Future of Astronomy

[Hans Tucker]

A few years ago the UK drastically cut funding to Astronomy projects and facilities, although they did find money to host the Olympics. Now after fund cuts to NASA I just read that the US astronomy budget is facing unprecedented cuts with potential closures of several facilities
such as the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and the Green Bank Radio Telescope, as well as shutting down four different telescopes at the Kitt Peak Observatory by 2017.

It is sad when two countries that have been in the fore front of Astronomy and now shutting down facilities and projects. I really hope the ESO do not follow.

[Miaplacidus]

The answer to that one, Hans, is easy. Look around you. The future of astronomy is AMATEUR.

Just think how things were 20 years ago. The images and scientific discoveries (e.g. BOSS) achieved in people's back yards and displayed hereabouts on a daily basis would have been unthinkable back then. Another 20 years of technological advances and enthusiastic amateurs and entrepreneurs, and whatever the NASA boys are up to will be well and truly eclipsed.

[leon]

Yes Brian I do have to agree with you, the images and research of the general Astronomy community world wide is just astounding, and is forging forward at an incredible rate.

I cant imaging what the next ten years holds.

Leon

[TrevorW]

Shame when they still have billions to spend on weapons and weapon development

[Peter Ward]

Sorry, if my response seems rude, but amateurs rarely have Ph.d's and budgets to run 10+meter class optical telescopes, square kilometer arrays and cover the spectrum from radio to gamma rays, put sublime optics into orbit etc. etc.

Sure amateurs do fluff & stuff at the edges, but you'd be deluded if you think tiny telescopes in backyards will do much for the cutting edge of research.

....sometimes you really do need a bigger hammer.

[Miaplacidus]

Not rude at all, Peter. Respect your opinion, of course, as well as your right to express it.

Still, I'm not so sure. I wouldn't even rule out amateur collectives managing some sort of robotic interplanetary exploration in the future. I try never to underestimate the creativity and ingenuity of the succeeding generations (double entendre intended).

PS. Please don't take any of this to mean that I approve of the governmental cuts to the major space agencies. Rather, the writing is on the wall there for anyone with eyes to see, and I can't see why the downsizing of the public sector bodies isn't going to continue. Something will fill the vacuum, and that "something" will naturally have to be the private sector and dedicated volunteers.

Plus, of course, new agencies formed in the newly affluent countries. (Lets face it, it's only because the UK and the US are now insolvent that they've had to cut back the way they have.)

[rally]

Brian,

Do you think its a straight forward issue of slashing budgets or maybe a change in the way those budgets are directed ?

Each year we see new satellites being launched that are producing results that were barely even dreamt of prior to the results being available.
We all know of Hubble and the Stereo satellites

It is a fairly obvious fact of life that we all have to live with, that terrestrial observing is severely limited when compared to satellite imagery, due to the earths rotation, relative positioning of observatories on our blue sphere, the atmosphere and the many sources of noise and aberrations.

Its not just that they are so much better because they can operate in near perfect conditions, get all the spectra that we cant even get to detect, look at objects with subexposure times of literally weeks if they need to compared to a few hours on earth.

If you can afford to put up a satellite that can get such good data, why keep spending money sustaining "old technology" on earth ?

I realise there will always be a place for observatories, and the competitive demands for observation time will ensure that existing observatories probably are still a cheap option.
I guess if they can ever stick some radio arrays on the moon that will be the end of radio telescopes on earth ?

But I do wonder if the total budget for astronomy hasn't actually increased overall - just that now NASA is getting a big slice of it in the launches and capital costs rather than all the government owned and university owned observatories.
Anyone seen any numbers floating around ?

The billions spent just on Hubble and the Webb Telescopes not to mention all the others must represent a huge chunk of astronomical budget.

I think there also must be a lot of professional astronomy that has shifted away from observation time to data mining time.
There is now more data available from these systems than can probably ever be fully investigated and its about to get bigger.

Something to think about

Rally

[Miaplacidus]

Maybe Rally. Not sure I follow...


But anyway, just by way of being a f'rinstance. Here is a potted history of one very successful amateur from years ago:-



Grote Reber was the father of radio astronomy, being the first person to build a "big dish" antenna for the purpose of mapping the sky at radio frequencies. He discovered many discrete radio sources, and he mapped the band of bright radio emission from our Galaxy, the Milky Way.


Reber came to Tasmania in the late 1950s because of its unique location at high magnetic latitude in the southern hemisphere. He spent 40 years studying low frequency emissions with telescopes he built himself, first in partnership with the University of Tasmania School of Physics, and later on his own at Bothwell. His accomplishments are remarkable, not only in radio astronomy but also in electrical powered transport, in carbon dating of aboriginal settlements, and in the patterns made by growing bean plants. His creative vision had no limits...


I've seen photos of his array. Easily measured in acres.



http://www.groterebermuseum.org.au/index.html

[Merlin66]

I, like others, am very sad to see the demise of all the older land based observatories and the equipment and infrastructure they supported.
Regards amateurs...well I'd love to agree 200% that there will be a resurgence of amateur capablities ( reminiscences of the Victorian Gentlemen astronomers) but.......
From what I've seen in the past few years, schools, colleges and universities have lost the capablity to train students. And many of the current X-Y-Z generation unfortunately don't have the rigor and dedication needed to apply themselves to serious amateur astronomy.
Sure, there will always be a small minority of amateurs who will do the extra mile....but there's not that many even on a global scale.
I struggle to get amateurs interested and develop a capability in spectroscopy.
This branch of astronomy has contributed more than 80% of all the knowledge we have of the universe, yet we ignore it!
I've been chastised by professional spectroscopists for even trying to consider amateur contributions to the "science" - I should not be encouraging them to start in an area where the "minimum" level of education would/should be a first or second degree in mathematics/ physics.
I disagree.
Onwards and Upwards.

[Peter Ward]

I'd put Jansky up at the "father of radio astronomy". Reber...an interesting character for sure... built on Jansky's work.... it would be long bow to suggest Reber was the first to conduct radio-frequency observations.

[ZeroID]

It scares me because it's another 'dumbing' down of Science. Humankind only got to where it is now through curiosity ( 'Curiousity .. !! ' well named ) and the loss of opportunities, encouragement, funding, technology is slowing killing the nurturing of younger people into these fields of exploration. If we stop exploring we're at a dead end as a species, we may as well be worms.

[PeterM]

I am responding to these bollocks comments after several concerned amateur astronomers advised me of the post. I am responding to this in defence of what amateurs have achieved in the past, do now and will in the future in contributing to the science of astronomy.

Rude? I have several other words that could replace this with but I do not want to be banned as I like reporting BOSS discoveries here Pete old mate and I have seen the value that professionals attribute to work that plain old everyday dedicated amateurs are doing, amateurs like myself and many others. The kind that frequent IIS regularly and the kind that will have dreams about doing this in the future.

To be honest I was pretty peeved off with your "fluff n stuff" comment.

Ok every now and then you produce a pretty pic and I congratulate you on it as I often do the many, many others who are doing brilliant work often without hammers like you have. You know Pete there is so much more you could do if you wanted to contribute to the science of astronomy especially with your hammer.

So are you saying you don't get much if any feedback from pros on the odd good image you post, is that correct?

"Fluff n stuff" is derogatory to me and amateur astronomers and I take offence but clearly its just a lack of knowledge on your part so let me assist you here.

BOSS get LOTS of ongoing support and feedback from many professional astronomers at least weekly, believe me your jaw would drop. They have clearly stated that amateur astronomers are an important assett to them so please never call it "fluff n stuff".

Our discoveries have been keenly followed up by amongst others - The Hale 200inch, Hubble, Swift, Gemini N&S, the 2x 6.5 m Magellan scopes, The Dupont scope, the 10m SALT scope, these are pretty big hammers Pete.
Infact other important work has been dropped to get spectra of some of these events

I say again amateurs can if they wish, with pretty basic equipment contribute to the science of astronomy.

