Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6 (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

ORGANIZATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN ASTRONOMY 6 ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE LIBRARY VOLUME 335 EDITORIAL BOARD Chairm...

Author: Andre Heck

107 downloads 912 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ORGANIZATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN ASTRONOMY 6

ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE LIBRARY VOLUME 335

EDITORIAL BOARD Chairman W.B. BURTON, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A. ([email protected]); University of Leiden, The Netherlands ([email protected]) Executive Committee J. M. E. KUIJPERS, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands E. P. J. VAN DEN HEUVEL, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands H. VAN DER LAAN, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands MEMBERS F. BERTOLA, University of Padua, Italy J. P. CASSINELLI, University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A. C. J. CESARSKY, European Southern Observatory, Garching bei München, Germany O. ENGVOLD, University of Oslo, Norway A. HECK, Strassbourg Astronomical Observatory, France R. McCRAY, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A. P. G. MURDIN, Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, U.K. F. PACINI, Istituto Astronomia Arcetri, Firenze, Italy V. RADHAKRISHNAN, Raman Research Institute, Bangalore, India K. SATO, School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Japan F. H. SHU, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan B. V. SOMOV, Astronomical Institute, Moscow State University, Russia R. A. SUNYAEV, Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia Y. TANAKA, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Kanagawa, Japan S. TREMAINE, Princeton University, U.S.A. N. O. WEISS, University of Cambridge, U.K.

ORGANIZATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN ASTRONOMY VOLUME 6

Edited by ANDRÉ HECK Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory, France

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-13

1-4020-4055-5 (HB) 978-1-4020-4055-9 (HB) 1-4020-4056-3 (e-book) 978-1-4020-4056-6 (e-book)

Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2006 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands.

Table of contents • Foreword

(C. Cesarsky/ESO)

vii

• Editorial

1

• The Evolving Sociology of Ground-Based Optical

and Infrared Astronomy at the Start of the 21st Century (J.R. Roy & M. Mountain/Gemini Obs.)

11

• Building Astronomy Research Capacity in Africa

(P. Martinez/SAAO)

39

• Astronomy in New Zealand

(J.B. Hearnshaw/Univ. Canterbury)

63

• The Current State of Austrian Astronomy

(S. Schindler/Univ. Innsbruck)

87

• Challenges and Opportunities in Operating

a High-Altitude Site (R. Stencel/Denver Univ.)

97

• An Insider’s Perspective

on Observing Time Selection Committees (J.L. Linsky/JILA)

111

• Evaluation and Selection of Solar Observing Programs

(H. Uitenbroek/NSO)

117

• Evaluation and Selection of Radio Astronomy Programs:

The Case of the 100m Radio Telescope at Eﬀelsberg (R. Schwartz, A. Kraus & J.A. Zensus/MPIfR)

125

• The Development of HST Science Metrics

(J.P. Madrid, F.D. Macchetto, Cl. Leitherer/STScI & G. Meylan/EPFL)

133

• The Science News Metrics

(C.A. Christian/STScI & G. Davidson/Northrop Grumman)

v

145

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• A Citation-Based Measure of Scientiﬁc Impact Within Astronomy

(F.R. Pearce/Nottingham Univ. & D.A. Forbes/Swinburne Univ.)

157

• A Comparison of the Citation Counts in the Science Citation Index

and the NASA Astrophysics Data System (H.A. Abt/KPNO)

169

• Letters to the Editor of the AAS Newsletter:

A Personal Story (J.L. Linsky/JILA)

175

• Space Law

(J. Hermida/Dalhousie Univ.)

191

• Search Strategies for Exoplanets

(R. Rebolo/IAC)

205

• IAU Initiatives

Relating to the Near-Earth Object Impact Hazard (H. Rickman/Uppsala Obs.)

225

• AFOEV: Serving Variable-Star Observers since 1921

´ – An Interview with Emile Schweitzer/AFOEV

243

• The International Planetarium Society:

A Community of Planetarians Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century (C.C. Petersen/Loch Ness Prod.)

253

• The Hands-On Universe Project

(R. Ferlet/IAP & C.R. Pennypacker/UCB)

275

• Outreach from the Jodrell Bank Observatory

(I. Morison & T. O’Brien/JBO)

287

• Astronomy Multimedia Public Outreach in France and Beyond

(A. Cirou/Ciel & Espace)

299

• Astronomers and the Media: What Reporters Expect

(T. Siegfried & A. Witze/Dallas Morning News & Nature) • Updated Bibliography of Socio-Astronomy

311 321

FOREWORD

When I was a child, growing up in South America, I often went camping in the wild and hence had direct access to the wondrous Southern sky; the Southern Cross was all mine at the time. Little did I know then that the study of the sky would take such a huge importance in my life, and that in the end astronomy and astrophysics would in many ways become my country and my religion. I have lived in several diﬀerent countries, and when asked my nationality, I am always very tempted to reply: astronomer. I started as a theorist, and my only dream in my youth was to spend nights thinking and calculating, with paper and pencil, and to have the impression by dawn that I had understood something new. So at the time astronomy was seen or dreamt by me as a solitary endeavour, with periodic encounters with my wise adviser and professors; it is this model that I adopted when doing my PhD work. My generation has lived through many revolutions of all kinds. Those in astronomy, I believe, remain particularly remarkable, and I am a true product of them. Now, I elect to live and work in large organizations, and to share my endeavours with many people. And I relish the series of Andr´e Heck on Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, which help us recover our memories, reconstitute our own story, and read with glee about our neighbouring or far-away colleagues. Astronomy, fortunately, still remains a discipline where the interested practitioner can still, if he or she really wishes, try to maintain a broad view of what is happening, even though the pace of discoveries has become so incredibly fast. Also, as shown in this volume by the article by Pearce among others, there is still room in our ﬁeld for the individual researcher to exist and leave his mark; of course, this is particularly true for those who are the most gifted, but more modest astronomers can still make an identiﬁable contribution. And I am not necessarily thinking of new discoveries recognized, e.g. by the number of citations, but by the intimate knowledge by the scientist that a given advance is due to his own spark of genius, understanding and/or luck. In astronomy, this can still co-exist with orgavii

viii

FOREWORD

nizations, even the large organizations which have proven to be mandatory if astronomers want collectively carry out their most ambitious projects. The other key word these days, and Andr´e clearly is a precursor here, is strategy. We are all intent on developing strategic plans, road maps, and the like. Now, what is strategy? Here, I remember that I am French, not only astronomer. Strategy is, as Napoleon well knew, “The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements”. And this requires clear goals. At a particularly strategy focused meeting of the ESO Council, its President, Piet van der Kruit, reminded us of the words of the base-ball player Yogi Berra “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else”. Goals, plans . . . and adversaries? Now: one new message heralded these days by politicians and strategyprone astronomers throughout the world is: “Astronomers of the world, federate”. Astronomy is of course the most universal of all sciences, but this, alas, is not the only reason for this newly emerging consensus. Sadly, even us, ethereal beings living in heaven, have sometimes to be reminded of the value of money. The other message, the old one, remains almost subliminal these days: “Astronomers of the world, compete! ” For what is more exciting and stimulating than to try to arrive there before somebody else? Snatch a discovery? We all relish that. The solution may be what, at ESO, we call friendly coopetition. Perhaps a good subject in this series some other time! Catherine Cesarsky [email protected] ESO Director General IAU President-Elect May 2005.

EDITORIAL

A Matter of Words – No, Your Majesty, Scotmen do not wear skirts. They wear kilts. – Kilts? – Kilts. A matter of words perhaps, but words are important. – Why are words important? – If you cannot say what you mean, Your Majesty, you will never mean what you say. And a gentleman should always mean what he says. [The Last Emperor (Bertolucci/Peploe 1987)]

Scientists, and astronomers in particular, know the value of words and of their meaning, a discipline of discourse failing which no scientiﬁc rigor would be possible. The scientiﬁc microcosms, if self-consistently well-deﬁned, may however oﬀer interconnecting pitfalls1 , requiring people involved in interdisciplinary collaborations to agree on the vocabulary, thus avoiding embarrassing, time-wasting and occasionally dramatic misunderstandings. Substantial care has also to be put nowadays in the wording towards large audiences and, in particular, via the Internet and the World-Wide Web. Goldman (1998) explains how some web pages of Sky & Telescope had to be re-written. An expression such as “naked eye” had to be replaced by “unaided eye” or “unassisted eye” to avoid ﬁltering by software packages considering that the site was using indecent terms and advising parents to alert the authorities against that threat to their children ... Astronomy had also to face identity issues regarding the objects it studies. The very simple structure of constellations itself had to get straightened. Because of the non-rigorous delimitation of these in the past, stars could belong to several asterisms. The star with the Arabic name Al Nath, aka β Tauri, was also named γ Aurigae in the past. A rigorous deﬁnition of 88 constellations covering the whole sky with no overlap took place only well 1 A good example is the word parameter with diﬀering meanings in mathematics and in the physical sciences.

1 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 1–10. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

2

EDITORIAL

into the 20th century (Delporte 1930). Bishop (2004) published an excellent review of celestial nomenclature issues together with original proposals. To the dismay of professional astronomers, commercial companies initiated a juicy business of selling star names, an activity considered as not fraudulent by approached US lawcourts (Triplett 2000). See also on this matter the corresponding sections on the web site2 of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). In recent decades, the multiplication of astronomical catalogs and of object identiﬁers of all kinds made necessary the compilation of synonym tables such as CDS’ Catalogue of Stellar Identiﬁcations (CSI) and database Simbad 3 . The integration of all kinds of data through such interconnecting grounds or hubs, the ampliation to several dimensions and the hierarchization of cosmic objects required continual upgrading towards resources such as Aladin 4 and towards always more advanced digital research facilities such as those called nowadays Virtual Observatories (VOs). We already stressed (Heck 2001, 2002/OSA 3) how unfortunate such a label was, though concise and handy to ‘sell’ the corresponding projects to decision makers/takers. Someone involved in a VO project claimed thereafter that such semantic questions were irrelevant and what mattered was the work actually done. Perhaps acceptable for some, such a stand calls nevertheless for a couple of comments. First, the rigor scientists put in their work should also be applied to the way they phrase it. Second, as more than one advertizer already experienced it, even pleasant and largely adopted buzzwords can backﬁre; a high-ranking politician of science was commenting recently: “Why should we fund those projects, since they are virtual?” A Matter of Worlds But let’s go really virtual for a few moments, in an imaginary place called Weirdland, populated by Weirdies obeying rules edicted from the capital city, Weirdtown. A pragmatic scientist, visiting the place from an outside world, could not help being surprized by the way the Weirdic scientists were functioning. Here are a few excerpts picked randomly from the visitor’s diary: – none of the scientists in charge of institutions seems to have ever been trained in management, nor in human resources; they often behave in a narrow-minded ‘little-chief’ spirit; in fact, no diﬀerence is made between administrator, director and manager; 2

http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/ http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad 4 http://aladin.u-strasbg.fr/aladin.gml 3

EDITORIAL

3

Figure 1. Les Astronomes [The Astronomers] (1961), oil on canvas (155×255) by Paul Delvaux (1897-1994). (Private collection, by courtesy)

– the qualities of chief are rarely a selection criterion for positions of responsibilities; the process is, sometimes through formal elections though, a kind of cooptation where the common denominators are personalities avoiding conﬂicting situations and not risking to disturb the general routine during their terms; – the administrative structure and the resulting burden are so heavy that highly qualiﬁed scientists avoid entering the managerial career and therefore end up being regulated by less competent people – some of them having never had a single original scientiﬁc idea in their own career; – the personnel selection and promotion processes are most disturbing; under policies of transparency, it appears that many decisions are in fact taken in advance of the commission meetings, that applicants have frequently no possibility for appeal and no opportunity to get themselves heard, that rankings by commissions are sometimes mysteriously rearranged before reaching the oﬃcial publication of results; – rules continually change, but not in favor of scientiﬁc criteria, getting decreasing weight over time in favor of secondary activities; contributions to the progress of knowledge and outstanding publication records are frequently less rated than confusing notions of ‘service’ including serving in commissions, i.e. favoring those very people deciding on promotions;

4

EDITORIAL

– year after year, in many disciplines, Weirdies train and graduate signiﬁcantly more scientists than their system can reasonably absorb – a result of the competition between local schools and of their ﬁght for survival, leading to numerous human dramas among the freshly graduated people; – consistent with the little-chief practice, team work is understood by Weirdies as being at the service of a person rather than for great leading ideas or projects; there are programs labeled as such, but they frequently express individual ambitions; – examples abound where immediate carreerist beneﬁt (personal or for friends) prevails over the long-term interest of the discipline; – ethical issues are largely ignored by Weirdic scientists; ethical charters are rarely heard of, ignored or kept conﬁdential when existing; guidelines to avoid conﬂicts of interest and collusions seem not to exist; close relatives or people with strong connections are sometimes holding high-ranking positions within the same organizations; – the Weirdic scientiﬁc world appears to be disconnected from reality; selfreinforcing projects engulf lavish expenses with apparently no possibility this be questioned by independent bodies; – mobility or simply changing scientiﬁc ﬁelds is frequently felt as a desertion; creativity, sometimes carried out by individuals from personal money, is discouraged as leading out of the beaten pathes and well-established patterns; in fact, in many instances, strategies appear to be negatively oriented. These were just a few points from the visitor’s diary that was holding many more comments, on publications, on education, on evaluation, etc., on which we may come back in future editorials. Weirdland was a virtual world, but could we say that, in our everyday real life, we have never been wondering one day about one of the situations mentioned above? They are not new either. In the forewords of his textbooks, Bouasse (1918) was already pointing out shortcomings and inadequacies in the professional deontology, as well as absurdities in astronomy educational policies at the very beginning of the 20th century. Much closer to us, Koestler (1973) set up, on a dramatic background of world conﬂict threat, a hilarious parody of academic jet-setters attending a conference in a European place easily identiﬁable by astronomers. A Matter of Ways Over the past couple of decades, activities grouped under the label EPO (Education and Public Outreach) have taken a more asserted importance in astronomy. The profession of EPO oﬃcer has been increasingly perceived as indispensable and going much beyond the mere distribution of nice pictures. Two major practical motivations for such an evolution can be identiﬁed:

EDITORIAL

5

Figure 2. Web pages of the IAU Working Group on Communicating Astronomy with the Public (top), the 2005 ESO/ESA/IAU conference on the same theme (middle), and the 2005 ASP annual conference on The Emerging EPO Profession (bottom). See text for details and URLs.

