Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodstar
To what extent do you think this would present information which overlaps with the Quasar publication Astronomy 2010? What would distinguish this from that hallowed publication?
|
I fail to see the relevance of this. "Astronomy 2010" is its own publication, but it is not unique nor is it totally original.
The point is what is presented in it is mostly the views by the three authors, and what they deem as what might be of some use to observers. Much that it contains is very useful, but what is relevant to the observer is what I sometimes question. Let's face it. Ephemerides ain't rocket science, nor is it difficult to obtain or generate.
One main disadvantage "Astronomy 2010" is that it is slow to adapt to changes required by observers, only because it is prepared in the last quarter of the previous year, then print. Once done, it stays as is, and cannot be changed until the next edition. If a comet pops up, for example, the publication cannot satisfy the observer with the information of its position nor describe the comet's apparition.
By doing something electronically, it can be changed (or added too) in a few hours, and simply redistributed.
[An example, is the page on the geocentric position of the Moon. It gives the location of the moon to RA and Declination at 0h UT, to hours, minutes, seconds. As ask you, what use is this information? Frankly, no one uses it! Hence, it is not a core element.
Another example, is the precision of the geocentric planetary positions, which are to the positions with the precision of hh mm ss. Who need that accuracy? All is required is to minutes, enough so the planet can be identified on a star chart or to dial it up to find it in the 'scope.]
IMO, this publication does provide more of the "ancillary data" and text on a variety of subjects. Whilst it might or might not be useful, it is the most attractive part of buying it each year. However, the written information also not unique. (Much of the general text. I.e. The Brightest star, or Nearest Stars, are available on Wikipedia, for example.) In the proposal I'm presenting here, we could add somethings that are similar or other things they many not have covered adequately. We could also add other things that have never been covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodstar
I would be happy to contribute some observing notes on specific objects if the publication has traction. I say this because Astronomy 2009 (and all of its predecessors) have shown a bias towards solar system objects. Whilst there are constellation maps and a Messier list (and a few other items) near the rear, there is nothing detailed on deep sky objects in the Quasar Publication.
|
I agree, and thanks for saying that. What I think we need is suggestions of what observers here might like to have or contribute. There are so many things that could be done, in fact the whole gambit of possibilities, but what needs to be focussed on is "core" information that will have the most impact towards new and established observers and imagers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodstar
I would like to see a collaboration with the compendium idea if that is at all possible.
|
Agreed. I personally would like to see more collaborations between the imagers and the observers. I.e. How I see this deep-sky object visually and how do I image it; and what do these observations TELL ME of the nature of the object!
Basically. Image, what the image is, how was it done, and what it is telling me.