So Pete old mate I do not think it delusional when 4 amateur astronomers are included as authors (and we were not aware of this prior) in a scientific paper to be published in The Astrophysical Journal for the very early discovery of SN2011iv which is now being used to rewrite the current theories of supernova physics. This is one of several papers being written about discoveries we made! So how's that!

Amateur astronomers who read this please understand I am writing this in defence of fluff n stuff remarks that are clearly wrong, misinformed and nonsense. You can contribute in a meaningful way if you wish, maybe not now but perhaps you will in the future and professional astronomers will welcome you with open arms.

Fluff n stuff? absolute bollocks with a capital B.

So Pete hows about removing fluff n stuff from your post.

Am looking forward to another pretty pic Pete?

[Stardrifter_WA]

Hi Peter M,

Well said!

I am with you on this as I have I worked, voluntarily, at Perth Observatory for quite a few years, up until my MVA in 1999 and have also contributed to a number of scientific papers. Sure, I had use of pro equipment, but that doesn't diminish my contribution, as an amateur. Without my contribution Perth Observatory staff would not have been able to allocate the time necessary, due to staffing pressures.

Peter W's comment of fluff and stuff is demeaning to those amateurs who have made a contribution to the body of science, however small. Although, having said that, I can understand where Peter W is coming from, particularly in regard to the large resource required to run major observatories. Amateurs simply do not have these resources.

As an amateur, I am once again getting involved with a major project at Perth Observatory, after a hiatus of 13 years; 13 long years of recovery from a serious accident. I have just had an operation on Monday last, the first of two stage reconstruction, and once I have recovered from this (I only have the use of one hand at present) I will commence on a new project that, without my assistance, probably wouldn't get done for the same aforementioned staffing pressures.

Amateurs do have a major part to play. There is more pro-am collaboration now than ever before. :D

[AstroJunk]

This is a great thread. I've just come back in from refining the orbit of an NEO for the Minor Planet Centre.

Lets see just how fluffy it is when it lands on Wardies head:rofl:

(actually, there are a team of amateurs who have shown that various asteroids are indeed 'fluffy' and are constrained in their rotational periods due to effects of gravity - bloody good work guys and all done with backyard scopes that would have otherwise been used taking the bazillionth and oneth photo of Orion!)

[Gem]

Society has no long term vision. Everything is short term individual gain. Science is a long term investment.

I also feel sorry for other scientific fields. I always wondered what happened to those poor CSIRO biologists who had all their crop trashed by the enviro-protesters. I would have been interested in their scientific findings rather than trash them before they had a chance to examine the evidence...

[CometGuy]

Well said Peterm :) Not all "cutting edge discoveries" need big hammers!

Terry

[brian nordstrom]

:thumbsup: I agree with you there as well Peter , a good friend of mine from auckland , Jenny McCormick , 'farm cove observory' was a member of a world wide search for extra solar planets in the late 90's and guess what ? :shrug: they found about the 10th extra solar planet discovered !!!
Jenny used a Meade 10 inch lx200 and on memory the biggest scope they used was a C14 , fluff and stuff !@!! :mad2: .
World breaking news that was , you go girl .;).
Brian.

[jjjnettie]

When NASA turns 5 of their space craft towards a comet you've discovered in your back yard, that's pretty damn serious stuff.
And when that ball of ice came back around the other side of the Sun, EVERY professional and amateur astronomer across the globe was cheering. :) How awesome was that. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymxgchf8x0w

[Zhou]

It is a real shame that budgets world wide are apparently being cut for astronomy research. As someone who aspires to become a professional astronomer it does give one food for thought.

There does seem to be little motivation for people to do the rigorous scientific and mathematical training to become a professional astronomer/ astrophysicist. It is surely more profitable to train as a geologist and work for the big mining companies!

When the Soviet's launched Sputnik in 1957 it roused the American government to encourage people to study the sciences and mathematics. However, nowadays, as the pioneering spirit of discovery has waned fewer people are willing to dedicate a sizable chunk of their life (and income) doing the training that leads to a career in scientific research; it is percived as being uncool and unprofitable. What can we do about it?

