turnaround that Takamizawa makes needs to be preserved.

     As regards "discovery" priority, luckily for us in 150 years no one will
care one whit who spotted a particular outburst first.  These are trivial
discoveries, something like discovering an asteroid.  I say "luckily" because
this means it's one less thing you have to worry about.  It's a normal thing
for folks to want some glory, but be sure to take it from a distant
perspective.  It's much more important simply to be out there (or have your
robot out there) watching.

\Brian

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp