A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pro & amateur astronomers ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 5th 11, 08:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 740
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken
  #2  
Old February 5th 11, 09:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Thomas Womack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

In article ,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.


I don't think that's obvious at all - OK, part of the time a serious
amateur is a professional working in a different bit of the field from
the focus of his career. I'll use Hubble as an example, because it
tends to capture large images where a paper might concentrate on a
single object; for an awful lot of other observational work there's no
cherry-picking involved, you've taken your fifty ultra-high-resolution
spectra of HDmumble and done the fit to see if there's a planet there
or not.

I'd agree that, if you're for example looking for intergalactic
globular clusters in the Coma group and start by taking deep ACS
imagery of it, you've got a dataset which can be used for looking for
lots of other things in the Coma group.

OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.


It's only a year and the data's then sitting there in the HLA; waiting
a year for the deposition is an awful lot easier and often an awful
lot quicker than getting the timeslot to do the observation again.

Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.


The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator
has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument
funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of
producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no
incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI.

Tom
  #3  
Old February 5th 11, 09:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 8:01*pm, Thomas Womack
wrote:

The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator
has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument
funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of
producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no
incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI.

Tom


You exist in an imaginative world that is adrift of basic astronomical
facts hence there are no real doctorates but there are those who
genuinely believe they are astronomers by fulfilling the dictates of
their teachers or peer reviewers,it is the ultimate vicious circle
that is held together in the most lucrative possible way.

A normal person who hears that one 24 hours rotation is responsible
for the day/night cycle will shrug for what else could it be,they may
even dwell long enough on the topic to grasp how Feb 29th picks up the
1/4 rotation each year and tags it on at the end of the 4th year to
make up the relationship between 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit
and still shrug.The thing about this is what doctorates will do when
faced with this most basic fact that it feel infuriating even having
to consider it but doctorates don't figure the corresponds between 24
hours of rotation and a day/night cycle because the peer review
process recognizes a nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations per circuit.

There is nothing remotely like the hostility towards basic
astronomical facts and that includes being silent on the matter.
  #4  
Old February 6th 11, 01:11 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 1:46*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken


Trying learning about how the process works before making claims about
how the tax-payer is getting hurt and calling the system nutty. Let's
say you've written a grant to test a hypothesis using data collected
during a field experiment. In this case you spent the last three years
writing the proposal, submitting to the granting agency for review,
then assuming your proposal was funded, you've negotiated with the
funding agency for what percentage of the money you requested you
will actually get (typically you get under 50% meaning you go without
salary, argue with your boss about how to cut operating budgets, cut
staff and students). Then get to go into the field to collect the
data. In some cases this means six to nine months under some pretty
grim conditions. Once the raw data has been collected it has to be
processed, meaning quality control and conversion into meaningful
values. Typically another year or two. The data is now ready for
analysis. At this point you want to tell the poor schmuck that did all
the work that they won't get first crack at publishing results? Why in
the world would you expect someone who has done all the work not to
have a short period (your looking four to five years of effort up to
this point) not to be able get credit for their effort. All you get is
at most a year more typically six months after the QC has produced
meaningful values to get a paper published. Since lead times from
acceptance to publication are typically 4 to 6 months you have little
or no time to get credit for your effort. Oh I understand now! yet
another teabagger/conservative/welfare king wanting everything without
having to work for it.
  #5  
Old February 6th 11, 05:40 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 740
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 12:01 pm, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article ,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.


I don't think that's obvious at all - OK, part of the time a serious
amateur is a professional working in a different bit of the field from
the focus of his career. I'll use Hubble as an example, because it
tends to capture large images where a paper might concentrate on a
single object; for an awful lot of other observational work there's no
cherry-picking involved, you've taken your fifty ultra-high-resolution
spectra of HDmumble and done the fit to see if there's a planet there
or not.

I'd agree that, if you're for example looking for intergalactic
globular clusters in the Coma group and start by taking deep ACS
imagery of it, you've got a dataset which can be used for looking for
lots of other things in the Coma group.

OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.


It's only a year and the data's then sitting there in the HLA; waiting
a year for the deposition is an awful lot easier and often an awful
lot quicker than getting the timeslot to do the observation again.

Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.


The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator
has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument
funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of
producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no
incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI.
Tom


Ok Tom, I build a $100 000 000 telescope on my $10 000 000 lot
then pay you $50 000 to use it take photos, then when I ask to see the
photo's, you say NO to me. Guess what Tom you ain't invited back ;-).
Serious amatuers are equal to pros, and I find often better.
What are the pros afraid of? They have "kudos" hatever that is by
getting the target and photoing it, so any amatuer input can only
benefit science.
It's time the TAXPAYER takes control of Big Business Science
bums.
If I were a judge, you'd be laffed out of court.
Regards
Ken
  #6  
Old February 6th 11, 05:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
jwarner1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?



"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken


The same thing happens in clubs. Lots of bridges to nowhere which just a

few key club members wind up prospering from with sole-use contracts?
Contracts? Assosications? Contracts and associations with WHO!?
.... smiling all the way. Denial denial denial...




  #7  
Old February 6th 11, 05:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 740
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 4:11 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:46 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken


Trying learning

what's your name?

  #8  
Old February 6th 11, 06:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 740
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 8:41 pm, jwarner1 wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken


The same thing happens in clubs. Lots of bridges to nowhere which just a

few key club members wind up prospering from with sole-use contracts?
Contracts? Assosications? Contracts and associations with WHO!?
... smiling all the way. Denial denial denial...


If I was 'pro' I'd make photo's available as 'raw data', and if
another
pro or amateur did something with it then I still get a fair amount of
credit for making the data happen.
IOW's i'm pro science, and encouraging amateurs is a good thing,
for astronomy.
Ken
  #9  
Old February 6th 11, 06:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Thomas Womack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

In article ,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Ok Tom, I build a $100 000 000 telescope on my $10 000 000 lot
then pay you $50 000 to use it take photos, then when I ask to see the
photo's, you say NO to me. Guess what Tom you ain't invited back ;-).


If I assume that you're going immediately to send the photos to my
competitor, then I think I have to say no, and I have not to use your
equipment under those terms. The problem isn't giving immediate
access to amateurs, it's that you can't do that without giving equal
access to competing pros - and the pros who haven't spent the time and
effort getting the offer to take the picture have then got an
advantage in resources over those who have. Short proprietary periods
solve that problem.

Or you could go for an entirely socialised system in which everyone
sticks in their requests, the data is obtained, and goes straight to
everybody immediately.

Cassini solves this by publishing JPEGs of their pictures as they're
taken, without the calibration information required to make them
particularly scientifically useful.

Tom
  #10  
Old February 6th 11, 08:19 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Pro & amateur astronomers ?

On Feb 5, 11:46*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.
OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in
secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up
'a paper'.
Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax-
payer paying for the instrument.
What gives?
Ken


One way or another, we taxpayers and consumers get to pay for
everything. Fortunately the cost to the public isn't 0.0001% that of
what our NASA and their associate agencies and contractors have been
costing us. In other words, amateurs have been costing us perhaps one
dollar for every million dollars our NASA and DARPA have been costing
us.

The all inclusive government cost that's reported isn't 10% of the
truth, so we can always count on spending a lot and getting next to
nothing in return from those we hire to do their best. With so much
that's nondisclosure rated and/or need-to-know, it's wonder than
anything constructive gets accomplished, much less on time and in
budget.

Our F-35s at perhaps 200 million each and costing us another 100
thousand per hour to own and operate is a good example how insiders
get to do pretty much whatever they like, and we always get to pay for
it.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK amateur radio astronomers RN UK Astronomy 3 May 17th 09 06:40 AM
Astronomers,amateur or otherwise. oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 45 April 4th 08 12:56 PM
New Resources for Amateur Astronomers ukastronomy Astronomy Misc 4 November 29th 07 02:34 AM
The Astronomers - Website for amateur astronomers Bernhard Rems Amateur Astronomy 10 September 14th 05 11:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.