6

EDITORIAL

(a) the enhanced degree of competition, for public and private funding, between the scientiﬁc disciplines, between institutions within a discipline, between groups within an institution, and of course between individuals; (b) the higher awareness of the impact of public support to secure such funding, together with a better integrated concept of return towards the taxpayers. Political authorities have also put more emphasis on the educational mission of scientiﬁc organizations. EPO positions have been created and dedicated EPO oﬃces have been set up, ﬁrst in the large international and national organizations, then in structures of smaller sizes, getting sometimes the grand public involved through visitor centers occasionally equipped with planetariums5 . Quite naturally, the necessity to share experience and to coordinate efforts, initially scattered, arose subsequently. Books were published (see e.g. Heck & Madsen 2003) and conferences were organized: cf. Communicating Astronomy 6 , convened in 2002 by the Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, or Communicating Astronomy to the Public 7 , held in 2003 at the US National Academy of Sciences. The most signiﬁcant outcome of the latter meeting was the elaboration of a charter8 outlining principles of action for individuals and organizations conducting astronomical research and having “a compelling obligation to communicate their results and eﬀorts with the public for the beneﬁt of all.” An IAU working group has subsequently been set up on the theme Communicating Astronomy with the Public 9 . At the time of writing these lines, two large conferences are scheduled in the upcoming months (Fig. 2): the ESA10 /ESO11 /IAU Conference on Communicating Astronomy with the Public 12 (June 2005) and the annual conference of the Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc (ASP) on the theme Building Community: The Emerging EPO Profession 13 (September 2005). The title of the ASP event describes best the current situation and the lemma of the IAU working group expresses quite well the fundamental EPO mission as perceived these days: “It is the responsibility of every practising astronomer to play some role in explaining the interest and value of science 5

See for instance the following dedicated chapters in the OSA volumes: Christensen (2003/OSA 4), Christian (2004/OSA 5), Finley (2002/OSA 3), Isbell & Fedele (2003/OSA 4), Mitton (2001/OSA 2), Morison & O’Brien (2005/OSA 6), keeping in mind that the matter has also been tackled in other, more general, contributions. 6 http://www.iac.es/proyect/commast/ 7 http://www.nrao.edu/ccap/ 8 http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/washington charter/ charter final.html 9 http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/ 10 European Space Agency. 11 European Southern Observatory. 12 http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/cap2005/ 13 http://www.astrosociety.org/events/meeting.html

EDITORIAL

7

Figure 3. Histogram of the number of papers listed in the bibliographic section at the end of the volume. The top (blue) curve is cumulative. The gradient increase is clearly perceptible as well as the contribution from the OSA series since Year 2000.

to our real employers, the taxpayers of the world” – a social component that we recurrently advocated. One step further, another focus has received increasing attention from professional astronomers in even more recent times (Fig. 3): the strategical, organizational and socio-dynamical issues. Until not so long ago (and who knows why), the term “sociology” was carrying a negative connotation in hard-science circles where the only related studies were limited to bibliometric counts. As largely exempliﬁed in the OSA series, other dimensions do exist – and the overall approach has now evolved and matured. One can already see, or at least hope for, the time when, in turn, a dedicated slot will be devoted too to those activities in our discipline; when students and young scientists will hear, with the proper semantics of a real world, not only of productivity and impact, but also of ethical issues, of constructive management, of long-term strategies, of responsibility and return towards the society at large, of the rˆ ole and position of astronomy towards mankind, not to forget the description of organizational structures and contexts – a range of matters that accomplished scientists themselves, sometimes with their minds isolated in crystal spheres, do not apprehend always in the best way. The OSA Books series This book is the sixth volume under the title Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (OSA). The OSA series is intended to cover a large range

8

EDITORIAL

of ﬁelds and themes14 . In practice, one could say that all aspects of the astronomy-related context and environment are considered in the spirit of sharing speciﬁc expertise and lessons learned. The individual volumes are complementing each other, also in synergy with the directories StarGuides and databases StarPages of organizational and individual data (Heck 2003 & 2004). Thus this series is a unique medium for scientists and non-scientists (sometimes from outside astronomy) to describe their experience and to discuss points on non-purely scientiﬁc matters – often of fundamental importance for the eﬃcient conduct of our activities. This book This book starts with an essay by J.R. Roy & M. Mountain on the evolving sociology of ground-based optical and infrared astronomy at the start of the 21st century. Then a group of chapters review the organization of astronomy in various parts of the world: – in Africa, by P. Martinez, – in New Zealand, by J. Hearnshaw, – in Austria, by S. Schindler, Next, the speciﬁc case – in terms of opportunities and operational challenges – of a high-altitude site is discussed by R. Stencel. The three following chapters deal with the selection of observing time proposals: J.L. Linsky shares his personal experience in various ad hoc committees while the procedures for selecting solar and radioastronomical programs are discussed by H. Uitenbroek and R. Schwartz et al. for the respective examples of the Dunn Solar Tower (National Solar Observatory, USA) and the Eﬀelsberg 100m radiotelescope (Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Radioastronomie, Germany). Several contributions then detail evaluation means: – the Hubble Space Telescope science metrics, by J. Madrid et al., – the Science News metrics, by C.A. Christian & G. Davidson, – a citation-based measure developed by F. Pearce & D.C. Forbes, while H.A. Abt compares citation counts from the Science Citation Index and the NASA Astrophysics Data System. Next, J.L. Linsky tells us the story of the Letters to the Editor published in the Newsletter of the American Astronomical Society distributed to some 6500 members world-wide15 ; J. Hermida oﬀers a panorama of space laws; R. Rebolo reviews the search strategies for exoplanets and H. Rickman 14 15

See for instance http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/∼heck/osabooks.htm The astronomical professional journals have a much lower circulation!

9

EDITORIAL

describes the initiatives taken by the International Astronomical Union on impact hazards from near-Earth objects. In the following chapters, E. Schweitzer recalls the services provided to the whole professional community by the French Association of Variable Star Observers (AFOEV) and C.C. Petersen recapitulates the structure and activities of the International Planetarium Society, as well as the challenges it currently faces. The next three contributions deal with education and public outreach: – R. Ferlet & C. Pennypacker, on the Hands-On Universe Project; – I. Morison & T. O’Brien, on the past, present and future EPO activities at Jodrell Bank Observatory (UK); – A. Cirou, on his multimedia outreach towards French-speaking audiences. Finally, T. Siegfried & A. Witze provides sound indications on what media people are expecting to report eﬃciently on our activities. The book concludes with the updated bibliography of publications relating to socio-astronomy and to the interactions of the astronomy community with society at large. Acknowledgments It has been a privilege and a great honor to be given the opportunity of compiling this book and interacting with the various contributors. The quality of the authors, the scope of expertise they cover, the messages they convey make of this book a natural continuation of the previous volumes. The reader will certainly enjoy as much as I did going through such a variety of well-inspired chapters from so many diﬀerent horizons, be it also because the contributors have done their best to write in a way that is understandable to readers who are not necessarily hyper-specialized in astronomy while providing speciﬁc detailed information and sometimes enlightening ‘lessons learned’ sections. I am specially grateful to Catherine Cesarsky, Director General of the European Southern Observatory and President-Elect of the International Astronomical Union, for writing the foreword of this book and to the various referees who ensured independent and prompt reading of the contributions. Finally, it is a very pleasant duty to pay tribute here to the various people at Springer who are enthusiastically supporting this series of volumes. The Editor Pico de Tres Mares May 2005

10

EDITORIAL

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Bertolucci, B. & Peploe, M. 1987, The Last Emperor, ﬁlm, Artisan Entertainment. Bishop, J.E. 2004, How Astronomical Objects are Named, The Planetarian 33/3, 6-24. Bouasse, H. 1918, Astronomie Th´eorique et Pratique, Librairie Delagrave, Paris, xxix + 630 pp. Christensen, L.L. 2003, Practical Popular Communication of Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 105-142. Christian, C.A. 2004, The Public Impact of the Hubble Space Telescope: A case Study, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-216. Delporte, E. 1930, D´elimitation Scientiﬁque des Constellations (Tables et Cartes), Cambridge Univ. Press, 44 pp. + 26 maps. Finley, D.G. 2002, Public Relations for a National Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 3, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 21-34. Goldman, S.J. 1998, Watch Your Language, Sky & Tel. 95/3, 69. Heck, A. 2001, Virtual Observatories or Rather Digital Research Facilities?, Amer. Astron. Soc. Newsl. 104, 2. Heck, A. 2002, Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 3, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-10. Heck, A. 2003, From Early Directories to Current Yellow-Page Services, in Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 183-205. Heck, A. 2004, StarGuides Plus – A World-Wide Directory of Organizations in Astronomy and Related Space Sciences, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, xii + 1140 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-1926-2) Heck, A. & Madsen, C. (Eds) 2003, Astronomy Communication, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 226 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-1345-0) Isbell, D. & Fedele, R. 2003, Outreach at Kitt Peak Visitor Center: Techniques for Engaging the Public at a Major Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 93-104. Koestler, A. 1973, The Call-Girls: A Tragi-Comedy, Random House, New York, 167 pp. (ISBN 0-3944-8435-5) Mitton, J. 2001, Working with the Media: The Royal Astronomical Society Experience, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 2, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 239-256. Morison, I. & O’Brien, T. 2005, Outreach from the Jodrell Bank Observatory, this volume. Triplett, W. 2000, Astronomers Silenced in Star-Name Wars, Nature 406, 448.

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY OF GROUND-BASED OPTICAL AND INFRARED ASTRONOMY AT THE START OF THE 21ST CENTURY

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

Gemini Observatory 670 North A’ohoku Place Hilo HI 96720, USA [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract. By looking back at the last half century and beyond, an understanding emerges in the patterns and inﬂuences of the social, ﬁscal and institutional development of astronomical institutions and observatories. In this paper, the authors1 review many changes that have transformed how astronomers build and use their “great telescopes”; they also examine the evolving process that maximizes the productivity and impact of undertaking modern ground-based optical/infrared astronomy. The integration of modern engineering and experimental practices, broadened access to largescale funding and international competition, all have a role in these changes. A changing social paradigm has moved these ventures from the scientiﬁc elite into the realm and structure of tightly managed projects involving close partnerships between engineers and scientists. Astronomer’s observational methods have changed in fundamental ways as well, driven by the complexity of the instruments used and their tremendous cost. The conclusion of this paper is that optical/infrared ground-based astronomy is in transition. “Hundred-million-dollar-scale” 8m to 10m telescopes have been erected and now our communities have billion-dollar-scale ambitions. To realize these ambitions, the same communities need to relinquish cherished notions of individual and even institutional dominance and merge into large, productive consortia consisting of institutions and multi-national agencies.

1 Matt Mountain is now at the Space Telescope Science Institute, Homewood Campus, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore MD 21218, USA.

11 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 11–37. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

12

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

1. Introduction Astronomy has undergone a huge “societal transformation” in recent decades. Until the latter half of the 20th century, the building and use of the so-called “great telescopes”, such as the Yerkes forty-inch refractor or the Mount Palomar 5m telescope in the US, were the preserve of a tight-knit, seemingly elite group of scientists – the endowed astronomers. Entry to this unique society was through prestigious institutions. These were, for example, the large private observatories in the United States; the best known are the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Lick Observatory at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and to a lesser degree, prestigious east coast and central states institutions like the University of Chicago (which operates the Yerkes Observatory) and the University of Texas (which operates the McDonald Observatory). In Europe, the traditions were more deeply rooted in the past. Lead institutions were a mix of many prestigious national observatories like, among others, the Observatory of Paris-Meudon (France), the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh (United Kingdom), the Hamburg-Bergedorf Observatory (Germany). The task of erecting these great telescopes and the protocols of observational astronomy were both considered unique and exclusive skills of this rareﬁed group. Even in the late 1960s, when the United States National Science Foundation tried to broaden participation in ground-based optical astronomy by providing the ﬁrst federally funded telescopes, the designs and utilization were based on (and constrained by) the cultural traditions and prejudices of this entrenched group. As we will show, astronomers at new national institutions found that trying to free themselves from the conﬁnes of the past “hierarchical wisdom” on how to build telescopes was diﬃcult. This was an era when university scientists and astronomers (in contrast to working in close partnership with engineers) still played a dominant role in imposing the design and technical approach to be applied. Modern engineering and (by then) experimental practices already in use, or under consideration, at large scientiﬁc facilities such as particle accelerators or the emerging radio and space-based telescopes, were not yet part of common practice. However, broadened access to modern telescopes (albeit still restricted largely to researchers of the “endowed” observatories and academic astronomers of an increasing number of universities with an astronomy program) was made possible by increased government funding of these facilities. Combined with the rise of competition from both Europe and Japan in the building of “Very Large Telescopes” (today, 70% of the capital in-

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

13

vestment in 6m to 10m facilities has been from outside the US), broader funding opportunities have transformed the way these telescopes are now built and used. Finally, traditional observing with a major telescope was once the preserve of “lonely” astronomers whose heritage put the highest regard on the assumption of the unique “added value” a skilled observer brings to the whole process. Nowadays teams of specialists are re-deﬁning the way we use our telescopes. This paper discusses these changes, both as they apply to the current generation of 8m to 10m facilities, and how the sociology of future communities of ground-based telescope builders and users will change with the emergence of 20m to 100m “Extremely Large Telescopes” over the next few decades. 2. The Societal Drivers for Funding Telescopes How do we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to look at the stars? It is mind-boggling to consider how astronomers have managed to sell astronomy and astrophysics to the public. This esoteric-seeming science produces spectacular pictures of stars and galaxies but appears to have no other spin-oﬀs beyond new knowledge about things we will never touch. As we discuss later in this article, there are spinoﬀs and mutual technological developments from astronomy that also beneﬁt society. Still, a great part of astronomy’s popularity is due to the community’s passion for understanding the universe and sharing its discoveries with the public. Astronomers also now routinely use advances in communication technology (such as posting spectacular images and data on Web pages) to distribute their work, and have learned to mobilize key individuals, groups and organization to help promote their research and their telescopes. How do astronomers “sell” a project? What drives the funding of astronomy in modern societies? Well into the second half of the 20th century, astronomy institutions and observatories were constrained by historical narrow deﬁnitions and viewpoints of what such institutions should be and do. The duty and role of the observatory director, an individual generally entrusted with signiﬁcant power, were to continue the tradition; this was often successful but sometimes at high costs and at the expense of innovation. Several ambitious, often wasteful, eclipse expeditions were mounted and just too many new telescopes were built in poor quality observing sites. Hundreds of telescope instruments were built that produced a trickle of noimpact publications. These ventures were perhaps acceptable in a climate of relative academic freedom, loose and/or permissive internal evaluation criteria and limited competition on resources, because each member or group

14

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

had a “right to a share” of institutional resources. Nowadays, wasted resources cannot be hidden behind successes. The funding environment has changed for all disciplines, including astronomy. An intricate approach helps to deﬁne the background in justifying new spending. There are four motivations that modern astronomers use to attract and justify funding for large initiatives like new telescopes. They are: the quest for knowledge, the quest for achievement, the quest for survival, and the quest for power. This set of motivations was originally proposed by R.W. Schmitt (1994). They are cast broadly and can be applied to most fundamental and applied sciences. The relative importance of these four motivators can be adjusted depending on the scale of the project, the nature of the competition, and the budget “envelope” of the funding organization. These drivers are also used to justify the continuing operation or salvage of existing facilities. These categories also help us understand how astronomers develop strategies to get funding for advanced projects in a world where the fulﬁllment of many other more basic societal needs clamor for the attention of our politicians. 2.1. THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE: A PHILOSOPHICAL DRIVER

A facility is built, an experiment conducted, or research accomplished to satisfy the fundamental human urge to understand the universe, explain its origin, and reconstruct its evolution. Supporting arguments draw extensively on our natural curiosity and a general desire to understand the world around us. To satisfy our restless minds, we daringly attempt to answer many basic questions: where do we come from? how big is the universe? did the universe have a beginning? how old is it? are we alone? what is the origin of life? what is the fate of the universe? The drive to answer these key questions – to “make the science case” – is not new. Nevertheless, the context is much more critical than it was in decades past. An informed public, astute politicians, and pressure to justify research expenditures all compel astronomers to express their goals in clear, well-stated “Big Questions.” This is not bad, but it can lead to an erroneous assumption that when the questions are answered, the job will be done, the shop will close up and everyone will go home. A methodical eﬀort to orient a ﬁeld toward realistic goals leads to a process of research ﬁnalization (Ziman 1995). If done properly, such ﬁnalization results in a strong science case and strengthens the image of science as an ongoing process. The strategy of making the science case has been employed successfully since the 1970s by astronomers in the US to garner funding for new initia-

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

15

Figure 1. Panoramic view of the Gemini South telescope in Chile at sunset showing the 7-story-high telescope with open vent-gates and observing slit. (courtesy Gemini Obs.)