"Educate and inspire"


I notice in some of the previous posts on this thread some antaganism. Astronomy benifits from both professional and amateur astronomers doing their respesctive jobs. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Professionals have greater access to cutting edge technology but they are constrained by funding and the very narrow specialisation that is inherent in modern science. Amateur astronomers generally have less access to the "big toys" that the professionals use but have the advantage of freedom in deciding what they research, how they do it and most importantly the imagination on how they can achieve their outcomes.

It would be great to hear some comments from professional astronomers who are members of IIS.

Chill :)

[AstroJunk]

Although it did look a bit fluffy ;)

[Peter Ward]

Guys, chill out.

We (as in amateurs) do astronomy because literally we "love" this stuff...and that is fantastic and should be encouraged.

But sorry: a minor planet discovery, light curve, supernova, comet discovery etc. is from my perspective: "fluff and stuff' ....and that I did not intend as derogatory.

My point, for example, is simply this: very gifted amateurs don't have the gear (aka. big enough hammers) to observe the spectrum with sufficient detail or precision to observe, for example, that fact that the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

The latter changes our perspectives on Astronomy.

Another minor planet? well...cool. but I'll let the readers decide as to it's overall importance.

[clive milne]

Sorry to inform you Peter, but this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

[Miaplacidus]

Yes, although I suspect I disagree with Peter on pretty much everything (speed limits?), I also wish people would tone down the passion. I think it's pretty dumb arguing about the future. We'll all be proved wrong soon enough.



And Peter, this time next year there'll be an app for that!

[Peter Ward]

Clive, I'm happy to take a heads-up: but are you saying Brian Schmidt should not have got the Nobel???

[alocky]

And now someone's having a go at people who chose to become geologists? Seriously - the level of numeracy required to be mining geologist won't get you far in astrophysics. Why don't you take a shot at us geophysicists instead!
;)
When I was a postgrad I shared a floor in the physics dept with the theoretical physics guys - easily the smartest people on campus. Yet thanks to the absolute lack of commercial application of their research, these guys will never be earning even average salaries. Society pays its sportstars good money, so we need to work out how to make astrophysics a spectator sport. By encouraging more lay people to get involved the pros are doing their best to make it more palatable to divert the required money into a Great Purpose- like finally putting all those silly dark 'whatever' theories to bed....
Cheers
Andrew

[Peter Ward]

Oh for chissake...So you can't too drive eh?:P

[Peter Ward]

Just so we are clear...I'd be disappointed to see this bog down to a "whatever have the Romans (amateurs) done for us??" debate :)

Clearly, basic infrastructure, health, sanitation, defence are important.

Feel free to substitute astronomical nouns in the above sentence. :)

[clive milne]

Well... to do scientifically relevant research out to cosmologically significant distances (Z>0.1), you need to be able to get 24 magnitude.... this is well within the reach of amateurs today.

[Zhou]

I concur!

[Zhou]

Just playing devil's advocate here. Though modern amateur scopes and equipment can obtain a visual magnitude of 24 can the light be analysed to a degree that yields usable data?

[clive milne]

fwiw) Amateur telescopes of modest aperture with deep depletion CCDs can can go far deeper than 24th magnitude, they have already reached 27th magnitude.

And.. let us not dismiss the value of actually discovering transient phenomena (such as super nova) at this distance. Even if we lack the signal to noise ratio to be able to provide a spectra, let's not understate the value of registering the occurrence of it in the first place, which otherwise would have gone undetected.

It may not be glamourous, but it is still valuable.

[Zhou]

Good point :thumbsup:

[PeterM]

At the risk of being banned from IIS, again I say what you loved to stick into many - Bollocks to your comments. So now you try to make your point to sweeten your toxic comments after offending amateur astronomers. Again I ask you withdraw Fluff n Stuff and delusional comments as you have offended me with these comments. You think you are God's gift to Astro?, some high priest of astro imaging, well that you are not. As I said every now and then you do a pretty pic Pete, one was good enough to use as my desktop background for a few weeks.

