[Aavso-photometry] Some Random thoughts RE Am Her Observation Request

[arne]

Expanding on what Aaron said:
For targets like AM Her, the primary importance is to know the
state of the variable at the time of the satellite observations.
While simultaneous observations are best, usually observations
prior to and subsequent to the observing window are adequate to
get proper phasing of orbital motion, know whether a source is
in high or low state, etc. So all observations are useful, not
just the ones in the XMM window.
Scheduling *rarely* takes into account ground-based support,
unless the Principal Investigator wrote in the proposal that
such support was essential. They won't do that because that
adds a source of uncertainty that Allocation Committees will
see and be concerned about. Saying this, one real advantage
of the amateur community is the widespread geographical location
of our membership. While we intend to expand coverage, this already
means we can offer many professional programs an easy way to
get ground-based support, without having to apply to a dozen
professional observatories. We will continue to highlight this
advantage whenever speaking to our professional colleagues.
Also, Aaron said it right in that we don't want to target
email campaigns to specific observers. Often our alerts have
several targets, some north and some south, some with other
constraints. There aren't that many alerts, so I'd rather
everyone get a copy.
Arne

Tim Crawford wrote:

>Some Random thoughts RE Am Her Observation Request
>
>Given the Declination of this object, and more on
>point, the times that the amateur community is being
>asked to make observations I suspect that there are
>not many contributing observers who will fall within
>this window.
>
>While I realize that there are probably a lot of very
>complex issues involved with professional use of
>equipment, i.e. the satellite XMM Newton, I have to
>wonder if any advance consideration of amateur support
>was factored into the professional teams planning.  I
>do realize that it could very well be that it was but
>the chosen observing windows were necessary because of
>other constraints.
>
>Additionally, it crosses my mind that if HQ was able
>to include observers latitude and longitude into their
>observer data base then it would be much easier FOR HQ
>to then work with those observers who would, in
>theory, fall within the window of an objects location
>and the UT time observations  requested for from third
>parties.   OK… maybe a bit of a programming challenge
>but I bet a doable one. 
>
>In fact, with a study of the lat and lon of observers
>it would be easier to identify were serious gaps in
>world wide coverage of targets is….then maybe, and it
>is a big maybe, when the gaps are well identified it
>might be possible to try and locate observers in those
>areas, though the collective efforts of all of the
>membership…. It is increasingly getting to be a
>smaller and smaller world as technology and increased
>interaction between peoples of different countries
>continue to shrink it.  Although I suspect that HQ is
>pretty much already well aware of where there are gaps
>in observer coverage’s…. AND, if they do then maybe
>some noise should be made about it and see if the
>collective membership might not be able to close some
>of those coverage gaps though friends and friends of
>friends, etc….
>  
>