Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:16:20 -0500
From: "David Williams" <dwilliams

AAVSOers may be surprised to learn that the recent mentions here of
early AAVSO history at Harvard, the need to provide guidance to
observers regarding which variables to observe, and the list of many
neglected variables are all related.

Because, over the decades the AAVSO has drifted away from the concept of
an observing "program."  When AAVSO began, it was a volunteer adjunct to
the Harvard Observatory.  Harvard had been using its paid personnel to
Harvard staff from this visual observing.  The initial AAVSO program was
observations were desired.  Observers didn't need to ask which stars to
observe.  If there was an AAVSO chart, that star was in the program; no
chart, no need for observations.  (Other variables were sometimes marked
on charts, but not usually to encourage observation, just to reduce the
number of "discoveries" of supposed new variables or novae by observers
using the charts.)

As the years advanced, the AAVSO gained its own momentum.  New variables
were added as seemed desirable.  I believe that Ed Oravec was
responsible for adding many new binocular stars because he began
observing them and when he asked whether AAVSO wanted the estimates,
Margaret Mayall said "Sure, why not?"  And of course, we are all
familiar with the many new stars added by Clint Ford and his team,

Some of the earliest prelim charts were drawn because visual sequences
were available from Olivier at Flower & Cook Observatory.  Note: the new
binocular variables and new Mira types were not selected for any
particular scientific consideration ("Researchers want to know more
because they were there, because someone started observing them, or a
visual sequence was handy, or the magnitude range was bright enough so
that the variable "ought to be" an AAVSO star.

faint, thousands of charted variables.  It's no wonder that observers
ask, "What should I observe?"  

A few bright Miras and SRs are receiving "too many" observations (I use
quote marks because amazing things can sometimes be discovered in dense
data environments).  And hundreds of other Miras and SRs are receiving
mere dozens of estimates each year, some even languishing in single
digits.  But many of these neglected stars are simply there, on some
kind of chart, with no particular reason, pro or con, for observing
them.  Should they be part of the AAVSO "program"?

The AAVSO Council has devoted time at past meetings to "futures"
discussions, and will do so again this Spring.  We are tying to look
ahead and anticipate where variable star astronomy is going and how the
AAVSO can continue to make valuable contributions.  A mission statement
is part of that endeavor.  Perhaps, as part of these deliberations, we
ought to consider whether we should attempt to regain some degree of
control over "the AAVSO program."  Or, with the continued development of
technical aids such as the Variable Star Index and the move away from
"official" charts when the Chart Plotter comes online and the
essentially unlimited capacity of the International Database, is it too
late to even try?




*
*
*
*
*
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete it from your system.  Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email originated from the Kiwanis International office and any files transmitted with it have been thoroughly scanned for viruses.
_______________________________________________