NASA recognizes amateur astronomers

astroron (Ron) · #1 10-09-2010, 09:26 AM

Just in from NASA, mentions Anthony Wesley

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cf...lease_2010-293

CraigS · #2 10-09-2010, 10:09 AM

A beauty Ron !!!

Especially given the other current posts at this Forum.

The article presents a more 'collaborative' approach in confirming what Anthony picked up. That's Ok because everyone involved contributed to the conclusion.

What else could an Amateur or a Professional expect ?

The Science resulting is more important than 'brownie' points isn't it ?

Cheer & Rgds

higginsdj · #3 10-09-2010, 10:55 AM

Agreed. Direct collaborations between Amateurs and Pros are quite abundant particularly in the planetary sciences.

iceman (Mike) · #4 10-09-2010, 10:56 AM

That's a nice article, thanks.

CraigS · #5 10-09-2010, 11:33 AM

The template is in place .. now to extend it to other areas, eh David ?

Cheers & Rgds

renormalised (Carl) · #6 10-09-2010, 11:51 AM

Two NASA Scientists: "Err....there goes a couple of amateurs"

Seriously though, it's good to see the level of cooperation between pro and amateur astronomers, on all levels. I hope it only happens more often in the future.

higginsdj · #7 10-09-2010, 12:05 PM

Hmmm, maybe not. A recent professional view expressed to me was that things such as spectroscopy and even asteroid discovery attempts by amateurs has no scientific benefit.

The Professional surveys are covering almost the entire nights sky regularly (though not regularly enough for rapid transient events such as asteroid lightcurves and many variable stars) with scopes far bigger and equipment with far more expensive and capable equipment than an amateur could possibly hope for. Yes an amateur can get to a target sooner than the Pros might but to what end? The Pros will have covered that target within a year with their own equipment.

For those who were unaware, Arne Hendon of the AAVSO is heading the first ever decadal survey for amateurs to look at what Amateur and Pro collaborations should be doing in the period 2012-2021. I urge anyone interested in doing collaborative work for science to follow this:
http://sites.google.com/site/amastro2012/

If you are just doing the work for yourself (prove to yourself you can do it or you want to follow your own theories) - then obviously you can do what ever you want, but note that there maybe no actual scientific benefit in what you do.

The point is, if amateurs wish to contribute to science, then they need to target what science needs rather than what is of most interest to the amateur!

Cheers

higginsdj · #8 10-09-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

Two NASA Scientists: "Err....there goes a couple of amateurs"

Seriously though, it's good to see the level of cooperation between pro and amateur astronomers, on all levels. I hope it only happens more often in the future.

Didn't you know? NASA takes credit for everything

renormalised (Carl) · #9 10-09-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Hmmm, maybe not. A recent professional view expressed to me was that things such as spectroscopy and even asteroid discovery attempts by amateurs has no scientific benefit.

The Professional surveys are covering almost the entire nights sky regularly (though not regularly enough for rapid transient events such as asteroid lightcurves and many variable stars) with scopes far bigger and equipment with far more expensive and capable equipment than an amateur could possibly hope for. Yes an amateur can get to a target sooner than the Pros might but to what end? The Pros will have covered that target within a year with their own equipment.

For those who were unaware, Arne Hendon of the AAVSO is heading the first ever decadal survey for amateurs to look at what Amateur and Pro collaborations should be doing in the period 2012-2021. I urge anyone interested in doing collaborative work for science to follow this:
http://sites.google.com/site/amastro2012/

If you are just doing the work for yourself (prove to yourself you can do it or you want to follow your own theories) - then obviously you can do what ever you want, but note that there maybe no actual scientific benefit in what you do.

The point is, if amateurs wish to contribute to science, then they need to target what science needs rather than what is of most interest to the amateur!

Cheers

Who were these professionals??. Sound like arrogant SOB's to me. They have to remember this...they can't get access to a scope 100% of the time (more than likely not even 10-20% of the time). So, once that large NEO shoots on by and it's 6 months later they realise just how close it came because they've done an ephemeris on its orbit (when it's now a billion miles away), just how much easier it would've been to have nice piccies and orbital elements done by some amateur who has 100% access to a scope and is more than capable of doing the work needed. Next time they asked for help I'd be telling them to go jump. I feel like taking some pretty piccies tonight.

