cataclysmic variable star ASAS 002511

Recent novae have been very quickly assigned a permanent designation
by the IAU (i.e. Nova Scorpii 2004 was designated V1186 Sco shortly
after its discovery). Have similar permanent designations been
assigned to the newly-discovered cataclysmic variables ASAS
002511+12172 in Pisces and "Var Her 04" in Hercules? (And if not, why
not?)

AK
From: (Allison Kirkpatrick)
AK
Subject: cataclysmic variable star ASAS 002511
AK
Date: 18 Nov 2004 15:07:29 -0800
AK
AK Recent novae have been very quickly assigned a permanent designation
AK by the IAU (i.e. Nova Scorpii 2004 was designated V1186 Sco shortly
AK after its discovery). Have similar permanent designations been
AK assigned to the newly-discovered cataclysmic variables ASAS
AK 002511+12172 in Pisces and "Var Her 04" in Hercules? (And if not, why
AK not?)

Variable star designations are addigned by AAVSO, which does a
remarkably thoro function at naming stars quickly. However, it deals
with stars within its own observing program, which means stars within
reach of home instruments. I suggest that ASAS star is so faint that
AAVSO didn't include it in its program [yet?].
IAU thru CBAT is supposed to name novae when they are announced
thru the IUACs. now, you kind of have to know what the state of IUACs
is nowadays, yes?
The sentiment at CBAT (and maybe with MPC to follow in a couple
months?) is that dusch announcements are privileges only to
subscribers of IUACs. On/about November 8th CBAT locked down its IUAC
website, requiring you to enter a passward obtained thru subscription.
Result? The nova you note MAY have a proper IAU designation but
you are no longer allowed to know about it unless you goet out there
and pay CBAT to tell you.
CBAT iddus an explanation (of sorts) on 11 November about this
situation. Here it is"
= = = = =
CBAT statement on online IAUCs - 11 November 2004
-----------------------------------------------
About the blocking of free access to new and old IAU Circulars, which
A/CC reported November 9th, apparently Vinzenz Luebben made inquiry
and received the following response from Dan Green at the IAU Central
Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT), which Luebben forwarded to
several mailing lists and A/CC on 11 November 2004.

For decades, the work of the CBAT has relied on paid subscriptions
for much of its operation. In 1997, Commission 6 of the IAU (which
oversees the CBAT operations) supported our efforts to begin posting
some older IAUCs to nonsubscribers at our website, with some delay for
recent IAUCs, which have long been posted with several weeks delay in
deference to our paying subscribers. We have long had warnings posted
at our website that, if the number of paying subscribers dropped off
too much, we reserve the right to have online Circulars available only
to paying subscribers. This is a common feature that professional
journals (and also many magazines and newspapers) have to retain their
paying subscribers. Due to the Internet, we have lost about a third of
our paying subscribers in the past decade .... not because there is a
lack of interest in what we issue, but because people have copied
(pirated) them freely outside of our knowledge. In fact, there may
well be *many* more readers of the IAUCs now than there were a decade
ago. But at this time, we urgently need to try and recoup some of our
dwindling income; we also get complaints from paying subscribers about
the freely posted IAUCs at our website. So we have blocked access by
non-paying subscribers to the IAUCs in what we hope is a temporary
measure, to raise our number of paying subscribers. Responsible,
interested readers of the IAUCs who are not now paying subscribers
will hopefully do the right thing and start their paid subscriptions.
Sizeable donations by a few individuals could also potentially allow
us to go back to posting IAUCs to non-paying subscribers- though out
of respect to our paying subscribers (unless we get some very large
donations to permit us to dispense with paid subscriptions, something
we would very much like to see), it may well become a permanent
feature that recent IAUCs will be delayed for a minimum of several
months in terms of availability to non-paying subscribers.
Our standard price for back issues of the IAUCs has been US$1.00
for a long time. In this case, we may have to photocopy the page and
mail it to you. We haven't yet finished getting all the old IAUCs in
ready electronic form. Send your check payable to "Central Bureau for
Astronomical Telegrams", drawn in U.S. dollars on a U.S. bank, to
CBAT, M.S. 18; Smithsonian Observatory; 60 Garden St.; Cambridge, MA
02138; U.S.A.
We need all responsible users of the IAUCs to help pay their fair
share of the costs. We hope that we can count on you to do your fair
share, seeing that you have interest and/or need in viewing the IAU
Circulars.
With kind regards, your sincerely,
Daniel W. E. Green, Director, IAU CBAT
= = = =
What's next?
It seems to me that if CBAT really means to restrict its news
offerings to subscribers, it better put the kaboosh on nonsubscribers
infesting that service with their discoveries and observations. Would
not the paying subscribers be in arms about the 'freeloaders' sending
in reports and finds to their privileged publications?

---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004

(JOHN PAZMINO) wrote in message ...
Variable star designations are addigned by AAVSO, which does a
remarkably thoro function at naming stars quickly. However, it deals
with stars within its own observing program, which means stars within
reach of home instruments. I suggest that ASAS star is so faint that
AAVSO didn't include it in its program [yet?].