[Peter Ward]

Mate, I'll be the first to admit I'm not PC. Also, the last time I measured a light curve was a decade ago, never found a comet, and every minor planet that has difted across my images had previously been cataloged.... all I do at present is take pretty pictures....not very important stuff really.

That's hardly delusional. Sure, there are other amateurs that do good science....but I maintain it is not cutting edge.....but when you can send me an (amateur) spectra of a 27th magnitude galaxy, or say, a home-built martian rover.. I'll happily recant what was only ever intended as a glib remark.

[Paul Haese]

Anyone considered that the reason for the cut backs might actually be because of the budget being put into the SKA? Or some other project massive project like Cern? Not to mention that budget cuts are occurring in all portfolios in every government across the planet. In case anybody missed it there is a gigantic recession taking place across the planet and that means the endless money pit is nearly empty. Politicians cannot keep on spending money like drunken sailors and that means cuts to science, health, sport, everywhere.

There are quite a few misnomers in this thread about many different things. Certainly some of the largest facilities are producing results better than the hubble despite an atmosphere. The technology has improved that much that many space programs are being canned. Larger facilities are being built all the time and that means budgeting for these. Some facilities that are becoming obsolete are being closed down. Besides launching is an inherently dangerous event. When Webb goes up it will not be servicable and if it is damaged during launch or fails to start up there goes billions of dollars; and that does happen. Not all observation will occur in space, most of it will be cheaper to conduct here.

Amateurs are producing good results and contributing as they have always done but amateurs will never be the mainstay of research astronomy. Everyone must see this is the case. It is incorrect to think that amateurs could compete with larger and better equipped facilities. We will always be asked to be the eyes to look out for things but the pros will decide what to do with the data if anything at all. Being involved in a program is great; I agree and enjoy being a part of one, but I don't think my data is going to change the world. Someone might use it but it is a very small part of the overall picture. The bigger questions are answered by bigger facilities with bigger budgets and professionals at the helm.

No offense to anyone intended.:)

[jjjnettie]

But there is no need to devalue the most excellent work being done by amateurs by calling it "fluff".
That is just down right rude. More than insulting.

[PeterM]

Thank you Peter,
Now can we move on with what I think the intent of the original post was, as Paul makes some good points above.

Later (we are at work now) Greg will post some spectra and comments from a professional astronomer re a recent BOSS discovery. This is will leave no doubt amateur astronomers are respected and encouraged by professionals to use their little hammers so that bigger cost/time critical hammers can be used more effectively.
With total respect to variable star observers, comet hunters, minor planet officianados and the many other fields amateur astronomers contribute to, I am sorry it will be Supernova/ BOSS orientated but the point will be that amateurs do have a very important role to fill in order provide data to those with bigger hammers. It is not about competing but collaborating and sometimes this collaboration may have significant scientific value as in sn2011iv.

[alocky]

It's a little odd that we have all focussed on the contribution amateurs are making to observational science only. There is also a significant amount of public domain data acquired with all the really big hammers, too much data to have been milked completely.
There are plenty of amateurs putting the hard yards in on the 'boring' bits, and this is how science proceeds; in small steps.
The only difference between a pro and an amateur is the affiliation. If you come up with the grand unified theory, I guarantee you'll be accepted by both.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[Peter Ward]

I wouldn't put it down to affiliation.

Observing the night sky for enjoyment with a small telescope by definition makes you an amateur astronomer, but as to whether you choose to add any rigor to your observations is up to you, & hardly obligatory.

Professional Astronomers almost without exception have a degree in the Physical sciences plus Post-don experience too boot. Not too many amateurs are similarly qualified, nor is it a requirement....and I hasten to say... many have similar nouse & education, but have simply chosen a different career.

Sure amateurs can contribute, but to come up with a GUT without formal training? .. a tough ask...