16

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

tives like the Very Large Array (VLA), the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). More recently, a group of American physicists and astronomers, led by physicist Michael Turner, achieved a stunning success through their remarkable document “Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos.” They came up with 11 fundamental questions to be answered by scientists using a host of proposed space and groundbased capabilities (NRC 2003). The science case was considered by decision makers to be so convincing that NASA, the US Department of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation have set aside $900 million to fund a range of experiments and new facilities in space, on the ground and even underground (neutrino detector facilities). On a smaller scale, the Gemini Observatory, built by a consortium of seven international astronomy communities, duplicated that approach to seek funding for a second generation of instruments to be commissioned at the Gemini facilities. This ambitious program represents an investment of about $70 million. More than 100 Gemini community members from several countries used the “big question” approach to develop a robust justiﬁcation for improvements to the observatories. The result is an ambitious new instrumentation program (Simons et al. 2004). Today’s new paradigm requires full scientiﬁc justiﬁcation for advanced instrumentation and subsequent boosts in operational capabilities. Astronomers must use this science case to engage public interest and trigger the enthusiasm of the key decision makers in government agencies and the politicians who must approve the necessary funding. The broad science questions and especially their answers should have the potential to make headlines in the world’s media, and allow the funding Agencies, Foundations and/or Benefactors to be acknowledged for the achievement. 2.2. THE QUEST FOR ACHIEVEMENT: AN EMOTIONAL DRIVER

A second motivation for funding research is to satisfy the need to achieve something big – to do something because it has not been done before, or doing it ten times better than before. It drives scientists to push the frontiers of knowledge, to open new areas of study, or to try new ways of doing things. Climbing a diﬃcult mountain peak “because it is there,” walking to the South Pole because no one has done it before, or going to the Moon because “America can do it” – all are examples of emotional motivation. Astronomers can use this driver in a two-pronged approach. They can claim that a new facility will be the largest or the most optimized telescope system ever built, that it will surpass what was done before, or it will give us views of the universe never before obtained. Astronomers can also use the big questions put forth in the science case

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

17

to play the technological challenge card. In the new paradigm, industries become full partners in research initiatives. Astronomers promote this industrial role when proposing the development of required technologies (new lasers and optical systems, faster computers, and more powerful software). Industries need to be at the forefront of technological expertise by participating in such projects. Mitsubishi, for example, played an important role in the success of the Subaru Telescope (built by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan). Companies are generally happy to support astronomers’ arguments and help lobby the granting organizations, since funding may fulﬁll their own research and development objectives. Corning Glass Works, the large American glass and ceramic company, may not make signiﬁcant proﬁts from telescope mirrors, but it uses telescope-related contracts to pursue R&D eﬀorts that beneﬁt other activities of the company and promote its technological leadership. Since its invention of Pyrex and the building of the Palomar 5m primary mirror blank, Corning has maintained a very successful and fruitful partnership with astronomy that has beneﬁted both industry and science. The successful co-ventures with AMEC/Coast Steel (the Canada-based company that built the dome for the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and enclosures for several other large telescopes around the world) have made this company very supportive of astronomical projects. Its CEO has lobbied the Canadian government to fund that country’s involvement in large astronomical projects. Industrial linkage has become a necessary condition for funding large science initiatives. 2.3. THE QUEST FOR SURVIVAL: AN ALTRUISTIC DRIVER

Humankind’s needs for survival, improved quality of life, and new societal demands are powerful drivers for funding research. Astronomy is at a disadvantage since it is not an applied science and its purpose does not lead to immediate applications. Nevertheless, astronomers have been right to point out several astronomical technology-related breakthroughs resulting in useful applications and spin-oﬀs. They range from detector technology (from the photographic emulsion to charged-coupled devices or CCDs), timekeeping technologies (positional astronomy, quasar research with long baseline radio interferometry that led to the global positioning system or GPS), to advanced image analysis techniques, the hydrostatic bearing, X-ray imaging technology in airports and elsewhere, adaptive optics in the medical ﬁeld, and many others. Not surprisingly, astronomers have at times invoked the relevance of their work to protect the Earth from the most threatening danger that can face our planet over long time scales, a collision with an asteroid or

18

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

a comet that could wipe out humankind and most living species. There is substantial work going into the monitoring of near-Earth asteroids and the funding for such research is increasing. 2.4. THE QUEST FOR POWER: A POLITICAL DRIVER

Scientists can invoke national pride to show that their communities and respective countries are among the best performers in the world, or are in need of new facilities to maintain their leadership. They quickly link the health of their own discipline to the research environment of their countries. By the same token, astronomers in countries where their discipline is less favored use political arguments to show that getting involved in a new large observatory will bring prestige to the country’s scientiﬁc community, help it develop new technologies, and strengthen its image and visibility in the world of high technology. The emergence of Europe as a leader in 21st -century astrophysics has been stunning. European Union astronomers have developed a very powerful and ambitious plan in the past few decades to take the lead in groundbased astronomy. The purpose of building the Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Paranal in Chile has been clear all along: establish a solid world leadership position in astronomy and not trail the United States. The success of the VLT (and its next phase, the VLT-Interferometer) and of European astronomy in general, have certainly played a role in attracting the United States, Japan and Canada to collaborate with European Southern Observatory (ESO) in building the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), a nearly billion-dollar initiative, in northern Chile. The proposed European Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (OWL) is another even more ambitious and technically challenging project that Europe has decided to push to demonstrate that it is “second to none.” In these large initiatives, the science cases are big drivers, but the goal of aﬃrming European pre-eminence and uncontested leadership is a major driver, and the European politicians are buying into the idea. States also fund astronomy projects to display their power and to increase the visibility of their institutions and industries. In this game, astronomy is at an advantage because, as noted earlier, the public holds a very favorable view of the discipline. It is also perceived as research with zero military content, which is partly untrue since the military funds astronomy projects. An example is the US Air Force Midcourse Experiment satellite that produced a map of the sky at infrared wavelengths to detect and distinguish human-made objects in space from celestial mid-infrared sources. Furthermore, support for astronomy is viewed and used by politicians as public support for funding space research and space experiments,

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

19

Figure 2. The Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope enclosure with open vent-gates to allow rapid thermal equilibrium with the nighttime air. The dome was constructed by AMEC/Coast Steel of Canada. (courtesy Neelon Crawford, Gemini Obs.)

20

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

where the scale of investments and industrial or military spin-oﬀs are many times greater. This reasoning is most clearly summarized by former US Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham’s statement in The Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook, (which describes a strategy to develop a plan for research facilities costing $50 million or more in the next 20 years): “These additional world-class Oﬃce of Science user facilities and upgrades to current facilities will lead to more world-class science, which will lead to further world-class R&D, which will lead to greater technological innovations and many other advances, which will lead to continued US economic competitiveness.” 3. Continuity and Changing Historical Patterns Historically, few astronomers had the wealth to fund their observatories from personal fortune. Apart from Ulugh Beg, Edmund Halley, Lord Rosse (Charles Parsons), George Ellery Hale, and a few others, astronomers do not generally come from rich families. Furthermore, their scholarly activities generally prevent them from making fortunes, and they depend on generous donors, or the state, to build the observatories they need. To achieve their goals, astronomers have developed unique skill sets, and have been surprisingly eﬃcient at getting funding from wealthy benefactors and from government agencies. Astronomers act as literati when they push for a better understanding of the universe, to answer fundamental questions about our cosmic origin and future. Several members of the community have been extremely eﬀective at communicating; for example, the popularizing books of active researchers and amateur astronomers have reached a wide readership in many countries and penetrate a remarkably wide range of cultures. Some of these “scientiﬁc ambassadors” have become true media “stars.” While educational and outreach eﬀorts have been minimal until a few decades ago, present funding for large projects almost always comes with a substantial allocation for outreach and education eﬀorts and several observatories have established true public relations oﬃces. Astronomers are salespersons when they push for a given project and deploy strategies to make their project the best in the ﬁeld. Indeed, like almost everyone vying for public money, astronomers have to compete with colleagues in their own or other ﬁelds. Being from a relatively small scientiﬁc community, they need to make a convincing case for spending millions of dollars to beneﬁt a few hundred users. Astronomers may dramatize the “over subscription” of observing time on existing facilities, yet most modern observatories are actively soliciting the best users to apply or are paying

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

21

them generous sums to use their facilities. For example, users of the Hubble Space Telescope (and of some other space facilities) do receive relatively generous funding to analyze and publish their data. This can be awkward when the relatively small size of the community indicates that there could be overcapacity. This is when astronomers play other powerful cards like strong technology drivers or the close involvement of companies in high technology development. The promotional pitch knits together several effective arguments. This “transdisciplinarity” – the coalescence of elements from a number of ﬁelds like cosmology, high-energy physics and computational physics, as done in Connecting Quarks With the Cosmos – sells well and gets funding (Ziman 1995). Finally, astronomers are the courtiers who must use the right manner to “ﬂatter” those in power and those with the resources astronomers need to build their observatories. This has to be done with art, skillfulness and a certain degree of shrewdness. Indeed no space mission to Titan, no new large-millimeter telescope on the Atacama Altiplano, no next generation 30m telescope can be funded without generous donors or science agencies, or both. Astronomy has had a remarkable succession of benefactors: Ulugh Beg (1393-1449) who founded the Samarkand Observatory, King Frederick II of Denmark who supported Tycho Brahe, the multi-millionaire entrepreneurs Charles T. Yerkes (Yerkes Observatory) and Andrew Carnegie (Mount Wilson Hooker 100-inch telescope and Palomar 200-inch telescope), the Rockefeller Foundation (Palomar 200-inch telescope), banker William J. McDonald (University of Texas McDonald 100-inch Telescope), petroleum magnate W.M. Keck (10m Keck Telescopes) and more recently Intel’s CEO Gordon Moore (along with spouse Betty Moore) (the Thirty Meter Telescope Project). However, the newest projects have become so large that they surpass the scale of the most generous private donations and even the research budgets of national funding agencies (Mountain 2004). 4. A New Evolving Partnership and Shifting Roles: How to Deliver the Science In contemplating a 4m Kitt Peak National Observatory (KPNO) telescope “for the masses” in the early sixties, astronomers at the new national observatory in Tucson found that trying to free themselves from the conﬁnes of the past “hierarchical wisdom” on how to build telescopes was impossible (Learner 1986; Mountain 1999). This was an era when university scientists and astronomers still played a dominant role in imposing the design and technical approach to be applied (Learner 1986; McCray 2004). Federal government accountability for these public designs dictated a technological conservatism that inhibited technical innovation in the design of both the

22

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

KPNO and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 4m designs (Kloeppel 1983). Some US university groups, on the other hand, acted as creative factions by exploring more innovative approaches. For example, the University of Arizona put into place its Multi-Mirror Telescope, and at the University of California, Jerry Nelson began to experiment with segmented primary mirrors which would eventually lead to the Keck telescopes. Interestingly, publicly funded European institutions, perhaps because they did not have to contend with what appeared to be a hegemony of the elite US astronomical traditionalists (principally at non-federally-funded institutions such as California Institute of Technology and the Carnegie Institution of Washington), found themselves more open to experimentation on new approaches to telescope design and construction. For example, the Royal Observatory Edinburgh was able to “experiment” with a lightweight 3.8m infrared telescope (United Kingdom Infrared Telescope – UKIRT) on Mauna Kea, Hawai’i, using a primary mirror that weighed three times less than the KPNO 4m. The new European Southern Observatory began its crucial forays into active optics with its New Technology Telescope (Wilson 2003). Common-user adaptive optics systems were built and commissioned on the ESO 3.6m telescope in La Silla and on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea in the 1990s. Perhaps more signiﬁcantly, these three institutions actively encouraged the participation of professional engineers (and industry) in these design activities at a very early stage. As astronomers approached the next generation of 8m to 10m telescopes, both the technical challenges and the costs of the projects became more daunting. In parallel, the emergence of a strong partnership (particularly in the US) between the federal government and space and aerospace industries led to the development of a new technical approach. More importantly, management tools such as systems engineering and cost accountability through rigorous management for large complex projects were introduced. In the US, the traditional hegemony of university-trained scientists prevailed until the mid-to-late 1980s. In California Jerry Nelson was allowed to experiment and perfect his segmented design, and the project used teams of scientists to work on the design and frame the scientiﬁc case to raise the requisite funding. However, once the $100+ million dollar project was funded and approved, Jerry Smith (an aerospace manager) was appointed to run the entire Keck Telescopes project. Smith subsequently placed the entire activity under tight project management and system engineering controleven the Project Scientist, Jerry Nelson, worked for the project manager. A team of engineers then built both Keck telescopes, and one of the key metrics of the Keck Observatory’s success was not just that it was the biggest

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

23

pair of telescopes in the world, but that it had also been built within budget and on schedule. At the magnitude of this project, even private foundations were now requiring strict accountability. This was in stark contrast to most previous observatory projects where independent project management and accounting control from the start throughout the whole project had not been done. (McCray 2004 discusses this in Giant Telescopes, p. 55.) What many astronomers did not realize was that these were well-known lessons for those in the particle physics community and in the emerging ﬁeld of large interferometer gravitational wave observatories such as LIGO (Galison 1997; Westphal 2001; Riordan 2001; Collins 2003). In addition, despite the emergence of large space projects, the sociology and expectations of the astronomical community, particularly in the US, were still dominated by a self-referencing oligarchy based at prestigious US universities. In fact, the discovery of signiﬁcant spherical aberration in the Hubble Space Telescope was taken as evidence that the changed methodologies for building large and expensive telescopes was in fact ﬂawed. A few years before the completion of the Keck telescopes, the Gemini 8m Telescopes Project became the fulcrum in the US of this entire transition in ground-based astronomy. Initially the US National Observatory’s eﬀorts to build a “very large telescope” had ﬂoundered on acrimonious arguments between prominent astronomers on the correct approach to take. In order to give the project a global signiﬁcance, AURA Inc. (the university consortium running the National Observatory) and the National Science Foundation brought in international partners (initially the United Kingdom and Canada). Since Gemini was proposed to have two 8m telescopes, one in each hemisphere (on Hawai’i and in Chile), cost accounting and performance became paramount requirements for this entirely governmentfunded project. Controversy erupted almost immediately as the consortium attempted to pick a technology for its primary mirrors. A team of engineers and scientists guided by a Science Requirements Document undertook the majority of the early design work. They were required to work to a tight, ﬁxed budget. After a competitive procurement, this team selected a meniscus mirror technology. This was also the technology choice of the four European VLTs. Gemini, along with the Japanese 8m Subaru telescope project, had selected their meniscus mirrors from Corning Glass Works. (As mentioned earlier, Corning had a long tradition of providing telescope mirrors and developed unique glass technologies for this application.) Nevertheless, part of the US telescope establishment expected Gemini to use mirrors developed by the University of Arizona Mirror Laboratory. An independent inquiry was called, followed six months later by an extensive public design review of the project’s chosen design approach. At the inquiry, much was made of the then recent Hubble Space Telescope

24

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

ﬂaw, which many in the US community believed was the result of “engineers running away with the project.” However, at the design review, the meniscus approach prevailed. It was judged as “quite capable” of meeting the Gemini science requirements. The project proceeded using a more “corporate style” where management and systems engineering became as prominent, robust, and unavoidable as the project’s science requirements (McCray 2004). In a sign of the new paradigm of strict accountability, the entire project underwent a two-year intensive review by the NSF’s Oﬃce of the Inspector General (NSF’s auditors) after Gemini was completed. Although there was some controversy over deﬁnitions of some activities as construction, the telescope project management methodologies and delivered results were judged as “adequate” (an accolade by auditing standards). However, the management of Gemini’s instrument program (which – as a concession to the participating partners – had been run by each institution or University as a “traditional” scientiﬁc principal investigator-led activity) was judged as “woefully inadequate.” The whole ground-based sociological paradigm was ﬁrmly shifted out of the domain of telescope and instrument building as a scientiﬁc endeavor, and pushed into the realm of a tightly managed project, whose objective was to “deliver” a facility to a scientiﬁc community client on time and within budget. Gemini was not alone in following the “corporate” approach. ESO followed a very similar paradigm but with little or no resistance from the European astronomical community. The impressive VLT facilities are a direct result of this paradigm shift. As mentioned earlier, the Japanese contracted with Mitsubishi to deliver an entire 8m observatory, Subaru, to their astronomical community. ALMA is developing along similar lines for its respective sponsors. As our communities now contemplate the next generation of 20m to 100m “extremely large” telescopes, costing anywhere between $400 million and about $1 billion apiece, this changed relationship between “the scientists” and a team of engineers and project managers will become even more sharply deﬁned. To quote from a recent article on the history of the defunct Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), “The conﬂicts which erupted between the high-energy physicists and engineers hailing from the military-industrial complex during the abortive construction of the Superconducting Super Collider can be understood as another episode in [the] continuing struggle and, perhaps short-lived reversion to an earlier mode of social and political organization of the scientiﬁc enterprise. At the multi-billion dollar scale of the SSC (roughly equivalent to the Manhattan Project in constant dollars), powerful forces came back into play that had not ﬁgured at the hundred-million-dollar

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

25

scale of Fermilab and SLAC [Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]” (Riordan 2001) Optical/infrared ground-based astronomy is in a transition. We have erected the “hundred-million-dollar scale” 8m to 10m telescopes, and now have billion-dollar-scale ambitions. To realize them, the sociology of astronomers, as a group will need to change: they are going to have to start thinking and behaving like space scientists or post-SSC particle physicists. As the LIGO Team members discovered when they decided to build their gravitational wave detectors “like bridges” rather than physics experiments, astronomers will have to relinquish cherished notions of individual and even institutional dominance (Collins 2003). Private foundations or consortia of government agencies (or a combination of the two), are going to expect that as a group, astronomers will design and build their future ground-based telescopes “like bridges”-structures that do not collapse nor bankrupt the research system. 5. Shifting from Gentleman Astronomer to Experimental Team In the opening chapter of the remarkable book Image and Logic, Peter Galison (1997) describes a meeting of particle physicists in 1976 where the physicists were decrying the use of “computers” to scan their plates, and the growing reliance on “data pipelines and archives” to do their science. As a ﬁeld, observational astronomy is on the cusp of a similar change, both in the way observations are now being done, and in the whole sociology of what constitutes “an observation.” 5.1. CLASSICAL VERSUS QUEUE OBSERVING

Traditionally, observing with a major telescope was the preserve of astronomers whose heritage consisted of lonely nights, perseverance, and an assumption of the unique “added value” a skilled observer brings to the whole process. In addition, there was a considerable degree of “self worth” associated with observing successfully with “a cantankerous machine,” (McCray 2003) tinged with a not-insigniﬁcant element of romanticism. As technology has improved telescope performance, the actual delivered sensitivity of a telescope has become a strong function of atmospheric conditions (Mountain et al. 1995). For example, the value of the atmospheric seeing (the width of a delivered image to the telescope focal plane) determines the time to complete a certain class of observations, which is inversely proportional to the square of the seeing value. This can vary dramatically over a single night. In modern 8m to 10m-class telescopes, it is not unusual for the seeing on some nights to change by factors of 2 or 3, changing the required