AAVSO (I think) assigns what is called a "Harvard" designation
reflecting the rough 1900.0 position of a variable (i.e. "0020+11" for
the new cataclysmic in Pisces) but is not responsible for the
permanent designations (such as SS Cygni, V592 Herculis, etc.) - those
fall to the jurisdiction of the IAU. My question was about why some
recent novae have been so quickly assigned permanent designations
(apparently within a couple of days for some recent novae), while many
other variables that have been known for years still go only by such
cumbersome names as "NSV 00895", "Lanning 17", and
"SDSSpJ072910.68+365838.3". Why was not NSV 00895 designated "V522
Arietis" (or whatever) by now?

IAU thru CBAT is supposed to name novae when they are announced
thru the IUACs. now, you kind of have to know what the state of IUACs
is nowadays, yes?

Yes, the whole IAU circular thing is a bit odd, too, but I guess
that's another topic altogether. Withholding information about new
time-crucial discoveries seems counterproductive scientifically,
though I can understand that CBAT needs to cover their expenses.
Fortunately most circular information that is of interest to us
amateurs is quickly disseminated via other web sources. VSNET was
particularly good about this, but sadly seems to be dead now.

Variable star designations are addigned by AAVSO, which does a
remarkably thoro function at naming stars quickly. However, it deals
with stars within its own observing program, which means stars within
reach of home instruments. I suggest that ASAS star is so faint that
AAVSO didn't include it in its program [yet?].

AAVSO

It's easier to understand when we remember that AAVSO stands for
American/Allied Very Secret Organizations, which include the real top-secret
organizations for which CIA, NSA and BVD are merely the fronts for.

This AAVSO is of course separate from the AAVSO which stands for American
Association of Very Stupid Organizations which resides in Washington DC, the
home of most of the stupid organizations.

(I think) assigns what is called a "Harvard" designation

Again, you can see the high level conspiracy. It is a lesser known fact that
Harvard's liberal reputation is merely a disguise, screening it from those
who would observe and realize Harvard is actually a hotbed of CIA and NSA
recruiting. This of course makes it the perfect location for clandestine
AAVSO operations.

reflecting the rough 1900.0 position of a variable

Once more, you can see the secrecy involved as positions are not even
plotted with new coordinates, but rather with secretly encoded 1900 data,
which of course is pre-Y2K, and therefore not readable by computers lacking
the top-secret decoding ring available only in boxes of AAVSO cereal (which
is only sold in government stores).

(i.e. "0020+11" for
the new cataclysmic in Pisces) but is not responsible for the
permanent designations (such as SS Cygni, V592 Herculis, etc.) - those
fall to the jurisdiction of the IAU. My question was about why some
recent novae have been so quickly assigned permanent designations
(apparently within a couple of days for some recent novae), while many
other variables that have been known for years still go only by such
cumbersome names as "NSV 00895", "Lanning 17", and
"SDSSpJ072910.68+365838.3". Why was not NSV 00895 designated "V522
Arietis" (or whatever) by now?

Those retaining cumbersome names are not real nova, but are in fact test
sites for weapons development. By keeping them out of the standard lists,
they are not observed regularly by those who would noticed the anomolies
that mark them as weapons test sites.

IAU thru CBAT is supposed to name novae when they are announced
thru the IUACs. now, you kind of have to know what the state of IUACs
is nowadays, yes?

Yes, the whole IAU circular thing is a bit odd, too, but I guess
that's another topic altogether.

Yes, especially when the "I" stands for the same thing it does in "CIA"

Withholding information about new
time-crucial discoveries seems counterproductive scientifically,

But not if your real purpose is to disguise the weapons testing nature of
these sites.

though I can understand that CBAT needs to cover their expenses.

And of course, CBAT stands for Cosmic Ballistic Atomic Testing.

Fortunately most circular information that is of interest to us
amateurs is quickly disseminated via other web sources. VSNET was
particularly good about this, but sadly seems to be dead now.

Killed off my those who wish to protect the secrets.

I'd write more, but it is time to go take my meds.

Clear Skies

Secret Agent 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375
10582097494415923078164062862089986280348253421170 6798214808
65132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174 5028410270
19385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334 4612847564
82337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266 4821339360
72602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292 5409171536

"CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message ...
It's easier to understand when we remember that AAVSO stands for
American/Allied Very Secret Organizations, which include the real top-secret
organizations for which CIA, NSA and BVD are merely the fronts for.

Thanks Min, that was real helpful.

And of course, CBAT stands for Cosmic Ballistic Atomic Testing.

Actually CBAT stands for "Comet Bulletin Ain't There" or "Can't Browse
Astro Telegram". IAU is an acronym for "It Ain't Uhvailable".

"Allison Kirkpatrick" wrote in message
om...
"CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message
...
It's easier to understand when we remember that AAVSO stands for
American/Allied Very Secret Organizations, which include the real
top-secret
organizations for which CIA, NSA and BVD are merely the fronts for.

Thanks Min, that was real helpful.

And of course, CBAT stands for Cosmic Ballistic Atomic Testing.

Actually CBAT stands for "Comet Bulletin Ain't There" or "Can't Browse
Astro Telegram". IAU is an acronym for "It Ain't Uhvailable".

LOL!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

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