What they don't realise is that amateurs can keep an eye on so much stuff for far longer than they can and be studying things on a far more regular basis, that by the time they get a chance to study something themselves, they may have missed things vitally important. No point in extrapolating out a light curve for a supernova in it's earliest stages of explosion when you've caught the damn thing several months too late to do so. Even these uber sky surveys won't give them hours notice of an event. They may miss vital hours or days of info just because they have to process the images and then organise them into a meaningful format to view. Like PanSTARRS....it'll take more than a day or so to process the images from this survey. That I can assure you. One night's viewing and you have a 10-20 terabyte piccie to process. Even with the best of computers, more like a week later!!!!.

But even more mundane tasks, like keeping an eye on variable stars and such. It's not like they have the science down pat on all the various mechanisms for variability....far from it. And, as if they're going to get heaps of time on Keck, Spitzer or Hubble to be staring at individual stars just to see if they're variables or what variability they do show. Where are they going to get all their valuable info from??. I'm sure they can all fork out for personal metre class scopes or have large numbers of them at their universities so they'll have access all the time to a scope.

Nope, that professional opinion you were made privy to is nothing more than hubris and a great misunderstanding of the capabilities of quite a number of amateurs in the general astronomy community. Yes, you can't be expected to know all the theory behind the stuff you're looking at...that's why there's uni courses on the subject and why these guys have PhD's and research experience. But you can certainly know enough to be able to undertake the data collection and reduction, especially when some guidance is involved. In the process, you get to learn a bit of the science and how it's done, they get the data they need.

CraigS · #10 10-09-2010, 12:59 PM

Perhaps this is all just variances amongst the 'types' of professionals we can all encounter ?

Scientists are human too !

Cheers
PS: Take a look at the thread I just posted on the 'peer review process' ... perhaps these guys fit into one of the 'five' categories of 'reviewers' ? Cheers.

higginsdj · #11 10-09-2010, 05:12 PM

Carl, I think you missed the point or saw it as an attack on what amateur astronomers are capable of. Perhaps I should reword 'Scientific benefit' here. If we have a field of study/observation that is under prescribed and a field of study/observation that is over prescribed, is there any actual 'scientific benefit' in adding additional observers to the field that is already over prescribed? The scientists I refer to are eminent and I will leave it at that and I would not like to name them lest they be tarnished by my interpretation of their words!

I think you have over reacted with some generalisations. There are a lot of scopes out there for the professionals to use (some as small as amateur scopes). I didn't mention Comets of Sn. I did say that rapid, transient events were immune to this view. However, NEO's, generally speaking, aren't. Amateur discoveries of NEO's account for an extremely small percentage of all the new objects found and the view is that those that are discovered would most likely have been picked up by the surveys within days. Now if amateurs wanted to concentrate on the known holes in the surveys, thats a different story, but amateur surveys avoid the same regions of sky as the professionals do for exactly the same reason! Again - what is the scientific benefit of this?

Survey scopes and systems are numerous. PanStarrs is just one. How about SDSS, SMASS, SkyMapper, APASS, PROMPT and ASAS (and these are just the ones I can roll off the top of my head) They aren't just single telescope systems either!

These professionals aren't stupid. They know exactly what amateurs are capable of doing. What they would like to see is better targeting of observations by amateurs. Thats the point/purpose of the 2012-2021 decadel survey as well - lets see what science actually needs to be done that is within the grasp of the amateur astronomer.

Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #12 10-09-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Carl, I think you missed the point or saw it as an attack on what amateur astronomers are capable of. Perhaps I should reword 'Scientific benefit' here. If we have a field of study/observation that is under prescribed and a field of study/observation that is over prescribed, is there any actual 'scientific benefit' in adding additional observers to the field that is already over prescribed? The scientists I refer to are eminent and I will leave it at that and I would not like to name them lest they be tarnished by my interpretation of their words!

I think you have over reacted with some generalisations. There are a lot of scopes out there for the professionals to use (some as small as amateur scopes). I didn't mention Comets of Sn. I did say that rapid, transient events were immune to this view. However, NEO's, generally speaking, aren't. Amateur discoveries of NEO's account for an extremely small percentage of all the new objects found and the view is that those that are discovered would most likely have been picked up by the surveys within days. Now if amateurs wanted to concentrate on the known holes in the surveys, thats a different story, but amateur surveys avoid the same regions of sky as the professionals do for exactly the same reason! Again - what is the scientific benefit of this?

Survey scopes and systems are numerous. PanStarrs is just one. How about SDSS, SMASS, SkyMapper, APASS, PROMPT and ASAS (and these are just the ones I can roll off the top of my head) They aren't just single telescope systems either!

