Photometrica

[bojan]

This morning I found this circular from AAVSO in my mailbox..
Personally, I will stick to my gear.. While I do enjoy (to some extent) MB and MHz and pixels, there is no comparison to real thing.. even if this means being exposed to freezing and mosquitoes in the night.....


*********************************** ***************

No one else has commented yet, so I'd like to suggest that this event may be the most important in the AAVSO's modern history. If I understand the program, now any bright 12-year-old (and maybe even me) can made CCD observations (even in the far southern hemisphere with a 24-inch aperture via AAVSOnet), have the images directed to a Photometrica account rather than his personal computer, then reduce the images via Web-based software. The AAVSO member no longer needs to purchase 1. telescope, 2. high-quality mount, 3. CCD camera, 4. support computer plus large storage capacity, 5. software to reduce images.

Is all this worth the cost of annual dues, or what?

David B. Williams (WI)


___________________________________ ____________

Aavso-discussion mailing list
Aavso-discussion@mira.aavso.org
To change options or unsubscribe, goto http://mira.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-discussion

Santa Barbara Instrument Group (www.sbig.com) Proud sponsor of the American Association of Variable Star Observers.

[bojan]

http://photometrica.org/

[DavidU (Dave)]

The only time I am tempted by robotics is when it rains for weeks on end.
Half the fun is playing around with optics, mounts and electronics.
Kind of like the difference between being a real race driver or playing Play Station.

[higginsdj]

Try doing systematic high density observations without robotics! The other half of the fun is getting results and making discoveries

Please do not compare such work to "playing Play Station".

Cheers

[DavidU (Dave)]

Sure Dave, I didn't mean the serious observer using robotics as a tool, I meant it as not an ideal way out for a beginner with little experience.

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Try doing systematic high density observations without robotics! The other half of the fun is getting results and making discoveries

Please do not compare such work to "playing Play Station".

Cheers

[higginsdj]

True, but if it is a means of getting people into astronomy and research then I'm all for it. That's exactly how i started!

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Try doing systematic high density observations without robotics! The other half of the fun is getting results and making discoveries

Please do not compare such work to "playing Play Station".

Cheers

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here....
My comment was related to amateur astronomy (simply enjoying the starry skies and contributing to science here and there if possible at all) and not scientific research you are mentioning.
Of course robotic equipment are far more productive (that is why it is designed and built).
What I wanted to say was, I do not want this equipment as an amateur... If I wanted to be so productive in this kind of research, I would have to become professional.. one thing leads to another, and in order to keep the efficiency of research with supply of data from such robotic station, I would quickly find myself in situation with no time to do anything else ..
Unless I hit lotto jackpot :-)

[rally]

Thanks for sharing Bojan.

Seems to me like a wonderful way to introduce prospective newcomers to this aspect of the hobby without all the initial pain and suffering.

Try it and then if you like it "buy it" later !

Everyones interests, budgets, abilities and level of dedication etc are different - this sort of service caters for those with limited budgets, skills, dedication etc and also offers something to do on those sometimes long stretches of bad weather for those that could otherwise be doing it themselves.
To set up for any particular aspect of astronomy costs dollars, time and effort - often in large chunks of any or all of them - trying something can be hard without taking the plunge head first.

I think the definition of the term amateur astronomy is becoming more difficult to define in any precise or even meaningful way - it has blurred into to so many things at so many levels, bordering on professsional in some areas and diversified across so many quite distinctly different fields.

Rally

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by bojan

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here....
My comment was related to amateur astronomy (simply enjoying the starry skies and contributing to science here and there if possible at all) and not scientific research you are mentioning.
Of course robotic equipment are far more productive (that is why it is designed and built).
What I wanted to say was, I do not want this equipment as an amateur... If I wanted to be so productive in this kind of research, I would have to become professional.. one thing leads to another, and in order to keep the efficiency of research with supply of data from such robotic station, I would quickly find myself in situation with no time to do anything else ..
Unless I hit lotto jackpot :-)

OK, I'm a little confused here.... I am an amateur - and I do research. I provide my data to various professional programs - as any data obtained by amateurs (or anyone else for that matter) should be. Doing research certainly does not make one a professional nor does participation in any professional program!

One of the major features of a robotic station is that it is robotic - ie I have time to do anything else while the setup is gathering data.

There are 2 things that separate the amateur from the professional. First is that an amateur does not get paid for doing it. Second is that the amateur does not have the relevant scientific background/qualifications. As an observer, I am likely far more experienced that many professionals and this is perhaps one of the qualities that makes me desirable to various professional programs - reliability.

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

There are 2 things that separate the amateur from the professional. First is that an amateur does not get paid for doing it. Second is that the amateur does not have the relevant scientific background/qualifications.

First condition certainly does apply, while the second.. well not necessarily...
And, because Amateurs (by definition) are doing other things for a living, usually there is not much time left for the hobby (unless they have reliable income from somewhere else - not from working for the man).

In case of having sufficient income from other sources than work, they may as well become professionals (semi-professionals?) in their hobby (astronomy.. I certainly would).. I imagine this sort of work is not paid a lot anyway.. at least this was the case when I was at the crossroads of my career.

[higginsdj]

Time is what you make of it. I work for a living - for someone else, have done so for the last 35 years. Yes time is a luxury and the reason I turned to finding a way to remotely/robotically control my observatory - to make more efficient use of the time that I have. It took 5 years to save up for the current scope (4" then 8" then 10" then 14", selling the smaller as part payment on the next one in line and doing what work I could with what I had), 6 months to build and dial in the observatory and setup. Yes I was helped along the way with some grant money to buy a second hand CCD camera - and it was my 'sticktoitiveness' that got me that grant.

Lost count of the number of all nighters I pulled on the smaller scopes in the early days before the observatory - still had to go to work that same day and in the end prayed for cloudy nights to give me a break to get some sleep.

Yes - it became an obsession but at that time I believed it was warranted - I was doing NEO followup astrometry for southern targets. We couldn't rely on the professional observatories since, at that time, there were none observing further south than -30.

Where there is a will - there is a way. You do not need to be independently wealthy - you just need a goal and the desire to see it through no matter how long it takes.

Cheers

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

There are 2 things that separate the amateur from the professional. First is that an amateur does not get paid for doing it. Second is that the amateur does not have the relevant scientific background/qualifications.

That's not necessarily the case. Sure, many observers may lack the background and quals, but not all of them.

As an observer, I am likely far more experienced that many professionals and this is perhaps one of the qualities that makes me desirable to various professional programs - reliability.

Define that experience. Professionals reduce data. Those data may be collected by amateurs such as yourself, or just as likely - if not more so - by highly-reliable automated instruments owned and operated by professionals and professional institutions. It's true that very few pros have ever spent much time at an eyepiece (i.e. as amateur astronomers), but there aren't too many professional astronomers who didn't do the hard yards in other ways when they were coming up. Like most people, they have to start at the bottom.

BTW, I'm not for a moment suggesting you don't make important and valuable contributions, but we need to be clear and specific here.

[higginsdj]

Reducing images is a standard process and most professionals are practiced in it - but there is a lot more to observing than that.

You know how often I have been asked to observe a target by a professional only to have to tell them that the target isn't actually observable (and I don't mean just by me - I mean just not observable by anyone - except possibly a space telescope)? Observational experience covers the planning, there is the hardware knowledge - telescope and camera, knowledge of the limitations, the experience to know how long something needs to be observed for a given purpose, to know when you can start capturing it, how often it needs to be observed and so on. The ability to recognise a usable image and images that need to be tossed, the ability to recognise setup errors and quickly correct them.

Hope that clears up my definition of an 'observer'.

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

.... asked to observe a target by a professional only to have to tell them that the target isn't actually observable ...

Hope that clears up my definition of an 'observer'.

Professional astronomer = manager
Observer = Technician (occasionally engineer)

[higginsdj]

Good short definitions