26

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

integration time by factors of between 4 and 10. Interestingly, even back in the 1930s it was recognized that “ ... weather and the general seeing conditions didn’t always pay attention to the plans of astronomers and the allocation committee. In the brainstorming sessions [in 1931] the astronomers asked if the telescope could be switched from one focus point to another in minutes rather than hours, so the balance of the night could be put to proﬁtable use.” (Florence 1995, p. 186) Similarly more than 50 years later, while planning the Keck telescope, Sandra Faber wrote: “... both the designs and scheduling of large telescopes should be ﬂexible enough to allow quick changeovers to programs that can beneﬁt from good seeing. Adherence to this goal will, I believe, necessitate substantial changes in the operating philosophy in use at most observatories.” (Faber 1984) Perhaps the most fascinating characterization of traditional astronomical “best practices” is this: within the community of optical/infrared astronomers, up until the last decade, no fundamental changes had been made to the way observatories were organized or the manner in which observations were done since Tycho Brahe in the 16th century! Astronomers had been going to their telescopes in similar ways and with identical attitudes for almost four centuries. In many aspects, it was a robust and productive model. Astronomers had the “right to” or were allocated a ﬁxed number of nights, and took their chances with the weather and atmospheric conditions. The traditional orthodoxy said that astronomers were essential to the mechanics of observing, despite that fact that many hours (or nights) could be lost because conditions were not matched to the observer’s expectations. Telescope time became a currency in its own right. The pressure on modern observers was compounded by the growing complexity of the instruments that gathered the photons delivered by telescopes. In an almost forgotten study that monitored the eﬃciency of visiting observers at the 3.6m Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea, researchers found that there was a considerable increase in the observer’s eﬃciency (as measured by the ratio of time actually collecting data compared to the elapsed time) as the observer progressed through consecutive nights of a run. Most observers to a highly oversubscribed telescope such as the CFHT visited the telescope perhaps no more than once or twice a year, resulting in a considerable learning curve during each return visit (Glaspey 1996). The advent of major federally and government-funded facilities such as the Gemini Observatory and ESO’s VLT, which support communities mea-

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

27

Figure 3. The Gemini North instrument cluster fully populated on its ﬁve instrument ports. Multiple on-call instruments allow for adaptive scheduling to better match sky conditions and variables such as moon phase and atmospheric water vapor levels. (courtesy Gemini Obs.)

28

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

sured in thousands, has allowed astronomers to explore new approaches to data-gathering with ground-based facilities. Growing experience with space-based facilities has also contributed to a change of attitudes. The realization that observations are best done when they are matched to conditions, and that skilled resident observers can use the telescope and their instruments quite routinely at higher eﬃciency levels has led to the whole concept of queue or service scheduling. In this mode, astronomers submit well-described observing programs using a Web-based form. After successful review by a time allocation committee, the principal investigator and a team of collaborators prepare a detailed plan of the observations through an electronic observing tool, generally well ahead of the actual observations. At the scheduled time, a resident observer takes the data on behalf of the astronomer. The requesting astronomer then accesses the data via an online archive. In addition, science archives that contain not only the science images but also an impressive metadata database have become essential components of major modern observatories. When the Gemini community ﬁrst discussed this mode of operation in 1995, there was considerable emotional debate on the value of “innovation” at the telescope, and the need to keep the astronomer involved at all levels in the mechanics of observing (reminiscent of the anguish felt when the particle physics community discussed the same issue). This is despite the fact that one of the most successful telescopes of all time, the Hubble Space Telescope, has operated exclusively in this remote and queued observing mode. Ultimately the Gemini community agreed that only 50% of the telescope time should be queue scheduled, with the remaining 50% classically scheduled. This would allow visiting astronomers to come to the facilities and use the instruments directly. Interestingly, with the advent of software tools that allow users to plan observations in ﬁne detail, both ESO and Gemini have found that it is now quite diﬃcult to persuade astronomers to come and use their telescopes for a few nights of classical time. The critical dependence on observing conditions, the increasing complexity of the observing process, and a rising level of community comfort with the whole concept of queue and “internet observing” (particularly when one considers the inconvenience of missing teaching responsibilities and/or one’s family for a few nights of variable conditions) has produced a signiﬁcant shift in the whole sociology of observing with large ground-based facilities such as Gemini or the VLT. Moreover, astronomers now have a signiﬁcant “marketplace” of data products, ranging from space telescopes like HST, Chandra or Spitzer, to online data archives and queued or classical observations from many large ground-based telescopes. The data no longer “belong” to the principal investigator, but to the whole community and the observing process is now deﬁned to ensure a fully calibrated and

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

29

self-suﬃcient archivable data set. The science archives are not a data “mortuary” but an active component of an extremely dynamic data handling system that leads to new discoveries and is open to the whole world. However, there are still a very signiﬁcant number of major telescopes (for example, the twin 6.5m Magellan and 10m Keck telescopes) that do not utilize the concept of queue observing nor archiving their data. Even though a single night on Keck costs ∼$1/second, traditional values and “ownership of a night” strongly prevail within its user community. The high citation impact of Keck-based papers encourages this community to follow the older model. However, VLT, Subaru, HET and Gemini have recently come online with their “new paradigm” approach and Keck is no longer the only option. Time will tell which method will prevail. In the end, it may well be that the astronomical community will beneﬁt from both of these approaches. In the latest Gemini proposal rounds, less than 10% of the total time requested was for classical time. From Gemini’s perspective, the market has spoken. As we contemplate future 20m to 100m facilities, the choices governing the way we observe will become even starker. Globally we are currently spending well in excess of $100 million per year to use large facilities. These costs are spread out across at least 14 facilities in the 6m to 10m class with 365 nights apiece. It is unlikely that we are going to see this many 20m to 100m telescopes. If we assume optimistically that three will be built, it would not be unreasonable to estimate the operational costs for these to scale roughly in the same proportion as the capital costs. Even if we can squeeze these three facilities into budgets no larger than what has been spent in the last 10 years (i.e., $1.7 billion), our cost per night goes up by 14/3, or almost a factor of ﬁve. This is the curse of only having 365 nights per year. It is hard to imagine that any foundation or agency called upon to spend about $4-$5/second on a night of observing will not expect every second to be accounted for and used productively, as is the case today with particle accelerators. Imagine these facilities combined with increasingly complex machines: telescopes with thousands of segments, multi-laser guide star adaptive optics, sophisticated scheduling algorithms to minimize wind buﬀeting, huge detectors and instrumentation infrastructure. Add in the use of more remote sites and the emerging success of meteorological models at major observatory sites predicting atmospheric conditions 24 to 48 hours into the future (Businger et al. 2003). Suddenly the operational difference between the Hubble Space Telescope and a 20m to 100m telescope begins to appear insigniﬁcant to around 90% of prospective users. Perhaps more crucially this diﬀerence may be indistinguishable to 100% from the points of view of funding foundations and agencies. The old-fashioned “gentleman astronomer,” the lonely observer who sits on the mountain in solitary splendor doing a classical observation will become, as one senior

30

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

US astronomer quipped recently, “as hard to ﬁnd as sheriﬀs in small town America” (Strom 2003). 5.2. THE EMERGENCE OF THE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EXPERIMENTAL TEAM

The January 10, 2004 edition of Astrophysical Journal Letters was devoted entirely to the Great Observatories Origin Deep Survey (GOODS) project, a multi-telescope space and ground-based project devoted to observing the same celestial ﬁeld at multiple wavelengths. The ﬁrst paper in the series had 57 authors; the project described in the following 19 papers was the collective endeavor of a large team unlike anything seen before in groundbased astronomy. This emerging large-team-oriented approach to modern observational astrophysics signals a profound sociological change in the way astronomers will undertake their craft in the coming decades (another example is the SLOAN Digital Sky Survey, or SDSS). The GOODS program is the collective result of all the factors discussed above: the broadening and internationalization of ground-based astronomy, the increased cost of the requisite telescopes and their operations, and the increasing complexity of the instrumentation and observing procedures at modern telescopes. These are coupled with the emergence of “internet connected teams” collaborations of specialists with the range of skills required to undertake a large project. All these factors can justify large time allocations on one or more telescope facilities spanning both space- and ground-based facilities. The recent Gemini Deep-Deep Survey (GDDS) provides a textbook example of how a conﬂuence of skills produced an “experiment” which was more than the sum of its parts. The “redshift desert” corresponds to a relatively unexplored period of the universe seen by telescopes looking back to an era when the universe was only 3 to 6 billion years old, i.e. 20 to 40% its current age. To determine the nature of galaxies in the redshift desert, a group of astronomers from several countries formed a team to ensure that there was suﬃcient proposal pressure through individual time allocation committees to ensure a single large-telescope allocation. The project also enrolled a team of engineers to work on a new detector scheme to allow very deep sky subtraction (through a technique called Nod and Shuﬄe – Glazebrook & Bland-Hawthorn 2003), software specialists to encode the complex observing sequences, a group of “observing specialists” (staﬀ astronomers at the observatory) to undertake the complex new observations under nothing but optimum conditions using the Gemini queue system, and a data analysis team to quickly reduce the spectroscopic data for the science team’s analysis. The result of this “experiment” (a 100-hour queue run on Gemini North under optimum observing conditions) was the detection and characterization of hitherto undiscovered galaxies in the redshift

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

31

Figure 4. The Very Large Telescope control room where four 8-meter telescopes are controlled on site. (courtesy European Southern Obs.)

32

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

desert. The results were published in 2004 and 2005 in a series of papers (Abraham et al. 2004; Savaglio et al. 2004; Glazebrook et al. 2004; McCarthy et al. 2004, Juneau et al. 2005). The key point is that each member of the team was an acknowledged “specialist” who understood how to best exploit one (or more) facets of the Gemini observing system to produce a key experimental result using a “ﬁnalized” approach to maximize scientiﬁc impact. Using this experience as a model for how the next generation of 20m to 100m telescopes might be used, it is hard to imagine a nearly billiondollar facility which can only be scheduled for 365 nights a year not being used on any one night by anything short of a team. The complexities of exploiting every second available on this class of telescope, combined with the scarcity of 20m to 100m nights, may more than justify the need for coordinated teams of specialists. However, if we also examine much of the scientiﬁc rationale for building these new machines, the grand scientiﬁc themes (framed as “key questions”) we can also make a compelling case to pursue these questions (assuming they are still important in the next decade and a half) as “experiments” on this new generation of facilities. This will not happen solely because these questions are important. It will also be the case that the instruments, (or more likely a single instrument) which may cost as much as an individual 8m telescope (in today’s dollars), will itself have been similarly justiﬁed by a “key question.” Perhaps, the instrument will be provided by an institution or country in return for access to this scale of facility, as in the particle physics model. This is not an unreasonable extrapolation from what already happens at ESO where, in return for partly ﬁnancing an instrument, an instrument team receives a substantial allocation (sometime numbering in hundreds of nights) to pursue their own projects. Similarly, the delivery to Keck of the DEIMOS instrument also resulted in the instrument team, (and their collaborators) receiving 120 nights for a single project. These strategic allocations are much more than a reward; they are investments to maximize scientiﬁc beneﬁts. 6. Conclusions As we enter the ﬁrst part of the 21st century, we ﬁnd that the previous ground-based optical/infrared sociology, deﬁned as the development, structure and functioning of a once-exclusive society of astronomers, has been transformed. From a ﬁeld dominated by the traditions of an elite hierarchy accustomed to being allocated individual “lonely nights” to practice “high artistry” mastering a “beautiful and cantankerous instrument” (Whitford 1977), there is now a far larger and broader society of scientists (from many ﬁelds), engineers, project managers and administrators involved at

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

33

Figure 5. The twin W.M. Keck telescopes which began operations with the Keck I telescope in the early 1990s. The Keck telescopes can operate remotely from a headquarters building at the base of Mauna Kea and are scheduled in a traditional fashion. (courtesy Richard Wainscoat, Institute for Astronomy)

34

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

all levels. In fact, the entire gamut of skills that make up today’s complex 21st -century society is part of the endeavor. Large telescopes have become multi-institutional and/or multinational. Internal forces ﬁrst drove this change of philosophy and approach. Astronomers of the world share a strong common culture through their publication systems (research journals and conference proceedings), professional associations and societies, with consulting and evaluation panels that use a pool of international colleagues. The joint ventures have emerged from almost two centuries of exchanges between scientists from leading European, Asian and American institutions, the migration of scholars triggered by geopolitical changes, and the quest for pristine observing sites in distant parts of the world. Joint experiments where observatories with diﬀerent capabilities merge eﬀorts and observing time in very strategic ways, have already been successful (the SLOAN and GOODS programs, for example). Although often loosely connected, these links have become intricate and vital enough to result in a globalization of astronomy. Indeed we witness an increasing dominance of the way astronomy is done at the national level by global projects and multinational organizations. However, like global markets, the development of our national institutions sometimes has diﬃculty keeping pace with new funding directions and international opportunities that push astronomy toward even more ambitious partnerships. While the uniﬁcation of all European ground-based astronomy under ESO has brought with it a highly focused investment in key technical talent and technology, in the US these investments are still dispersed across several, highly competitive groups. While it is true that the US tradition of “rugged individualism” in the telescope-building arena has often been successful and has leveraged substantial private or non-federal resources, 70% of the capital investment in 6m to 10m facilities has been from outside the US. The need for “de-balkanizing” the US community has never been greater as global forces begin to take their toll on the competitiveness of this vital and ingenious community. Unlike previous decades, many of the technologies required for new facilities (adaptive optics, large optics manufacturing, wind buﬀeting mitigation) are not currently at maturity, and will require substantial and coordinated investments to bear fruit. Contrary to previous decades, many of these technology investments (particularly those required for adaptive optics and large format detectors) will not be provided “for free” by the US Department of Energy, the Department of Defense or NASA. Ground-based astronomy in the United States is very much on its own this time around, and hence needs to pool resources. The globalization of astronomy is also strongly driven by external forces. Funding agencies are looking for strong national and international partnerships and prefer collaboration to competition. They also favor a strate-

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY

35

gic approach that avoids duplication of eﬀorts, encourage the merging of the best ideas and technologies, reward the mitigation of risks, and optimize investments in esoteric research areas that are out of the mainstream. The European agencies, leveraging oﬀ their collective and coordinated investment through ESO, are managing to fund their current operations at a highly competitive level (developing second-generation instruments for VLT, for example) and are playing a leading role in the design, construction and operations of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), the most ambitious ground-based astronomy observatory ever envisioned. The overriding character of the European approach is to expend considerable eﬀort in lining up the entire European community behind a few leading-edge projects to maximize the leveraged investment of each European partner. In contrast, the US community, guided in part by the last decadal survey, is now trying to embark on its most ambitious groundbased program in history. Even with substantial private funding, the community’s intentions to build ALMA, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT) or the Thirty-Meter Telescope (TMT), and perhaps even the addition of the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), may runs the risk that their combined costs will vastly exceed what has been spent on all existing facilities so far. It would be extraordinary to see a signiﬁcant fraction of the proposed facilities built outside very well coordinated international partnerships (Mountain 2004). As a project’s size grows, so does its visibility. We run the very real risk of having “no ’strategic’ escape from ever more expensive and intellectually baroque ivory towers” (Ziman 1995, p. 2051). In conclusion, this “societal” transformation of the ground-based optical/infrared community is not the result of an emerging younger generation simply “rebelling” against an establishment. It is a collective result of the enormous broadening of access to large ground-based telescopes through the entry of greatly increased government funding by several non-US players. Added to this is the greatly increased complexity of using the current generation of telescopes. Bolstered with complex technologies like adaptive optics, supported by meteorological models and queue scheduling, and coupled together through the global interconnectivity of multidisciplinary teams, we suggest that the habits and traditions of the early formative groups (who founded and built the hugely successful observatories of the past) are not useful when pursuing the ambitious astrophysics “experiments” of the early 21st century. The growing importance of accountability to funding agencies for programs that utilize space telescopes and billiondollar-scale ground-based facilities has changed the dynamics of doing astronomy on a large scale. To ensure that we continue the success of past

36

JEAN-RENE ROY AND MATT MOUNTAIN

generations, we need to adopt the new model presented here. It is gratifying to see that after some hiccups, astronomers are now shifting their thinking and approach to doing their business. Acknowledgements This text is our sole responsibility. However, several colleagues have contributed to many of the ideas presented in this paper. We thank in particular Fred Chaﬀee, Larry Ramsey, Wayne van Citters, Bill Smith, Dick Malowe, Richard Ellis, Steve Beckwith, Phil Puxley, Doug Simons, Jim Oschmann, Hiroshi Karoji, Steve Strom and Tim de Zeeuw. We are grateful to Carolyn Collins Petersen who carefully reviewed a draft of the article and made several insightful suggestions for improvement. References 1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12.

