Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6098] Re: [AAVSO-DIS] Re: NMO Campaign > Coming from Vsnet, an organization that has existed for only a few years, I > guess it's difficult to understand that AAVSO *is* a decades-long observing > campaign. Well, VSNET now has already a decade history of internet presence. There had also been pre-VSNET activities since the very early stage of the wide availability of internet communications. Many of the messages during the early period can be tracked down from the VSNET Mail archive page. I was also involved in summarizing the century-long observations of the Variable Star Observer's League in Japan (VSOLJ), which are publicly available on the web. The program used for creating the database was what I wrote, and I know the actual data in details. http://vsnet.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/VSOLJ/vsolj.html The thoughts what I expressed are based on these activities, both on decade-long internet activity and century-long database. There have been attempts to conduct similar or original campaigns in the past, but the many of the results I know were not, unfortunately, extremely promising. Of course, the similar thing may not apply to some of the intensive members of the AAVSO, but knowing a number of observers, who was originally observing the AAVSO program stars, now devoting to a different project/organization -- which might share some characteristics of what you referred to as "game", I feel that my concern may not be too groundless even in the AAVSO. > It's not intended to be a "short-term" intensive campaign on these stars, as I > see it; it's intended to focus more observers on these stars and bring some > needed attention to the charts for these stars. Naturally, if it endures for more than a decade, the project satisfies my suggestion (1), and I don't find any problem regarding the project itself. However, if the project eventually brings up short-term, unsuccessful, satellite campaigns, I would feel that the strategy would have been inadequate. No one knows the consequence at present, but everyone would be able to judge whatever outcome in a decade or so. > As far as scientific justification for observing LPVs, I simply point to the > variety of papers published using AAVSO data. A few minutes on ADS will turn > up a bunch. I'm sure someone logging an observation of R Cen or R Hya almost > a hundred years ago didn't know *precisely* what his observation would be used > for, only that monitoring nature's behavior was an important activity. It > still is today. 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. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