These professionals aren't stupid. They know exactly what amateurs are capable of doing. What they would like to see is better targeting of observations by amateurs. Thats the point/purpose of the 2012-2021 decadel survey as well - lets see what science actually needs to be done that is within the grasp of the amateur astronomer.

Cheers

No I haven't. I know of quite a few professional scientist who do look down on amateur contributions, simply because they don't have that PhD under their belt and are not engaged in full time research. I'm also very aware of all the other surveys being done...it still leaves a huge gap in our knowledge despite the vast amounts of information pouring in daily. In any case, it takes time to assess this information and discoveries get missed all the time. The amateur community can spend far more time making the rounds, so to speak and keep an eye on the sky whereas the professional community can't. Most don't even get to use, upfront, a telescope anymore. They order the data to be used in their research and the telescope operators do all the observing. The closest many get to a scope is sitting in front of a computer and maybe remote operating one occasionally. There maybe a reasonable number of scopes out there for professionals to use but not as many as you might believe. They ration time out on the larger scopes (all scopes) quite frugally. That's why quite a few astronomers get their observing proposals rejected. You have to have a good proposal that will deliver good science before you can even get a look in a lot of the time. even then, you're not guaranteed of success.

The reason why amateur NEO discoveries account for a small percentage of NEO's found is that most amateurs don't target these objects religiously and their equipment isn't setup to do the work. Plus, how many amateurs actually have the money or time to do all the work that's required to run such a survey...not many, if any.

That's what needs to be realised. Not that the professionals know what the amateurs are capable of...not as many do know as you think. But if they want amateurs to be able to do the work that the professionals otherwise don't have the time to do...most professionals aren't full time observers/researchers, they have academic and other duties to do as well...then they should cough up the funds and the necessary training needed to bring those amateurs up to speed. They don't need PhD's, just polishing up for many. As you said, target their observations more efficiently and determine what science needs to be done. But that doesn't mean that the mundane work of variable and other observing should be cast aside. Like I mentioned, that is still vitally important. Professionals may like to think they have everything down pat, but they don't. That extra spectrum taken by "Joe Amateur" a day or so ago may hold the key to a problem they've been nagging on for years. What if they miss it, which is more than likely. Lost opportunities.

CraigS · #13 10-09-2010, 05:38 PM

What David said:
That makes a lot of sense.
I agree with helping them to fill in the survey gaps !
Even if it is a little boring .

Cheers & Rgds

renormalised (Carl) · #14 10-09-2010, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

What David said:
That makes a lot of sense.
I agree with helping them to fill in the survey gaps !
Even if it is a little boring .

Cheers & Rgds

That's one area that amateurs will definitely be good at....filling in gaps in the data. But it's going to require money and effort to do so. Your average amateur can't do it, because they don't have the equipment, time or knowledge (necessarily) to accomplish the task. Some can...David can. Greg, Anthony, Ken and Martin could. They have the equipment and some of them have enough knowledge to help out without too much extra work. Others would have to be brought up to speed. But it's not something that can be done overnight. Not only that, but the professionals also need to realise that this effort by the amateurs can't go unrewarded. If they make a major contribution to a paper or whatever, then they deserve the credit for it as well...not just mentioned in passing, like "with contributions by........". That's condescending in the extreme. Despite their amateur status, they should have equal billing on the front of the paper being submitted for publishing. If they've contributed to a major survey by filling in gaps in that survey's coverage, then they have done as much work as the professionals have. Fair's fair. I've been in that position myself, as a newly graduate student doing further study and having seen my work and the work of others subsumed by more qualified and experienced researchers (namely our supervisors). If it wasn't for the actual work we did, they'd have had nothing to write about and in any case much of the writing was already done by us. All we got was an honourable mention, they took the credit. Nothing we could really do about it at the time as we didn't know until it was too late, so we just had to put up with it. But this sort of thing does happen.

CraigS · #15 10-09-2010, 06:05 PM

Ok .. so there's a cost to the Amateur and there should be a payoff.

What's the payoff, David ?

Cheers

higginsdj · #16 10-09-2010, 06:09 PM

Hi Carl,

Even if the relatively small number of amateurs doing NEO work were to target/survey NEO's, they still wouldn't account for more than 5% of all discoveries. Lets be realistic here - an amateur camera FOV will average less than 15' wide. Survey scopes are measured in degrees wide.

The professionals rely on software to extract the relevant data out of their images. Amateurs, in general (yes there are exceptions) extract data manually. Again, the professionals win hands down on efficiency. It doesn't matter how close professionals get to a scope, it matters that they get the data they need.

Pros do 'cough up' the money and time. They pay for equipment for amateurs, they spend a great deal of time mentoring amateurs but they aren't just going to cough up for anyone. It's their money, so they want to invest wisely. Amateurs need to prove 2 things. First that they can do the work accurately (and that means to the professionals level of accuracy not the amateurs view of what they consider is accurate) and second that they will stick to it for the LONG HAUL. This means observing every clear night, on the targets that the pros want, week in and week out, good conditions, bad conditions, tired and busy with family and/or work or not.

I got my head through the door with basic equipment and determination. I didn't understand the science (well I understood the very basics) but I was a keen and reliable observer and I have been rewarded first with the time and mentoring of many professionals then with money in the form of grants. Simple fact is you have to prove your worth.

If amateurs want to collaborate with the Pro's then the amateurs need to target their field of interest to a region where their observations can actually compete with professional level observations (or to areas where there is a distinct lack of professional observations). There is absolutely no point in trying to collaborate in a field where the quality/accuracy of amateurs observations are orders of magnitude below the level attained by the Pros (and that is the bulk of Astrophysics) and this may well represent the group of Professionals who "look down on' amateurs.

Cheers

CraigS · #17 10-09-2010, 06:19 PM

David:

This sounds very 'old school' type of management practices, to me.

I would hope to see a more modern approach in style than this !

Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #18 10-09-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Hi Carl,

Even if the relatively small number of amateurs doing NEO work were to target/survey NEO's, they still wouldn't account for more than 5% of all discoveries. Lets be realistic here - an amateur camera FOV will average less than 15' wide. Survey scopes are measured in degrees wide.

The professionals rely on software to extract the relevant data out of their images. Amateurs, in general (yes there are exceptions) extract data manually. Again, the professionals win hands down on efficiency. It doesn't matter how close professionals get to a scope, it matters that they get the data they need.

Pros do 'cough up' the money and time. They pay for equipment for amateurs, they spend a great deal of time mentoring amateurs but they aren't just going to cough up for anyone. It's their money, so they want to invest wisely. Amateurs need to prove 2 things. First that they can do the work accurately (and that means to the professionals level of accuracy not the amateurs view of what they consider is accurate) and second that they will stick to it for the LONG HAUL. This means observing every clear night, on the targets that the pros want, week in and week out, good conditions, bad conditions, tired and busy with family and/or work or not.

I got my head through the door with basic equipment and determination. I didn't understand the science (well I understood the very basics) but I was a keen and reliable observer and I have been rewarded first with the time and mentoring of many professionals then with money in the form of grants. Simple fact is you have to prove your worth.

If amateurs want to collaborate with the Pro's then the amateurs need to target their field of interest to a region where their observations can actually compete with professional level observations (or to areas where there is a distinct lack of professional observations). There is absolutely no point in trying to collaborate in a field where the quality/accuracy of amateurs observations are orders of magnitude below the level attained by the Pros (and that is the bulk of Astrophysics) and this may well represent the group of Professionals who "look down on' amateurs.

Cheers

That's what I'm getting at....if you're going to do these surveys, you maybe able to do them with what you have, but to be able to do it properly, you need the right equipment. But with there experience with advanced equipment, some amateurs would find the transition to the equipment needed much easier than most.

All observers, pro and am, extract data with software these days, except for those purely visual observers. It just the level of data extraction and the amount being extracted that differs. Pro's deal with huge databases and lots of calculations with specialised software. Amateurs might only deal with a few images at a time, but it's the same thing.

I agree with you there....an amateur that wants to or is going to be used in a professional manner needs the dedication, training and the equipment and the pro's are the ones pulling the strings there. But they also have to remember that if it wasn't for the amateurs willing to do this, they may not get the data they want....at all. Proof of worth flows both ways...the amateur needs to know that they will get the recognition, as well as all the help to accomplish the task and the pro's need to acknowledge the help of the amateurs, give them the recognition (like I mentioned in earlier posts) and realise that whilst they aren't "superbrains", they do have valuable knowledge to contribute and that they're not just glorified data collectors/surveyors.