Abraham, R.G., Glazebrook, K., McCarthy, P.J., Crampton, D., Murowinski, R., Jørgensen, I., Roth, K., Hook, I.M., Savaglio, S., Chen H.W., Marzke, R.O. & Carlberg, R. 2004, The Gemini Deep Deep Survey: I. Introduction to the Survey, Catalogues, and Composite Spectra, Astron. J. 127, 2455-2483. Businger, S., Cherubini, T., Dors, I., McHugh, J., McLaren, R.A., Moore, J.B., Ryan, J.M., Nardell, C.A. 2003, Supporting the Mission of the Mauna Kea Observatories with Ground Winds Incoherent UV Lidar Measurements, in Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, Proc. SPIE 4839, 858-868. Collins, H.M. 2003, LIGO Becomes Big Science, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 33/2, 261-297. Devorkin, D.H. 2000, Who Speaks for Astronomy? How Astronomers Responded to Government Funding after World War II, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 31/1, 55-92. Faber, S. 1984, Large Optical Telescopes – New Visions into Space and Time, in Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, 11th Meeting, Annals New York Acad. Sc. 422, 171-179. Florence, R. 1995, The Perfect Machine – Building The Palomar Telescope Harper Collins (ISBN 0-060-92670-8). Galison, P. 1997, Image and Logic: : A Material Culture of Microphysics. Univ. Chicago Press (ISBN 0-226-27916-2). Glaspey, J. 1996, Improving Observing Eﬃciency – New Observing Modes for the Next Century, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc Conf. Series 87, 72. Glazebrook, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2001, Microslit Nod-Shuﬄe Spectroscopy: A Technique for Achieving Very High Density of Spectra, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 113, 197-214. Glazebrook, K., Abraham, R.G., McCarthy, P.J., Savaglio, S., Chen, H.W., Crampton, D., Murowinski, R., Jørgensen, I., Roth, K., Hook, I.M., Marzke, R.O. & Carlberg, R. 2004, A High Abundance of Massive Galaxies 3-6 Billion Years after the Big Bang, Nature 430, 181-184. Juneau, S., Glazebrook, K., Crampton, D., McCarthy, P.J., Savaglio, S., Abraham, P., Carlberg, R. G., Chen, H.W., Le Borgne, D., Marzke, R. O., Roth, K., Jørgensen, I., Hook, I. & Murowinski, R. 2005, Cosmic Star Formation History and its Dependence on Galaxy Stellar Mass, Astrophys. J. 619, L135-L138. Kloeppel, J. E. 1983, Realm of the Long Eyes – A Brief History of Kitt Peak National Observatory, Univelt, San Diego (ISBN 0-912183-01-2).

THE EVOLVING SOCIOLOGY 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

37

Learner, R. 1986, Legacy of the 200-inch, Sky & Tel. 71, 349-353. McCarthy, P.J., Le Borgne, D., Crampton, D., Chen, H.W., Abraham, R., Glazebrook, K., Savaglio, S., Carlberg, R.G., Marzke, R.O., Roth, K., Jørgensen, I., Hook, I., Murowinski, R. & Juneau, S. 2004, Evolved Galaxies at z > 1.5 from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey: The Formation of Massive Stellar Systems, Astrophys. J. 614, L9-L12. McCray, P. 2003, The Contentious Role of a National Observatory, Physics Today 56/10, 55-61. McCray, P. 2004, Giant Telescopes: Astronomical Ambition and the Promise of Technology, Harvard Univ. Press (ISBN 0-674-01147-3). Mountain, M. 2004, The Future of ELTs (Extremely Large Telescopes): A Very Personal View, 2nd Backaskog Workshop (in press). NRC 2003, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Research Council of the National Academies, Natl Acad. Press (ISBN 0-309-07406-1). Riordan, M. 2001, A Tale of Two Cultures: Building the Superconducting Super Collider 1988-1993, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32/1, 124-144. Savaglio, S., Glazebrook, K., Abraham, R.G., Crampton, D., Chen, H.W., McCarthy, P.J., Jørgensen, I., Roth, K., Hook, I. M., Marzke, R.O., Murowinski, R. & Carlberg, R. 2004, The Gemini Deep Deep Survey: II. Metals in Star-Forming Galaxies at Redshift 1.3 < z < 2, Astrophys. J. 602, 51-65. Schmitt, W.R. 1994, Public Support of Science, Physics Today 47/1, 29-33. Simons, D., Abraham, R., Blum, R., Meyer, M., Tinney, C. & Wyse, R. 2004, Scientiﬁc Horizons at the Gemini Observatory: Exploring a Universe of Matter, Energy and Life, Gemini Obs. Strom, S. 2003, private communication. Westphall, C. 2001, Collaborating Together: The Stories of TPC, UA1, CDF and CLAS, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32/1,163-178. Westphall, C. 2002, A Tale of Two More Laboratories: Readying for Research at Fermilab and Jeﬀerson Laboratory, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32/2, 369-407. Wilson, R.N. 2003, The History and Development of the ESO Active Optics System, ESO Messenger 113, 1-9. Whitford, A.E. 1977, quotation from an oral history interview, 15 Jul 1977, p. 51, interviewed by D.H. DeVorkin, Center of History of Physics/American Institute of Physics Collection. Ziman, J. 1995, Some Reﬂections on Physics as a Social Institution, Twentieth Century Physics III, Inst. Physics Publ. and Amer. Inst. Physics Press, p. 2041.

BUILDING ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

PETER MARTINEZ

South African Astronomical Observatory P.O. Box 9 Observatory 7935, South Africa [email protected]

Abstract. Africa has about 1.4% of the world’s population of professional astronomers. In terms of research output, African astronomers produce less than 1% of the world’s astronomical research. The problems confronting African researchers have been discussed extensively in numerous studies. In this paper, we discuss concrete eﬀorts aimed at building research capacity in astronomy in Africa. There are several favourable factors supporting these eﬀorts. These include a more favourable political climate than in the past, new large-scale facilities for ground-based astronomy and new partnerships for training and research on the continent. Various capacitybuilding activities are discussed as well as some of the lessons learnt from such activities.

1. Astronomical Research in Africa The illustration on the cover of the book you hold in your hands depicts 3510 distinct locations on the Earth in which some astronomy-related organisation was recorded by Heck (2000). In that ﬁrst paper in Volume 1 of this series on Organisations and Strategies in Astronomy, Heck presented geographical distributions relating to various aspects of astronomy worldwide. The striking feature in all those maps is what he described as “the desperate emptiness of most of the African continent.” African astronomy is dominated by Egypt in the north and South Africa in the south. South Africa invests more in astronomy annually than all other African countries combined. This is reﬂected in the scientiﬁc output, which is greater than that of all other African countries combined by a wide margin. The historical development of astronomy in South Africa, up until 39 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 39–62. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

40

PETER MARTINEZ

TABLE 1. IAU membership statistics for Africa as of January 2005. (Source: IAU website http://www.iau.org/) Members National Members Egypt Morocco1 Nigeria South Africa

% Members National Male Female

% Members All IAU Male Female

Male

Female

Total

51 7 4 48

6 0 0 6

57 7 4 54

89.47 100.00 100.00 88.89

10.53 0.00 0.00 11.11

0.63 0.08 0.04 0.60

0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07

3 1 1

0 0 0

3 1 1

100.00 100.00 100.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.03 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00

115 7886

12 1154

127 9040

90.55

9.45 87.23

12.77

Individual Members Algeria Ethiopia Mauritius Total Members All Africa All IAU 1

Morocco has interim membership status.

1994, has been reviewed by Feast (2002). Whitelock (2004) reviewed developments in post-apartheid South Africa, from 1994 to 2004. Both papers appeared in earlier volumes in this series. In this paper we will take a closer view of the status of professional astronomy in the rest of Africa and we will review some of the capacitybuilding initiatives that have taken place in recent years. This study encompasses the 46 countries in continental Africa and the independent island states Cape Verde, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Sao Tome and Principe and Seychelles – a total of 52 countries. Of the 52 countries in Africa, only nine (viz: Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa) feature on the map on the cover of this book. No other region of the world has such a dearth of activity in astronomy. However, this map depicts not only professional institutions, but also associations, planetaria and public observatories. In Western Europe and North America, such organisations are often clustered together. However, in Africa the symbols often depict single activities, not activity clusters. A closer look at the nature of the facilities in these countries reveals that only Egypt, Namibia, Mauritius and South

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

41

Africa and possess operational large-scale astronomical research facilities.

Figure 1.

Political map of Africa.

The present paper focuses on the development of astronomy at universities and research establishments. Space does not permit us to broaden the scope of our discussion to include planetaria, public observatories and public outreach activities in astronomy in Africa, of which there are many. Examples of such activities may be gained from reports of national coordinators of World Space Week1 . 1

http://www.spaceweek.org/africa.html

42

PETER MARTINEZ

A good way to depict the presence of organized astronomy in Africa is to consider membership of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Fig. 2 shows IAU membership in Africa as listed on the IAU website in January 2005. The dearth of IAU adhering countries in Africa is striking. The only adhering countries in Africa are Egypt, Morocco (interim status), Nigeria and South Africa. Fortunately the IAU’s rules are ﬂexible enough to permit individual PhD-qualiﬁed astronomers to join the IAU in their personal capacity, even if their countries are not yet ready to join as national members. Through this mechanism, individual astronomers in Algeria, Ethiopia and Mauritius are also members of the IAU. I believe it is very important to maintain this admissions policy as it reduces the isolation of scientists who return to their countries in Africa after obtaining their training in astronomy elsewhere. Table 1 depicts the IAU membership statistics for Africa as of January 2005. The total African membership of the IAU amounts to 127 persons in 7 countries, corresponding to 1.4% of the total IAU membership. The African membership is dominated by Egypt (45%) and South Africa (43%), followed by Morocco, Nigeria, Algeria, Ethiopia and Mauritius, all with 5% or fewer members. The map of IAU member countries reﬂects the more prosperous African nations in a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) map of the continent. The basic space sciences and their supporting technologies underpin the ability of a country to utilise space applications programmes for development. By whatever measure is employed, Africa continues to be underrepresented in the international space science community. Examination of the national membership of COSPAR reveals that only two out of ﬁfty-two countries in Africa (Morocco and South Africa) are national members of COSPAR. Individual scientists are COSPAR Associates in 5 other African countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe). The situation is much the same for membership in the Scientiﬁc Committee on SolarTerrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP). 2. Publications as a Tracer of Activity in Space Science The IAU membership ﬁgures, though instructive, do not present the complete picture as far as the distribution of individual scientists in Africa because not all of them are members of the IAU, either through a national adhering organization or in their personal capacity. A better way to gauge the distribution of active individual space scientists is to examine the literature. The NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) database of abstracts was examined for the period 1973-1996. A total of 181 808 papers had been recorded at the time these data were received. The total number of papers

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

43

Figure 2. The presence of nationally organised astronomical communities in Africa is indicated by this map of IAU membership. The countries shaded blue are national members of the IAU. Morocco has interim member status. The countries shaded green are not members of the IAU but have individual scientists who are IAU members in their personal capacity.

with an African principal author or at least one African coauthor amounted to 1339, or 0.74% of the total number of recorded publications. The results are shown in Table 2. It is not surprising that the top ﬁve countries in this list are also the top ﬁve countries by GDP in Africa. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of publications in map form. Some caveats apply to the ﬁgures in Table 2: − Only papers whose authors listed an institutional address in Africa were counted. Papers by expatriate Africans were not counted. − The database in 1996 was deﬁnitely not a complete sample. The completeness of this sample is improving with time as the bibliographic data bases improve their retrospective coverage of the literature. − The abstracts mainly reﬂect the internationally referenced literature. Thus, publications in in-house journals with limited circulation are not counted. This is not necessarily a defect in this analysis as it imposes a de facto requirement for publications to be of international stature.

44

PETER MARTINEZ

TABLE 2. Publications originating in Africa or having African coauthors during 1973-1996. (Source: NASA Astrophysics Data System as of October 1996) South Africa Egypt Nigeria Algeria Morocco Sudan Libya Tunisia Zaire Burundi Kenya Ivory Coast Ghana Zimbabwe Lesotho Malawi Angola Uganda Benin Guinea Mauritania Mauritius

1030 190 55 14 11 10 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

77% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1%

Though it was not possible to extend the above detailed publication counts beyond 1996 in this study, it is nevertheless possible to estimate the current annual contribution to African astronomical literature. Based on my knowledge of the various research groups around the continent, I estimate an annual upper limit of about 300 publications, compared to the worldwide average of about 40 000 publications. This yields about 0.75%, which is consistent with the more detailed study above. Although more recent ADS publication data were not available in readily searchable format at the time the present paper was written, some sense of present research activity may be gained from the level of utilisation of online resources. Kurtz et al. (2005) analysed the utilisation of the ADS data world-wide as a function of GDP and they found a simple relation that ADS use per capita is proportional to GDP per capita squared. Fig. 3 of Kurtz et al.’s paper is instructive. They plot the number of ADS queries per million inhabitants versus GDP per capita. The only African countries

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

45

Figure 3. Publications originating in Africa or having African coauthors during 1973-1996 as listed in Table 2. The darker the shading, the higher the contribution of a particular country to the total publication count for the continent. (Source: NASA Astrophysics Data System as of October 1996)

to appear in their plot are Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa, which appear to conform to the relation (ADS use) ∝ (GDP per capita)2 . Indeed, outside of these three countries, very few scientists in Africa are aware of the ADS and the free access that it provides to the literature. For this reason, capacity-building activities should emphasise training in the use of the online tools now taken for granted as part of the research infrastructure of modern astronomy by many astronomers in the developed world. 3. Trends and Developments In spite of the rather bleak situation in Africa, the outlook for the future seems promising. The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, a political climate has been developing on the continent which is conducive to science and

46

PETER MARTINEZ

technology cooperation. Secondly, and more signiﬁcantly, there are several new, large-scale astronomy research facilities which are becoming operational in the region. This in turn creates study and career opportunities for a new generation of African space scientists on the continent, which begins to address the issue of brain drain, related intimately to sustainable development.

3.1. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

The developments mentioned above should be seen against a backdrop of increasing awareness of space science and technology issues among policy makers in the southern African region. There is an appreciation (particularly in South Africa) of the contribution of astronomy to promoting a culture of science and technology in the region, and an understanding that the skills and technologies that support the operation of large-scale astronomy facilities are precisely those that a country needs to be globally competitive in the 21st century. It is this understanding which has generated the strong political commitment to support astronomy in South Africa. On a regional level, the continent is adopting a more coordinated approach to space science and technology within the context of the Science and Technology Forum of NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD 2004). The activities of this Forum include eleven Flagship Programmes, of which one is Space Science and Technology, which is deﬁned to include astronomy. Moreover, because of the sheer volume of investment in astronomy by South Africa compared with other African countries, facilities have appeared in the sub-continent which are unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere on the continent for the foreseeable future. As part of its re-engagement with Africa following its period of isolation during the Apartheid era, South Africa has pursued scientiﬁc links with other African countries and has been a signiﬁcant supporter of a number of the initiatives described in this paper. South Africa has also placed its existing and planned national facilities at the disposal of scientists from the rest of the continent. Scientists from Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia have already visited South African facilities and/or sent their students to study astronomy in South Africa. These programmes will provide the human capital to develop astronomy research activities around the continent. The challenge is to create the right conditions to attract these young scientists back into their own national environments after they complete their studies.

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

47

Figure 4. The Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) is a 10-m optical telescope based on the Hobby Eberly Telescope design. The telescope has a ﬁxed tilt and rotates only in azimuth to access about 70% of the sky visible from Sutherland. The primary mirror comprises an array of 91 hexagonal mirrors, each 1m wide. The position and orientation of each mirror is individually controlled to form a uniform spherical primary mirror. The tower in front of the dome in this view is used to align the mirror array.

