Return to Home Page
I am glad to see this initiative has created discussion and, hopefully, enthusiasm for observing these particular stars from AAVSO Bulletin 66. Much of the concern I see expressed about the scientific wisdom of such a project can be traced back to my use of the word "campaign" to describe it. My real intent was to merely bring attention to stars that do not have a mean curve, making predictions of their maxima and minima questionable, and those stars not behaving predictably, with questioned maxima and minima. The list, sorted by status, available data, RA, etc., is intended to be a planning toll for observers, not a list of the most important stars in the AAVSO program, nor a list of "priority" targets. The email discussion group is intended to be an outlet for observers to discuss the difficulties, successes and progress of observing the stars on the NMO list. Sort of a group mentoring program or group "therapy" forum for those of us who are hopelessly addicted to observing variable stars. It was not intended to be an "official campaign" in any real sense. Merely an opportunity for like-minded individuals to fulfill a request for more observations of these stars from AAVSO HQ. For some of us, the fact that many of these stars are challenging to observe is reason enough to add them to our programs. Assigning scientific justifications or political motivations to our efforts misses the point. Many of us observe because it is intellectually challenging and the output is potentially scientifically useful. It really is that simple. Mike Simonsen
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