[alocky]

Perhaps I was being a little flippant. The real difference is one lot get paid (a little), the other cheerfully pay to do it. You aren't likely to get affiliated unless you've got the necessary formal training either, and no, I don't think the next breakthrough in theoretical astrophysics will come from someone who wouldn't know a differential equation if it bit them on the ass - but it may be triggered by an observation made from a desktop review of 100s of years of data by someone with no formal training, just energy, time and dedication.
You can get involved with the local uni - have a look at the latest sky and telescope, for Paul Luckas's inspirational story. There are wealthy people who choose to donate to astronomy research - I can even name names!
What unites us all is a sense of wonder at the universe. Funny how some people still think anything involving our petty affairs actually matters after contemplating that.
cheers!
Andrew.

[Greg Bock]

Hi all,
I have followed this thread with some interest, and a lot of dismay. I wasn’t going to offer a response, as it will take me at least 30 minutes to knock one up and it will be 30 minutes wasted of my life that I’ll never get back, but here goes anyway. Please keep in mind that my comments aren’t limited only to my experience on the BOSS team, but come more from an historical perspective.

Also, I hope this reply below shows just what can be achieved by amateurs working in close collaboration with professionals.


I have started this reply with a couple of extracts from two science papers that BOSS has contributed to in the last 6 months. In fact, 4 of us are listed as co-authors on the science paper regarding the discovery in NGC6925, SN2011ie, which is helping to re-write current theories of supernova explosion evolution. Now, how's that for a bit of fluff at the edges?

I hope readers will find the results of the professional work here interesting. You don’t have to read them in detail, but simply understand that the little hammers of the BOSS team are working very well as a collaboration with a much wider professional community who are actually very appreciative of our efforts to locate interesting targets for their bigger hammers.

Extract 1.
"NGC1404 - THE FIRST MAXIMUM-LIGHT ULTRAVIOLET THROUGH NEAR-INFRARED SPECTRUM OF A TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA1,2
We presented a UVOIR spectrum of SN 2011iv, a relatively normal SN Ia. These data were obtained 0.6 days after B-band maximum light with HST/STIS and Magellan/ FIRE. This spectrum is the first contemporaneous and continuous UVOIR spectrum of a SN Ia. It is also the first published high-S/N, near-maximum, true-UV SN Ia spectrum since that of SN 1992A (K93) and the earliest high-S/N UV SN Ia spectrum yet published.

HST(STIS), Magellan:Baade(FIRE),PROMPT
This research was supported by a Clay Fellowship (R.J.F.), an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (E.R.N.), the TABASGO Foundation (A.V.F.), and NASA/HST grant GO-12592."

Extract 2.
"NGC6925- NGC6925
We have presented X-ray, UV/optical, and radio observations of the He-rich, stripped-enveloped, core-collapse SN 2011ei beginning within » 1 day of explosion. The key findings of our analyses can be summarized as follows:

SN 2011ei was caught early enough to observe a rapid evolution from Type II to Type Ib features in its pre-maximum light spectra. While SNe IIb have traditionally been understood to undergo this transformation on the timescale of Multi-wavelength Observations of SN 2011ei 17 months, examples such as SN 2011ei establish that the metamorphosis can occur on the timescale of a few days. Consequently, how close an observation is made relative to the time of explosion is a significant factor in a Type IIb vs. Ib classification, and this has implications in determining precise rates.
Some of the observations reported in this paper were obtained with the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT), as well as the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile.

Facilities: SALT (RSS), Magellan:Baade (IMACS), Magellan:Clay (LDSS3) SWIFT (UVOT,XRT), CXO, SOAR (Goodman), NTT (EFOSC2), CTIO: PROMPT:

So now, in the light of those 2 papers only, and there are more examples i could use, I'll address PeterW's comments below:


“Sorry, if my response seems rude, “

Well, let’s face it, it is. Why?
Not only does it fail to recognise that there are many amateurs who freely contribute their time, energy, creativity and resources, to contribute to the science in many more
ways than just 'fluff', it also devalues their efforts at the same time. It may be a glib response to you PeterW, but I, along with many others here who have posted pm's back, found it offensive.