48

PETER MARTINEZ

3.2. NEW LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES

The various governments in the southern African region have taken conscious decisions to utilise the region’s geographical advantages for astronomy to develop a regional hub for astronomy and space science. Thus, Namibia hosts the international High Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS), an array of four imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes for the investigation of cosmic gamma rays in the 100 GeV energy range (Hinton 2004). HESS is the premier facility of its kind in the world. The Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) is a 10-m optical telescope currently under construction in Sutherland by South Africa and eleven international partners. When it is completed, SALT will be the largest single optical telescope in the southern hemisphere. Stobie et al. (2000) discuss the design of SALT and Martinez (2004) discusses the societal beneﬁts of SALT and SALT as an African facility. In addition to these large-scale facilities a number of smaller robotic telescope facilities are coming on-line which may be accessed remotely over the internet by scientists in Africa (see for example Martinez et al. 2002). For the ﬁrst time, these facilities provide an opportunity for African scientists to perform cutting-edge research on the continent and in the context of their own national environments. 4. Capacity-Building Initiatives 4.1. INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION (IAU)

The IAU supports capacity building in Africa principally through the activities of its Commission 46, Astronomy Education and Development. Activities within this Commission are organised into nine Programme Groups (Isobe 2003). Space does not permit an exhaustive list of all the activities conducted under these programme groups. Instead, I will illustrate the work of some of these groups to give a ﬂavour of the IAU’s capacity-building eﬀorts in Africa. In countries with no organised astronomical community, Programme Group 1, Advance Development, makes the initial contact with the local scientiﬁc community through a visit by IAU representatives. This functions as a fact-ﬁnding visit to establish the baseline for further development efforts. Typically, a report of the visit is produced, along with a list of recommendations for further activities. An example of this is the author’s visit to Kenya in 2004 (Martinez 2005). After this, Programme Group 2, Teaching for Astronomy Development, sends lecturers to the developing country for a period of time. In the case of the Kenyan example cited above, an undergraduate curriculum is currently under development, with input from Commission 46 members. Once this

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

49

curriculum starts to be implemented, it may be necessary for the IAU to send some lecturers to build capacity in speciﬁc ﬁelds oﬀered in the curriculum. Programme Group 3, International Schools for Young Astronomers (ISYA), holds a three-week school in a developing country in which an international team of lecturers presents a series of lectures on a speciﬁc set of topics for the school. Since the inception of the ISYA programme, activities have been held in Africa in Nigeria (1978), Egypt (1981), Morocco (1990), Egypt (1994) and Morocco (2004). Programme Group 4, Exchange of Astronomers, is designed to facilitate visits by young astronomers for extended periods to leading facilities in their ﬁelds, provided the facilities are willing to host the visitor. As of this writing, no scientists based in Africa are making use of this opportunity, though with the rise of facilities such as SALT and HESS, this programme oﬀers an excellent tool for research capacity building on the continent. Programme Group 5, Collaborative Programmes, allows the IAU to co-sponsor and co-organise capacity-building activities jointly with other entities. An example of this is the joint COSPAR/IAU Workshop on X-Ray Astronomy, held in Durban in July 2004. Programme Group 6 distributes a regular on-line newsletter to the national liaison members of Commission 46 in each country. Programme Group 7 comprises the national liaisons of Commission 46. These persons need not necessarily be IAU members. Programme Group 8 exploits the opportunities presented by solar eclipses for visiting astronomers to engage with and educate local communities about eclipses and astronomy in general. Programme Group 9, Exchanges of Books and Journals, responds to requests of donations for books and journals. The challenge is meeting the transportation costs and ensuring the capacity to house the materials properly once they are delivered. With increasing availability of current and archival literature on-line, and with increasing internet penetration in Africa, the problems of scientiﬁc isolation and lack of access to literature will be ameliorated in time. 4.2. COMMITTEE ON SPACE RESEARCH (COSPAR)

The capacity-building activities of COSPAR are conducted through the COSPAR Panel on Capacity Building. This Panel has conducted a series of workshops in developing countries aimed at increasing the utilisation of space archive data while allowing the participants to develop the necessary skills to propose guest observer programmes on their own (Willmore 2005). The availability of large archives of data from space missions via the internet provides an important research opportunity for scientists in developing countries. The aim of the COSPAR Capacity-Building Workshop

50

PETER MARTINEZ

Programme is to ensure this opportunity is taken up as widely as possible. The workshops typically run for two weeks in a developing country – the idea being to get the participants to work on the data in their home environment. The teaching programme of the workshops includes lectures on missions, analysis software and science. All of this is brought together in a hands-on project in which participants analyse their own datasets in a project related to their own research interests. The ﬁrst such workshop in Africa was held in Durban, South Africa, in July 2004 on the topic of X-ray astronomy. Twenty-six students from eight African countries participated in this two-week workshop. The students were instructed in the use of analysis software, X-ray astronomy and research techniques. The projects involved the analysis of data from the Chandra and XMM-Newton spacecraft. The 2005 COSPAR workshop will be held in Morocco on the topic of space oceanography. 4.3. WORKING GROUP ON SPACE SCIENCES IN AFRICA

The Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa (WGSSA) was founded by the African participants of the 6th United Nations/European Space Agency Workshop on Basic Space Science, held in Bonn in 1996. The mission of the organization is to promote the development of basic space science in Africa. It accomplishes its mission through the following activity areas: Promoting greater regional cooperation by facilitating the exchange of scientists and by promoting awareness of space science institutes in Africa. Promoting training and education of African space scientists through facilitating access by African students to summer schools and training programmes in basic space science and by arranging visiting Fellowships for scientists and technologists at research institutes. Reducing isolation of African space scientists by maintaining a website 2 and producing a newsletter African Skies/Cieux Africains which describes developments and opportunities. The Working Group also facilitates access to the literature and provides exposure for and promotes awareness of the work of African space scientists. Providing assistance and advice to nascent centres. This is accomplished in a variety of ways, ranging from provision of literature, to arranging tours by visiting lecturers, to provision of curriculum advice and instructional materials, to providing training opportunities for scientists/students starting up a new research group. Assistance with grant proposal writing for accessing development funds has also been provided on an ad hoc basis from time to time. 2

http://www.saao.ac.za/∼wgssa

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

51

TABLE 3. Membership of the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa. Country

Members

Algeria Burundi Egypt Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Kenya Madagascar Mauritius Morocco Namibia Nigeria Rwanda South Africa Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia

9 1 16 1 1 1 8 1 3 2 1 20 1 15 3 1 3 38

Total

125

The scientiﬁc scope of the Working Group’s activities is deﬁned to encompass (a) astronomy and astrophysics, (b) solar-terrestrial interaction and its inﬂuence on terrestrial climate, (c) planetary and atmospheric studies, and (d) the origin of life and exobiology. The Working Group receives ﬁnancial support from foundations and institutes which support its objectives. One of its principal forms of support, however, is the time contributed freely by individual scientists. 4.3.1. WGSSA Membership At present the Working Group has 125 members distributed among 18 African countries (Table 3) and 26 members who are not resident in Africa, most of whom are African expatriates. Of course, members are not equally numerous in all countries. Many of the countries have only one member each. However, these individuals provide the seed for future growth, as they introduce astronomy into their undergraduate physics courses and inspire their students to pursue postgraduate astronomy degrees elsewhere. Exam-

52

PETER MARTINEZ

ples of countries in which this is happening are Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. The challenge is to create opportunities and a supportive environment for these young scientists to return to in their own countries on completion of their studies. The geographical distribution of WGSSA members (Fig. 5) resembles the map of publications (Fig. 3) more closely than does the map of IAU members (Fig. 2). This demonstrates that the Working Group is fulﬁlling a helpful function in providing a forum for African scientists who wish to engage with the professional astronomy community, but who are not themselves yet ready for IAU membership. As a rule the distribution of WGSSA members reﬂects a map of GDP in Africa, but there are some interesting diﬀerences. Botswana is a relatively wealthy and stable country with a well developed academic infrastructure and yet there is no evidence of astronomical activity in the publication record of the past 25 years, nor are there currently any members of the WGSSA in Botswana. Another surprise is Zambia, where the GDP per capita is under $1000 and where a local branch of the Working Group has been founded at the University of Zambia with the largest number of members from any African nation. Many of the members of the WGSSA have inspired their students to pursue postgraduate training opportunities in astronomy elsewhere. The membership of the Working Group by South African and Egyptian astronomers is only a small fraction of the size of the astronomical community in those two countries, and tends to comprise mostly younger people. This is not surprising. The older scientists generally trained in Europe or North America and are internationally established and do not need the kind of support oﬀered by the Working Group, whereas the younger members do. Moreover, because they train in Africa they also generally tend to take a greater interest in interactions with their colleagues from elsewhere on the continent. In recent years South Africa has started placing greater emphasis on improving its relations with the rest of Africa. In the context of astronomy, this translates to promoting awareness of, and providing access to, South African facilities for scientists and students from elsewhere in Africa. Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia are among the more prosperous African countries with an Arabic tradition of astronomy and with some potentially good observing sites, yet they too are under-represented in modern African astronomy and also in the Working Group. This may be because these Mediterranean countries have links with Europe, particularly with France. 4.3.2. African Skies/Cieux Africains African Skies/Cieux Africains, the news publication of the Working Group, is a forum for communication among African space scientists, thereby al-

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

53

Figure 5. Geographical distribution of the members of the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa.

lowing the Working Group to accomplish one of its principal objectives. African Skies/Cieux Africains aims to break the isolation of individuals and groups by making them aware of each-other’s existence and of their scientiﬁc and technical capabilities. African Skies/Cieux Africains publishes articles in English and French as well as conference and summer school announcements, dissertation abstracts and job/career opportunities in the space sciences in Africa. In this way greater regional scientiﬁc cooperation is encouraged. Although scientiﬁc papers are published from time to time, e.g. the proceedings of the First African Pulsar Workshop (Flanagan et al. 2002), it is not the aim of this publication to become an African astronomical journal. Instead, it aims to provide information of use to the wider African community. An example of this was an extensive article by Eichhorn (2003) on the use of the ADS system, with a special section on e-mail queries of the ADS for scientists not able to access the ADS via the usual web browser interface. African Skies/Cieux Africains is an internationally registered periodical publication (ISSN 1027-8339) with a circulation of over 1500 copies. All articles are listed in the NASA ADS system, as well as being available

54

PETER MARTINEZ

online on the website of the Working Group. The magazine is produced the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) in Cape Town and distributed via airmail by the United Nations Oﬃce of Outer Space Affairs in Vienna. The circulation list includes individual scientists, university deans and presidents, department and institute heads, institute libraries, astronomical societies, general scientiﬁc societies and international scientiﬁc organizations, such as the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the International Council of Scientiﬁc Unions (ICSU), etc. Distribution is free of charge to the recipients. 4.3.3. Promoting Networking In 2001 the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa and the South African Astronomical Observatory conducted a pilot project to test the establishment of an African Network for Education and Research in Astronomy. This pilot operated under the aegis of the United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Pilot African Academic Exchange Programme. The South African Astronomical Observatory acted as the host institution for three visiting Fellows from Ethiopia, Uganda and Zambia. These Fellows worked for six months at SAAO, during which they developed research skills in astronomy, as well as the personal acquaintances so important in scientiﬁc collaboration. They also collaborated on the development of educational resources to be used upon returning to their home institutions. The programme for the Fellowship was devised to ensure the long-term goal of establishing a sustainable network after the Fellows returned to their home institutions. The scientiﬁc programme was developed to be topical, yet accessible to physicists with little or no background in astrophysical techniques. The focus of their work was on observational asteroseismology of upper main sequence stars. This was chosen because of its scientiﬁc relevance, the availability of leading scientists in this ﬁeld at SAAO, modest computing hardware and software requirements, and modest data storage and data transfer requirements. The Fellows gained considerable experience in observing with a variety of telescopes, ranging in size from 0.5m to 1.9m. An important consideration in setting up this pilot project was to structure the network in such a way that the Fellows could collaborate with each other fruitfully after returning home. To facilitate this, the Fellows were provided with computers, printers and uninterruptible power supplies. The computers were loaded with a common set of open source software tools and teaching resources. Remote access (via e-mail) to service observations on the 0.75-m robotic telescope at SAAO is available to the Fellows to enable them to continue to obtain new data of excellent quality for their own research projects. Although some research publications came out of

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

55

Figure 6. Past editions of African Skies/Cieux Africains, the publication of the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa.

this pilot project, I would say that the impact has been higher in education than in research. All three visiting Fellows introduced astronomy into the undergraduate physics curricula at their institutions, and they sent their students to do masters degrees in the National Astrophysics and Space Science Programme in South Africa (Whitelock 2004). The hope is that these students will return to form the nucleus of a research group at these institutions.

5. Lessons Learnt Over the past eight years, I have been involved in a number of capacitybuilding initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa through my involvement with activities of the IAU, COSPAR and the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa. Here I oﬀer some of the lessons I have learnt as far as sustainable capacity-building is concerned.

56

PETER MARTINEZ

Seek out fertile ground in which to plant a seed By fertile ground I mean several things. Firstly, an adequate infrastructure (computers, internet access, library facilities, and so on) is a sine qua non of sustainable capacity building for research in astronomy. Secondly, this must be matched by an institutional environment with a supportive hierarchy. Without committed institutional support, there is no hope of a capacitybuilding initiative becoming sustainable in the long run as it will collapse the moment the external support ends or the key person(s) in situ withdraw for any reason. Thirdly, there should be cohesion and a common unity of purpose within the developing scientiﬁc community for capacity-building initiatives to take root. Fourthly, there should be a supportive (or at least non-obstructive) national environment. For example, in a supportive environment, there are means to remove or minimise administrative and ﬁscal impediments such as import duties on donations of scientiﬁc equipment or books. The WGSSA/UNESCO pilot programme described in Sect. 4.3.3 was undermined and weakened by such problems. Capacity building is about people, not equipment A capacity-building initiative that is based around equipment, rather than around people is doomed to fail. When contemplating the installation of new facilities as part of a capacity-building programme, it is important to ensure that the necessary human capital is developed through training in the operation, purposeful use and maintenance of equipment, before such equipment is put in place. Given the limited resources available for capacity building, an approach that works well is to train the trainers. We have used this approach to introduce astronomy into the undergraduate physics curricula at various African universities, and we are starting to see more African students enrolling for postgraduate degrees in astronomy on the continent and elsewhere. Invest in young people Capacity-building opportunities should target young people who are not burdened with administrative or other duties and have more time to drive developments from the bottom up. The same lesson applies also to the scientists doing the capacity building. Many young professionals are keen to share their expertise with colleagues from developing countries and they generally have the mobility and time to do so. The challenge to the older scientists in developed and developing nations is how to engage most eﬀectively with the capacity-building process in such a manner as to allow their younger colleagues to achieve the desired sustainable results.

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

57

Capacity building is a process, not an event Capacity-building activities must be part of a long-term programme. Activities such as capacity-building workshops will not lead to sustained research activity if they are not part of a long-term programme. Hence the importance of strategic partnerships among the scientiﬁc unions, the scientiﬁc community in the developing country and the development aid sector. It normally takes several years of engagement to build up some level of sustainable activity. This requires ﬁrm commitment from all partners in the face of occasional setbacks and failures, even in the best supported scenarios. Match new facilities to education and research needs Often capacity building in astronomy focuses around the acquisition of a small telescope. Small (< 0.5-m) telescopes have an important role to play in undergraduate teaching and student training, and regular access to such telescopes by students and the public can do much to promote astronomy in a developing country. However, above about 0.5-m aperture I believe one needs to consider whether investing in a telescope is the best way to promote internationally relevant astronomical research in a particular environment. For many African countries, I would argue that a good internet connection and access to large-scale facilities elsewhere is far more likely to result in productive research than an ill-equipped telescope at a poor site. It would be better to obtain service observations from telescopes at good sites or use data from space missions. Use information technology as much as possible Information technology is a powerful enabler of research. Access to e-mail and online literature, software and data reduces isolation of scientists and makes them much more productive. For the developing world Open Source is a particularly enabling technology in the sense that, in addition to the cost savings associated with keeping software current, the accessible nature of the software leads to greater innovation and allows users to adapt it to local demands and steer their own IT infrastructure. Moreover, because the astronomy community is a heavy user of Open Source software, the skills acquired by participants in capacity-building activities can be of beneﬁt not only to themselves, but also to their home institutions. In the astrophysics domain, most of the literature is available on-line through the NASA Astrophysics Data System (Eichhorn 2004), and large quantities of astrophysical data are available on-line or on request from a variety of data centres. This provides excellent opportunities to promote research in developing nations without needing to develop costly infrastructure in conditions that are sub-optimal for ground-based astronomy.

58

PETER MARTINEZ

Moreover, the same IT infrastructure that is required to do cutting-edge astrophysical research can also be utilised for other purposes, so the beneﬁts of the investment are enjoyed by a much wider community of users than just astronomers. Capacity-building activities should also take into account the general level of preparation of participants. For example, hands-on capacity-building activities assume a certain degree of computer literacy on the part of the participants. However, one cannot assume familiarity with the computing environments used in astrophysics, and a carefully planned training activity is often compromised when time is lost bringing people up to speed with very basic computer skills. Better screening of prospective participants and/or precursor computer training would enhance the eﬃcacy of such activities in future. Promote and nurture regional initiatives and facilities Regional networks represent the scientiﬁc community’s determination to organise itself and its activities. Close cooperation between the scientiﬁc unions and these regional structures can be mutually beneﬁcial and support sustainable capacity building. Regional networks, such as the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa, can support capacity-building initiatives of the scientiﬁc unions by organising or promoting awareness of key events, such as workshops, and by supporting the follow-up phase afterwards. Regional networks can also assist scientists with accessing facilities in the region and with accessing training and career opportunities on the continent. Africa has two regional centres aﬃliated to the United Nations for training in space science and technology, one in Nigeria for anglophone Africa and one in Morocco for francophone Africa. These centres form an important part of the constellation of facilities available on the continent for human resource development. Though neither centre has a component of astronomical research at the moment, such a component could be developed in partnership with astronomy institutes elsewhere in the region. Focus on solving real research problems Capacity-building initiatives (visits, workshops) often focus on equipping the participants with the skills and tools to conduct research in a given ﬁeld, yet few participants go on to initiate research projects on returning to their home institutions. I believe the reason for this is that these scientists work in isolation, with no idea of what are the relevant problems to tackle. One way to address this is to structure the capacity-building activity around some area of research that the group of participants can continue to work on as a network after they return to their home institutions. Establishing networked collaborations is a good way to build up a critical

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

59

Figure 7. Domes of the South African Astronomical Observatory in Sutherland. The infrastructure at Sutherland has attracted a host of international facilities, the largest of which in the 10-m Southern African Large Telescope (visible in the distance with its distinctive alignment tower, slightly left of centre in this image). The other telescopes in the foreground range in size from 0.5m to 1.9m.

60

PETER MARTINEZ

mass of scientists who can support each other and produce science that is relevant and of international quality. This will require ongoing support and encouragement from colleagues in developed countries, but will yield a piece of publishable research and take the group of participants through the whole research cycle. The WGSSA pilot project discussed in Sect. 4.3.3 is an example of this. Form partnerships for capacity building Working in partnerships allows an organisation to leverage its resources with those of other organisations and to coordinate collective eﬀorts for maximum impact. Working in partnership also introduces complications. The diﬀerent organisations will have their own objectives, programmes and time-scales, but they are more likely to support initiatives that are supported by other partners as well. The types of interactions that are most likely to lead to sustainable capacity building are those that also attract the support of the development sector and/or government. A good example of this is the COSPAR/IAU Regional Workshop on Data Processing from the Chandra and XMM-Newton Space Missions, held in Durban, South Africa in July 2004. This workshop arose from cooperation between the capacity-building programmes of the IAU and COSPAR discussed earlier in this paper, with additional funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa, the UN Oﬃce of Outer Space Aﬀairs, the Abdus Salam Centre for Theoretical Physics and the European Space Agency. 6. Closing remarks With the advent of new large-scale facilities for ground-based astronomy in Africa, such as the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) and the High Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS), and a regional climate of enhanced scientiﬁc cooperation, African astronomers will soon have access to some of the world’s premier astronomical facilities without having to leave the continent. From the outset, SALT was conceived as an African facility, and substantial eﬀorts have been made to enable African scientists to be able to use SALT. Though no African countries have joined the SALT partnership, the Centre for Basic Space Science at Nsukka, Nigeria, and South African Astronomical Observatory recently negotiated a cooperation agreement under which Nigerian astronomers will be able to access the South African portion of time on SALT. It is envisaged that similar access agreements will be concluded with other countries as a means to grow the African user community of SALT. Buoyed by the successful track record in the construction of SALT, the South African government has supported a bid to host the Square Kilometre

ASTRONOMY RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA

61

Array. If this bid succeeds, the southern African region will have some of the world’s premier ground-based observatories for optical, gamma-ray and radio astronomy, with remarkable potential for the growth of multiwavelength astrophysics in the region. The capacity-building eﬀorts of organisations such as the IAU, COSPAR and the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa are starting to yield fruit in terms of producing a new generation of African astronomers. Working in partnerships greatly enhances the impact of capacity-building activities. In order to be sustainable, capacity-building activities should form part of a comprehensive long-term programme. Such a programme should address pipeline issues to ensure that interventions by the diﬀerent roleplayers are mutually supportive and appropriately phased. In order to facilitate coordination of activities by the diﬀerent organisations, consideration should be given to the establishment of a capacity-building forum. Such a forum could facilitate improved dialogue between the scientiﬁc unions and scientiﬁc institutes, the development sector (e.g. UNESCO) and the developing countries to link the players with the technical means (the scientiﬁc community) to the communities with the needs (the developing countries) through provision of support for development of infrastructure and operation of projects by the development sector. An organisation like the Working Group on Space Sciences in Africa would be well placed to initiate such a development. Acknowledgements I acknowledge with gratitude the generous support received from the following organizations for the various capacity-building initiatives described in this paper: Observatoire Midi Pyr´en´ees, South African National Research Foundation, South African Astronomical Observatory, IAU, COSPAR, United Nations Oﬃce for Outer Space Aﬀairs and UNESCO. I also acknowledge the contributions by many colleagues who have participated in the capacity-building activities funded by these organisations, as well as the insights I have gained from working with them. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. References 1. 2. 3. 4.

Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Kurtz, M.J. & Murray, S.S. 2003, African Skies 8, 7. Eichhorn, G. 2004, Astron. & Geophys. 45:3, 7. Feast, M.W. 2002, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 3, Ed. A. Heck, Astrophysics and Space Science Library 280, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht (ISBN 1-4020-0812-0), p. 153. Flanagan, C.S., Frecura, F.A.M. & Woerman, B. (Eds.) 2002, Proceedings of the

62

PETER MARTINEZ “Pulsar Studies in Africa”, Workshop held at the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory, 34 Dec 2001, African Skies 7. Heck, A. 2000, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 1, Ed. A. Heck, Astrophysics and Space Science Library 256, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht (ISBN 1-7923-6671-9), p. 7. Hinton, J.A. 2004, New Astron.Rev. 48, 3313 . Isobe, S. 2003, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Astrophysics and Space Science Library 310 Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht (ISBN 1-4020-1526-7), p. 296. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M. & Murray, S.S. 2005, J. American Soc. Inform. Sc. Technol. 56, 364 . Martinez, P., Kilkenny, D.M., Cox, G. et al. 2002, Mon. Not. Astron. Soc. Southern Africa 61, 102. Martinez, P. 2004, in Developing Basic Space Science World-Wide, Eds. W. Wamsteker, R. Albrecht & H.J. Haubold, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 183. Martinez, P. 2005, IAU Inform. Bull. 96, p. 20. NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development5 . Stobie, R.S., Meiring, K. & Buckley, D.A.H. 2000, in Proc. SPIE, 4003, Ed. Ph. Dierickx , p. 355. Whitelock, P. 2004, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Astrophysics and Space Science Library 310, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht (ISBN 1-4020-2570-X), p. 39. Willmore, A.P. 2005, Adv. Sp. Res., in press.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

3

See also http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/ Also available at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/∼kurtz/jasist1-abstract.html 5 http://www.nepad.org/ 4

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand [email protected]

Abstract. Although New Zealand is a young country, astronomy played a signiﬁcant role in its early exploration and discovery during the three voyages of Cook from 1769. In the later 19th century several expeditions came to New Zealand to observe the transits of Venus of 1874 and 1882 and New Zealand’s rich history of prominent amateur astronomers dates from this time. The Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand (founded in 1920) has catered for the amateur community. Professional astronomy however had a slow start in New Zealand. The Carter Observatory was founded in 1941. But it was not until astronomy was taken up by New Zealand’s universities, notably by the University of Canterbury from 1963, that a ﬁrm basis for research in astronomy and astrophysics was established. Mt John University Observatory with its four optical telescopes (largest 1.8 m) is operated by the University of Canterbury and is the main base for observational astronomy in the country. However four other New Zealand universities also have an interest in astronomical research at the present time. There is also considerable involvement in large international projects such as MOA, SALT, AMOR, IceCube and possibly SKA.

1. New Zealand’s Astronomical Heritage Few nations can claim that astronomy played a pivotal role in their founding and history. But New Zealand can be proud that astronomy was one of the principal motivations which led to the exploration of this land, and its eventual settlement by Europeans. For when Captain James Cook ﬁrst came to New Zealand in 1769, it was the observation of a transit of Venus that was one of the reasons for his being sent by the Royal Society of London to the south Paciﬁc. 63 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 63–86. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

64

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

Very probably, though less well chronicled, astronomy also played an important role for the Polynesian settlement of New Zealand some hundreds of years before Cook. For astro-navigation may have been an important aspect of allowing the Maori to make long sea voyages across the Paciﬁc that ended in their settlement of Aotearoa (the Maori name for New Zealand), around one thousand years ago. 2. Cook’s Voyages and the Transit of Venus In 1769 the Royal Society organized an expedition to the South Seas for the purpose of making observations of the transit of Venus across the Sun, a rare event which had occurred in 1761 and was to occur again in 1769. Observations of the timing of this event at diﬀerent locations on Earth were known in principle to give the absolute dimensions of the solar system, including the absolute value of the Astronomical Unit. Cook and his astronomical assistant Charles Green on the Endeavour duly observed the transit from Tahiti on June 3, 1769. Analysis of the data was not however very successful in the aim of calibrating the Astronomical Unit. Cook then sailed on to New Zealand, and here the major task of mapping the New Zealand coastline ensued. With Green he made important observations from Mercury Bay on the Coromandel peninsula, where they observed a transit of Mercury. Charles Green can be regarded as the ﬁrst professional astronomer to work in New Zealand. Sadly he became ill on the return voyage to Cape Town and died in January 1771 before his arrival back in England. Later, on the second (1773-74) and third (1777) expeditions, extensive astronomical observations for determining latitude and longitude using precise Kendall chronometers were made by Cook and his astronomers from Dusky Sound (SW of South Island) and from Ship Cove in Queen Charlotte Sound (northern tip of South Island). William Wales (2nd voyage), William Bayly (2nd and 3rd voyages) and James King (3rd voyage) were the accompanying astronomers. More information on this early nautical astronomical history of New Zealand can be found in Wayne Orchiston’s monograph: Nautical Astronomy in New Zealand (Orchiston 1998). There is an article on Cook’s voyages that discusses the transit of Venus observations in some detail by George Eiby (1970). 3. Maori Astronomy The Maori from early times have developed some astronomical knowledge which is closely entwined with Maori mythology. Certainly the Maori recognized several constellations or stellar patterns in the sky, the brighter

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

65

planets as well as the Sun and the Moon. The Pleiades, Matariki, played a key role in determining the beginning of the Maori new year when this star cluster is seen to rise just before dawn. The extent to which the Maori used the stars for navigation on their long voyages is uncertain, but may have been of some importance. What is certain is that the Maori have developed a rich mythology based on Rangi (sky father), Papa (the Earth mother) and their progeny of Te Ra (the Sun), Te Marama (the Moon) and Nga Whetu (the stars), and that they understood the relationship of celestial phenomena to the seasons on the land and the growing of crops. The standard early reference on Maori astronomy is Elsdon Best’s monograph The Astronomical Knowledge of the Maori (Best 1922). Also one can refer to a paper by Kingsley-Smith (1967) on Maori star lore, as well as The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Maori Myth and Legend by Margaret Orbell (1995) and Wayne Orchiston’s Nautical Astronomy in New Zealand (1998). 4. The Transits of Venus of 1874 and 1882 The link between New Zealand and transits of Venus became once again an important part of New Zealand astronomical history for the next pair of transits after Cook. These were in December 1874 and December 1882, and in both cases observable from New Zealand. An American expedition to Queenstown in 1874 is well documented, and was one of seven expeditions sent into the Paciﬁc from the US Naval Observatory in Washington. A total of 237 photographs were obtained of the transit from Queenstown. Another expedition from the USNO went to the Chatham Islands. Once again, the calibration of the scale of the solar system was the prime motivation. A paper by Dick, Love and Orchiston discusses the Queenstown expedition (Dick et al. 1998). See also Orchiston et al. (2000). A British expedition to Burnham near Christchurch had cloud for the transit. Further expeditions were mounted for the 1882 transit, the British again going to Burnham and the Americans to Auckland. Several amateur astronomers in New Zealand also observed this event. Orchiston (1998) gives details. The reader should also refer to a paper on early New Zealand astronomy by McIntosh (1970). 5. Notable Early Amateur Astronomers New Zealand has an illustrious history of distinguished amateurs who have made excellent observations at their home observatories. John Grigg (18381920) was one such early amateur. He was born in Kent, migrated to New Zealand in 1863, established a music shop in Thames and built himself an observatory there in 1884 and became an avid comet-hunter. He was the discoverer or co-discoverer of three comets that bear his name, in 1902,

66

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

1903 and 1907, and he was one of the ﬁrst to undertake astro-photography in New Zealand (Orchiston 2001). Others followed, taking advantage of the clear unpolluted southern skies and the spirit of do-it-yourself innovation that prevailed in the early colony. Thus Henry Skey (1836-1914) in Otago (Campbell 2001), Thomas King (1858-1916) in Wellington (Seymour 1995), Arthur Atkinson (1833-1902) in Nelson, James Townsend (1815-1894) in Christchurch and Arthur Beverley (1822-1907) in Dunedin were all notable amateurs who equipped their private observatories with small telescopes, and many of these were inspired by the 1882 transit of Venus to take up and further pursue astronomy. The reader is referred to Orchiston’s (1998) book Nautical Astronomy in New Zealand for further reference material. New Zealand even had an accomplished optician and telescope maker in Joseph Ward (1862-1927), who helped to establish the Ward Observatory in Wanganui, and whose telescopes included a 52cm Newtonian reﬂector (built 1924), which for many years was the largest telescope in New Zealand (Calder 1978, Orchiston 2002). 6. The First Professional Astronomers In 1863 the ﬁrst ‘oﬃcial’ observatory was established by the Wellington provincial government. Archdeacon Arthur Stock (1823-1901) was put in charge and, equipped with clocks and a transit telescope, he was able to provide a time service and he operated a time ball from the custom house on Queen’s wharf. By 1868 this became the Colonial Time-service Observatory with Sir James Hector, a noted New Zealand geologist, as director and Stock as observer. He was New Zealand’s ﬁrst resident professional astronomer (see Hayes 1987 and Orchiston 1998). Thomas King succeeded Stock, and C.E. Adams succeeded King in 1911. Adams distinguished himself as a computer of cometary orbits as well as an observer. The Colonial Observatory was resited in Kelburn in 1907 and known then as the Hector Observatory. The Hector Observatory was renamed the Dominion Observatory in 1926. Professional astronomers were not numerous in early New Zealand, but two other individuals of note deserve mention. Alexander William Bickerton (1842-1929) was foundation professor of chemistry and physics at the Canterbury University College from 1874 until he was ﬁred by the college council in 1902, ostensibly for poor management. Bickerton was a brilliant but unorthodox lecturer, whose star pupil was Ernest Rutherford. But he had a bizarre and largely untenable theory (the partial impact theory, as he called it) on stellar collisions as the origin of variable stars, including novae, and for the origin of the solar system. These theories led to his papers being

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

67

Figure 1. Map of New Zealand, showing the principal places mentioned in this chapter.