Given the resources available, you can't expect most amateurs to produce the same level of work as the pro's, especially in quality/accuracy. They don't have the training or the facilities. Even where pro's aren't working in the area as much, if at all, many amateurs would need help to get up to speed. Some don't, but many would.

higginsdj · #19 10-09-2010, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's one area that amateurs will definitely be good at....filling in gaps in the data. But it's going to require money and effort to do so. Your average amateur can't do it, because they don't have the equipment, time or knowledge (necessarily) to accomplish the task. Some can...David can. Greg, Anthony, Ken and Martin could. They have the equipment and some of them have enough knowledge to help out without too much extra work. Others would have to be brought up to speed. But it's not something that can be done overnight. Not only that, but the professionals also need to realise that this effort by the amateurs can't go unrewarded. If they make a major contribution to a paper or whatever, then they deserve the credit for it as well...not just mentioned in passing, like "with contributions by........". That's condescending in the extreme. Despite their amateur status, they should have equal billing on the front of the paper being submitted for publishing. If they've contributed to a major survey by filling in gaps in that survey's coverage, then they have done as much work as the professionals have. Fair's fair. I've been in that position myself, as a newly graduate student doing further study and having seen my work and the work of others subsumed by more qualified and experienced researchers (namely our supervisors). If it wasn't for the actual work we did, they'd have had nothing to write about and in any case much of the writing was already done by us. All we got was an honourable mention, they took the credit. Nothing we could really do about it at the time as we didn't know until it was too late, so we just had to put up with it. But this sort of thing does happen.

I started in Astronomy about 10 years ago. 2 years of trial and error and started in my field (minor planets) with an 8" goto scope and the smallest/cheapest CCD on the market at the time. At the time (poor aussie dollar) is was a $7000 investment (you could do it for less than $4000 now). Still a lot of money for many - but thats the cost of doing the science I was interested in.

I taught myself the basics. I did the investigation, did the research, bought the books, read the articles etc etc. I found other amateurs who were willing to mentor me and within 2 years I was doing precision astrometry and differential photometry. It isn't going to happen overnight and it is going to take time. At this point I was published, I kept public records - in other words I was auditable (to a certain extent). I kept my eyes open and looked for opportunities. I got my foot in the door in Binary Asteroid photometry and thats what has kept me going to this day. Now I know dozens of professionals, leaders in my field of interest. They know me and are happy answering my (often stupid) questions. I make mistakes and they correct me (though the number of mistakes I make are very few these days). On very rare occasions my variance of results are proven correct (I still cherish the email that said "David was right")

But I do not agree with your contention that amateurs need/deserve a bigger piece of the credit pie. If the participation in the science is not rewarding enough then why are you doing it to start with? If all you did was contribute data then that it the only credit you should get and at best you get tacked on to the end of the author list (if that was the agreement for use of your data). In the work I do, first place on a CBET goes to the person who first uncovered the binary nature. Second place goes to the PI. If the observer who's data contained the first evidence didn't see or recognise the binary nature in their data and the PI did, why would you give credit to the observer other than the fact that they obtained the data? This applies regardless of whether you are a professional or an amateur. You need to realise that if your names on the list of authors then you are given credit. BUT, we knew up front how credit was going to be attributed and when you join a collaboration, thats one of the first things that is (should be) sorted out (pros don't collaborate with each other until is is sorted AND put in writing.)

CraigS · #20 10-09-2010, 08:42 PM

David;

I sense that you have conflicting priorities.

On one hand, you have detected that some professionals have published something in a journal which you know to be flawed analysis, which leads them to the conclusion that they have discovered a Binary. You consult your colleagues: "dozens of professionals, leaders in my field of interest", seemingly regularly, and they confirm your opinions about it.

Then you come to the conclusion:

"Trouble is, if it does turn out to be a Binary, guess who will demand credit for the discovery...."

In this post, you extol the virtues of working with "dozens of professionals, leaders in my field of interest" and yet, these colleagues seem to be unwilling to support you, even in so far as to help you establish contact with the professionals who published the flawed analysis and in so doing, perhaps obtain some sort of credit for this (?)

Then you cite the virtues of working for these colleagues and expect others to follow ... all for the glory of furthering science ? This is clearly at odds with your obvious interest in obtaining some sort of credit for pointing out the flawed analysis.

I'm sorry but I just don't get it !!

Cheers

PS: There is also a conflict between putting yourself into the 'Correct' category of Peer Reviewing (ie: those who accept the good papers and reject the bad) and being an 'Orthodox' (ie: dominated by the groupthink).

In terms of achieving clarity for any work done in this field, I can see that Carl has resolved any such future conflicts by sinking his anchors into becoming a fully fledged professional. I would advise all others contemplating these matters to take the same route and play in the playing field .. rather than from the sidelines.