And yes, it is toxic as PeterM points out. Why? It's poisoning the IIS environment because it's only a textual note which is out there in the public domain for anyone to read on IIS without the benefit of a face to face conversation. Without body language and voice tone to provide more contextual information regarding intent, your glib remark could easily be misunderstood by readers who now think that there is no point involving oneself in any research of any kind as it's only 'fluff', and not worth the time, nor the effort. This, is course, is far from the truth.
In my experience, being involved in collaborative research with professionals is very rewarding indeed.


“but amateurs rarely have Ph.d's and budgets to run 10+meter class optical telescopes, square kilometer arrays and cover the spectrum from radio to gamma rays, put sublime optics into orbit etc. etc.”
Fair enough, not everyone can have brains as big as planets, nor can they afford big and shiny hammers, that's why they are amateurs. However, as shown bythe 2 extracts above, our efforts do involve 10m class instruments and we do cover the optical, UV, and IR spectrums.
Experience has shown many times that little and inexpensive hammers that are well managed can also contribute more than fluff.

“Sure amateurs do fluff & stuff at the edges,”
This is the core of my problem with your post, and where you have upset alot of other readers, not just PeterM and I. Just what is your criteria for 'serious' stuff, as opposed to 'fluff'?

“but when you can send me an (amateur) spectra of a 27th magnitude galaxy, or say, a home-built martian rover”
If that's your criteria, then everyone except for a handful of people on the entire planet are actually involved in serious stuff...sheeesh! Give us a break. Clearly, this is just another glib response, or is it?

“but you'd be deluded if you think tiny telescopes in backyards will do much for the cutting edge of research.”
Sorry, then I must be deluded, or perhaps you have missed the point of this thread altogether?
You see, the future of astronomy hasn't changed over the centuries. It has always, and hopefully will continue, to be a collaboration of different
skill sets and resources between the professionals, and, gasp...the amateurs. Like the electromagnetic spectrum, there is a broad range continuum of
knowledge, training, money, ingenuity, creativity, and technical capability that can be provided by professionals and amateurs who work together,
and they can actually expand the edges of knowledge and understanding, not just 'fluff' around at them.

I hope this helps.

[alocky]

Greg and Peter - and the rest of the BOSS team, congratulations on a suitable bit of recognition from the establishment. A co-authorship is as solid an acknowledgment of a genuine contribution to science as you can get, and not handed out lightly. That's there in the journals for all time, long after anything as ephemeral as a blog or web group has been erased.
I think it's a little ironic that Peter W's sun image was also recognized as having scientific merit, although the cynical would point out, by a non peer reviewed magazine usually found in the bathrooms of scientific organisations, and hence a bit of fluff around the edges!
;)
Cheers,
Andrew.

[pluck]

Thanks for the kind words Andrew. Disclaimer - I actually get paid to run the SPIRIT initiative (ie, it's my job at UWA). But, I do appreciate your sentiment. :-)

[Peter Ward]

Not sure I want to give this any more oxygen.... but when I used the expression "Fluff and Stuff"...and I'm not sure whether this is even a mainstream term....

.....I was attempting to allude to the notion amateurs do:
not very important astronomy (fuff, e.g. pretty pictures like me) and more important science (stuff).

Odd that no-one asked me to clarify this.

I still maintain it was unlikley to be "the future of astronomy" as most amateurs simply didn't have the: training, aperture, spectrum, computing horsepower, stuff in orbit, or resources to discover the "next big thing".

At no time had I stated amateur research was worthless.

Yet many got their nickers in a knot either over the former observation or perhaps it was my coin of term expressing the same. I do not, nor never will be, a PC apologist, and simply calling it as it see it.

Just so we are are clear: I do not think amateurs are the future of astronomy, however, I agree whole heartedly amateurs can still make contributions to the science.

[Shiraz]

add to the list that the interferometer capability at Keck is closing - one of the main reasons for having the two big scopes just evaporated.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/Closure-Looms-for-Kecks-Interferometer-139509093.html (check out the video)

Anyone got any comments on where ground based optical astronomy is heading in Australia?

[Zhou]

No offence at all, agree with your post totally :thumbsup: