NASA recognizes amateur astronomers

[higginsdj]

Ok, I think you have completely misunderstood.

1. I collect data for a specific group of professionals.
2. I have strong and positive contacts with another but related set of professionals in the same field

Outside these 2 specific groups there are a plethora of other professionals, most of whom I do not know or have contact with who also work or 'dabble' in the same field. It was from within this last group I have issue with certain findings that they presented.

As for my 'correct' and 'orthodox' choices, the former relates to my work in software, the latter applies to my efforts in astronomy. I don't have any issues separating the two!

Cheers

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

Sorry, what I meant here was that the image goes into the pipeline at one end and out the other end as data, no handling in between. We amateurs still calibrate our images, load it into software, choose reference/comp stars etc and still move through images one by one. ie it is still hands on (at least all my work and the work of my counterparts is done this way)

But perhaps we have gone way off/hijacked the topic here. Fell free to contact me directly or perhaps the moderator(s) can shift these posts into a more appropriate thread.

Cheers

[michaellxv (Michael)]

Firstly, to bring it back to the original post. Congratualtion to Anthony and the significant contribution he makes to our understanding of our solar system and the universe.

On the subject of telescope time for the pros. Does every research project 'need' access to the biggest scopes we have. Or could more actually be achieved by providing a bigger pool of modest scopes by todays standard, but larger than most amateurs can muster? This bigger pool can be looking in more directions than one big scope.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Sorry, what I meant here was that the image goes into the pipeline at one end and out the other end as data, no handling in between. We amateurs still calibrate our images, load it into software, choose reference/comp stars etc and still move through images one by one. ie it is still hands on (at least all my work and the work of my counterparts is done this way)

But perhaps we have gone way off/hijacked the topic here. Fell free to contact me directly or perhaps the moderator(s) can shift these posts into a more appropriate thread.

Cheers

True, by the time most pro's get their data it's already been reduced from the raw format it was in. Although they learn the "hard way" though...when they're doing their degree studies, it's a hands on approach.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by michaellxv

Firstly, to bring it back to the original post. Congratualtion to Anthony and the significant contribution he makes to our understanding of our solar system and the universe.

On the subject of telescope time for the pros. Does every research project 'need' access to the biggest scopes we have. Or could more actually be achieved by providing a bigger pool of modest scopes by todays standard, but larger than most amateurs can muster? This bigger pool can be looking in more directions than one big scope.

Kudos to Anthony as well

Actually, there's really not enough of the middle range scopes....those of a metre to 3 metres in size, around. Not every uni has their own observatory. It's a pity they don't, but that's a fact of life. Some amateurs have larger scopes than many unis. I actually think that every physics dept around that teaches astronomy as part of their curriculum should have, at least, several smaller scopes in the 8"-16" range for undergrads to learn on and do projects, plus a metre class scope for use by graduate and higher studies students and the faculty, for research. Maybe even several larger scopes if they can afford to have them.

[higginsdj]

Yep, when it comes to Jupiter, Anthony's sticktoitiveness is what makes the difference.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Yep, when it comes to Jupiter, Anthony's sticktoitiveness is what makes the difference.

Actually, I'm certain that somehow, Anthony has attached the scope to Jupiter so that it always looks in its direction....better check for thin fishing line running up into space