68

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

shunned and discredited by the professional community in England. More on this colourful character is discussed by Gerry Gilmore (1982). There is also a biography by Burdon (1956). A.C. (Charles) Giﬀord (1861-1948), who taught mathematics at Wellington College, was also a keen astronomer and he had access to one of the best equipped school observatories. His theories of the origin of the lunar craters by meteorite impact were published in 1924 and 1930, and were an early exposition of what is now recognized as the correct interpretation of the lunar landscape. The College acquired a 5-inch Zeiss refractor in 1924, and this was fully restored in 2002 after falling into disrepair. When the Carter Observatory was founded in 1941, Murray Geddes (1909-44) was appointed the ﬁrst director. However he never formally took up this position, being called away on war service and he did not return to New Zealand. Ivan Thomsen (1910-69) was his successor from 1946 to 1969. He had previously worked under C.E. Adams at the Dominion Observatory. 7. New Zealand Amateur Astronomers in the 20th Century The ﬁne tradition of amateur astronomy in New Zealand continued throughout the 20th century and up until the present time. This review mentions just three of some distinction among the many who have pursued astronomy as a hobby. One was Ronald McIntosh (1904-1977), who became a distinguished meteor observer. In 1935 he published his Index to southern meteor showers (McIntosh 1935). He also monitored meteor rates and analysed the methods of obtaining meteor orbits from the observed path. McIntosh published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, he directed the Meteor Section of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand (RASNZ), and for a time he also directed the Auckland Planetarium. Frank Bateson (b. 1909) in Tauranga is another distinguished astronomer who founded the Variable Star Section (VSS) of RASNZ in 1927 and has directed it from that time until December 2004. Not only was he a prodigious observer of variable stars, but his VSS of RASNZ collated observations from dozens of other observers in New Zealand and overseas – see Bateson (2001). This great body of material has resulted in the publication of charts, circulars and publications containing visual observations of many stars. Dwarf novae (see for example Bateson 1978), novae and Mira stars were all studied in much detail, and the fact that many variables had data collected in a continuous record going back six or seven decades has provided an invaluable data resource for many professionals. Frank Bateson was also instrumental in establishing Mt John University

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

69

Observatory in the early 1960s, when he conducted an extensive site-testing campaign on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania to determine the best location (see Bateson 1964). Mt John was chosen as a result, and Bateson became the ﬁrst astronomer-in-charge in 1965 until his retirement in 1970. For a tribute to Frank Bateson, see Budding (1989) and Jones (1989). Finally Albert Jones (b. 1920), who lives in Nelson, is the world’s most proliﬁc observer of variable stars. Since the early 1940s he has amassed over half a million visual observations, in some years as many as 13 000 annually, and his magnitude estimates are distinguished by exceptional reliability and precision. Albert Jones was a co-discoverer of the famous supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud and he discovered comets in 1946 and 2001. A tribute to Albert Jones is given by Austin (1994). 8. Some Signiﬁcant Early Telescopes in New Zealand New Zealand has been fortunate to acquire some remarkable old telescopes by famous manufacturers in America and Great Britain. Most of them came here as a result of the amateur astronomers in New Zealand. A selection based on aperture and pedigree is mentioned here. Thomas Cooke of York, England, was one of the most famous telescope makers in Britain in the 1860s. Several New Zealand telescopes are of Cooke manufacture. The largest and oldest of the telescopes in working order is the Ward Observatory Cooke refractor of 9.5 inches aperture in Wanganui. The telescope’s optics were made between 1859 and 1860, and the instrument was purchased for the Wanganui City Observatory (later renamed the Ward Observatory) in 1903. Joseph Ward was the ﬁrst observer with this telescope (Harper et al. 1990, Nankivell 1994). Another Cooke telescope of almost the same size (originally 9 13 inches, later 9 inches from 1896) was built in York in 1866-67 for the well-known English amateur, Edward Crossley (see Andrews & Budding 1992). This telescope came to New Zealand in 1907 for the Meanee Observatory, near Napier, of the Rev. David Kennedy (1864-1936). In the mid-1920s the Wellington City Council purchased it from Kennedy’s estate and by 1942 the telescope was installed in the newly opened Carter Observatory in Kelburn. It received its third objective lens in 2001. The largest refracting telescope in New Zealand came here in 1962. It is the 18-inch refractor by the American optician John Brashear, which was formerly erected at the Flower Observatory of the University of Pennsylvania. This telescope dates from 1897, though the Brashear optics are a few years older. It was to have been installed at Mt John, but funds for the building were never realized. Now there are plans to donate this famous old telescope to a museum.

70

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

One old reﬂector of note was made by George With and John Browning in England, probably about 1870, and was acquired by J.H. Pope, an Otago school teacher in about 1871. The subsequent chequered history of this telescope is given by Dodson (1996). Another With-Browning reﬂector, of aperture 9 14 inches, was owned by the amateur observer Henry Skey (1836-1914) in Dunedin. The telescope passed to Skey’s son in 1914 and eventually was donated to Ashburton High School in 1925. The telescope was refurbished and housed in a new building between 1974 and 1977 (Evans & Lucas 1989). 9. The Royal Astronomical Society of NZ and Other Regional Societies The New Zealand Astronomical Society (NZAS) was founded in 1920, and formed a nation-wide umbrella organization to which the many regional societies have become aﬃliated. In 1946, the NZAS acquired its royal charter, and accordingly became the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand. It is a rare example of an astronomical society that ﬂourishes with both amateur and professional members, and indeed one of the strengths of the New Zealand astronomical scene has been the healthy interaction between these two communities. The society is run by a council and president. It contains a number of sections for diﬀerent interest groups. Of these the Variable Star Section, founded by Frank Bateson in 1927 and directed by him until 2004, is certainly the most famous. Other sections cover aurorae, comets and minor planets, occultations and photometry; astronomical computing and meteors sections have also existed in the past. The society holds an annual general meeting and conference, publishes the journal Southern Stars and also a monthly newsletter. More information on RASNZ can be found from the society’s web site1 . Astronomical societies are to be found in all the main centres in New Zealand, with over 600 members for the strong Auckland Astronomical Society. As many as 24 regional societies are currently active in New Zealand. Many of these societies now run their own observatories (for example the Joyce Memorial Observatory of the Canterbury Astronomical Society near Christchurch). 10. Carter and Auckland Observatories The Carter Observatory in Wellington came into being in 1941 as a result of a generous benefaction by the Wellington businessman, politician and farmer, Charles Rooking Carter, on his death in 1896. The original bequest 1

http://www.rasnz.org.nz/

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

71

of £2000 was not suﬃcient to found an observatory, but after many delays, the Carter Observatory came into being in December 1941. Murray Geddes, a graduate of Victoria University College, Wellington, and a school teacher, became the ﬁrst director. However war service prevented him from taking up the position. He was a keen observer of meteors, sunspots, variable stars and aurorae. The Carter Observatory2 houses the 9-inch Cooke refractor, and in 1968 it acquired the 41cm Ruth Crisp reﬂector. In 1977 Carter Observatory was given the title “National Observatory of New Zealand”. A planetarium was built there in 1992 and the role of the observatory as a regional resource for astronomy education and public outreach has thereby been strengthened. The Auckland Observatory on One Tree Hill opened in 1967 and houses a 50cm Zeiss Cassegrain reﬂector funded from a private donation. It has been used for photometry of variable stars. The telescope was fully restored in 2003. The Observatory is part of the Auckland Stardome3 which features a Zeiss Planetarium, completed in 1997. 11. Astronomy in New Zealand Universities Although at the present time astronomy as a subject for teaching and research is very much concentrated at the University of Canterbury, several of New Zealand’s other universities have also had or do have an interest in teaching and researching into astronomy. At present Canterbury’s Department of Physics and Astronomy has ﬁve academic staﬀ who specialize in optical astronomy, mainly with interests in stars. In addition one staﬀ member has an interest in the solar system, in particular meteoroid dust particles in the solar system (observations of their orbits are made at the meteor radar facility at Birdlings Flat near Christchurch) and two staﬀ members are interested in cosmology or astro-particle physics. One of these is a theoretician specializing in general relativity and gravitation, the other works on problems of neutrino astrophysics, and in particular the opportunity of detecting neutrinos from outer space by the interaction with the ice shelf in Antarctica (the so-called international IceCube project). Canterbury also has academic staﬀ with interests in diﬀerent aspects of astronomy and space science in other departments. Thus the Department of Electronic and Computer engineering has an interest in astronomical imaging through a turbulent terrestrial atmosphere and the techniques of adaptive optics, the Department of Chemistry has an interest in interstellar chemistry and planetary atmospheres, and the Department of Geological Sciences has an interest in planetary geology and vulcanology. This wide 2 3

http://www.carterobs.ac.nz/ http://www.stardome.org.nz/

72

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

range of expertise makes Canterbury the clear leader in astronomy amongst the eight universities in New Zealand. Four other universities currently have signiﬁcant programmes in teaching and research, though each has only one or two academic staﬀ in astronomy. Thus Auckland University collaborates in the MOA project (see below), an international programme with Japanese scientists for which the observations are made at Mt John. Victoria University of Wellington also is part of this project. At the Auckland University of Technology, two staﬀ members have an interest in radio astronomy at the newly established Centre for Radiophysics and Space Research. At Massey University’s Albany campus, one staﬀ member in mathematics has an interest in stellar dynamics while another is analysing CCD data for the MOA microlensing project. Otago and Waikato universities have also employed astronomers in the past, but these astronomical programmes have now lapsed. Having said that, all New Zealand universities teach physics and most of the physics programmes oﬀer some astronomy, mainly at an introductory level. Only at Canterbury can courses be done at any level from years one to three (for a BSc degree) or at BSc Honours level (year 4). Canterbury also oﬀers a master’s degree in astronomy. Canterbury, Auckland and Victoria universities have all had recent PhD students in astronomy. Indeed Canterbury typically has 8 to 10 graduate students (MSc or PhD) enrolled at any one time. Information about the teaching and research in astronomy at Canterbury can be obtained from the web4 . 12. Mt John University Observatory Mt John University Observatory was founded in 1965, as a joint project between the universities of Pennsylvania and Canterbury. The observatory is located at Lake Tekapo, in the centre of New Zealand’s South Island, at a dark-sky site where there is a maximum chance of clear skies. Although the involvement of Pennsylvania was active for the ﬁrst ten years at Mt John, this is no longer the case and since about 1975 the observatory has been eﬀectively run by the University of Canterbury. The ﬁrst major instrument to be installed there were three astrographs used for sky photography, of apertures 100, 125 and 250mm, and all mounted on a single equatorial mount under a sliding roof. The astrographs came from the University of Pennsylvania and they were used in the late 1960s to produce a photographic atlas of the southern sky, known as the Canterbury Sky Atlas (Doughty et al. 1972). This was in fact a southern extension of a similar northern hemisphere photographic survey made from Lick Observatory in California. 4

http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

73

Figure 2. Aerial view of the summit of Mt John, October 2004. The 1.8m MOA telescope is in the centre foreground, the 0.6m Boller & Chivens telescope is to its left and the 0.6m Optical Craftsmen telescope is the dome on the right. The 1m telescope is further to the right, out of the picture. Lake Tekapo is in the background, some 300m below the summit. (Photo courtesy of Tim Rayward, Air Safaris, Lake Tekapo)

In 1970 Pennsylvania provided a 60cm aperture Cassegrain reﬂecting telescope for Mt John. This telescope is known as the Optical Craftsmen telescope, and it was equipped with a photoelectric photometer for measuring the brightness of stars. Mainly variable stars are the topic of interest, and pulsating, eruptive, rotating (active chromosphere) and eclipsing variables have all been studied at Mt John over several decades. In 1975 Canterbury provided a second telescope made by the ﬁrm of Boller and Chivens in the United States. This telescope is also of 60cm aperture, and it was the ﬁrst to be used for stellar spectroscopy at Mt John, from 1976. It has also been used for photoelectric photometry and for direct photography of the sky. But since 1995 this telescope was completely reﬁtted and given a new drive and f/6.25 wide-ﬁeld Cassegrain optical system to make it suitable for the MOA project, which involves CCD imaging of crowded star ﬁelds for the Japan-New Zealand microlensing project. The MOA project is discussed further below. The 1m McLellan telescope was designed and built at Canterbury and installed at Mt John in 1986. Although it can be used for photometry and imaging, the great majority of all time allocated on it is for high resolution spectroscopy of stars. For this purpose the Hercules spectrograph has been used since 2001. Before that time, another ´echelle spectrograph (now retired) was in use at either Cassegrain focus or from an optical ﬁbre feed.

74

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

Studies are made of precise stellar radial velocities, binary and variable stars and the chemical abundances of the elements are studied in a variety of stars. A fourth reﬂecting telescope at Mt John was installed in late 2004. It was constructed by the Nishimura Co. in Kyoto, Japan for the MOA microlensing project. It has a 1.8m aperture and alt-az mounting and a large 10-chip 80-megapixel CCD camera is mounted at the f/3 prime focus. This telescope will be used exclusively for CCD photometry in the MOA project. Further information about Mt John can be obtained from the web5,6 . 13. The 1m McLellan Telescope The design for the McLellan 1m telescope was undertaken at Canterbury in the early 1980s, with the assistance of Norman Rumsey and Garry Nankivell working at the Physics and Engineering Laboratory (now Industrial Research Ltd) of the former Department of Scientiﬁc and Industrial Research (DSIR). The optical design is a Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain, with an ellipsoidal ﬁgure for the primary and spherical secondary. That system has rarely been used in the past because of the signiﬁcant oﬀ-axis aberrations. But Rumsey designed a three-lens corrector system giving good images over a one-degree ﬁeld. The Dall-Kirkham optics were easier to make than the more traditional Ritchey-Chr´etien arrangement. The optical ﬁguring of the mirrors was undertaken by Garry Nankivell at Canterbury in 1981. Low expansion Zerodur ceramic was used. The mechanical design and construction was by technical staﬀ at the University of Canterbury. It is a traditional asymmetric single-pier equatorial mounting. The electronics and control system were also a local Canterbury product, including the drive system, encoding and computer control. The whole telescope was completed in late 1985 and installed at Mt John in early 1986 in a building formerly used by the US Air Force for tracking satellites, but which was completely reﬁtted and modiﬁed to accommodate the new telescope. Canterbury built an 8m dome for the new installation. The telescope was opened in July 1986 and named after Professor Alistair McLellan, the former head of the Physics Department at Canterbury. It has been in almost uninterrupted operation on clear nights ever since 1986, with stellar spectroscopy being the main area of research for which it has been used. The photometry of stars with a CCD camera and the tracking of asteroids are other noteworthy projects undertaken with this telescope. 5 6

http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/ http://www.mjuo.canterbury.ac.nz/mjuo

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

75

Figure 3. The 1m McLellan telescope under test in a workshop at the University of Canterbury, December 1985, just prior to installation at Mt John. The Florida spectrograph is at the Cassegrain focus. The entire telescope was designed and built at the University of Canterbury. (Photo courtesy of the University of Canterbury)

76

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

14. The Hercules Spectrograph In 1975-77 Canterbury built a high dispersion ´echelle spectrograph for Mt John based on a design provided by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. The new ´echelle spectrograph, which was one of the ﬁrst of its type in the southern hemisphere, was mounted on the Boller and Chivens 60cm telescope in 1977 and used for recording the spectra of bright stars. At ﬁrst these were recorded photographically, but later with electronic image intensiﬁer tubes, then with an electronic diode array digital detector and ﬁnally with a charge-couple device (CCD). This instrument was retired in 2001. In 1998 work had begun on a much larger and more powerful spectrograph, the High Eﬃciency and Resolution Canterbury University Large Echelle Spectrograph (HERCULES) which was designed and built at Canterbury. This instrument is linked to the telescope by a 20m optical ﬁbre and the whole spectrograph is mounted inside a vacuum tank in a specially insulated room to maintain exceptional stability. The spectrograph is described by Hearnshaw et al. (2002). The HERCULES spectrograph was installed in 2001 and had its ﬁrst light in April of that year. Today it is the main instrument used on the McLellan telescope. It is used to analyse the spectra of variable stars and, for example, to measure precise velocities of stars using the Doppler eﬀect. More information on the Hercules spectrograph can be found on the web7 . 15. The MOA Project If by chance a massive object (a star or perhaps a black hole) passes precisely between us and a distant star, then a phenomenon known as gravitational microlensing can take place. This is caused by the bending of light rays by the gravitational ﬁeld of the intermediate massive object (the lens), with the result that the light from the distant star can be ampliﬁed in brightness, typically for a few weeks or a month while the alignment of the source star, lens and Earth is nearly perfect. Although this was predicted many decades ago by Einstein (1936), the ﬁrst microlensing event was only discovered in the early 1990s. The main reason is that the alignments are so rare, that millions of stars have to be searched to ﬁnd one undergoing microlensing. In 1995 a project began at Mt John, mainly supported by Auckland, Canterbury and Victoria universities in New Zealand and Nagoya University in Japan. About 30 scientists from these four universities and several 7

http://ww.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/astronomy/hercules/

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

77

Figure 4. Opening of the 1.8m alt-az MOA telescope at Mt John University Observatory, 1 December 2004. About 140 guests, mostly from Japan and New Zealand, attended the opening ceremony. The telescope was manufactured by the Nishimura Co., Kyoto, Japan, and will be dedicated to the MOA microlensing project. (Photo courtesy of the University of Canterbury)

78

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

other institutions are involved in the project. It is known as the MOA project, meaning Microlensing Observations in Astrophysics. All the observations for MOA have so far been made with the 60cm Boller and Chivens telescope at Mt John, using observers from both New Zealand and Japan. The objects viewed are the Magellanic Clouds and the Galactic Bulge. In these regions of the sky millions of stars can be observed in one exposure, giving a reasonable chance of ﬁnding microlensing events should they occur. Fifty or so events are discovered annually by the MOA team. The principal aims of MOA are to discover and make observations of microlensing events in order to learn more about dark matter such as black holes in the Galaxy and possibly to discover planets in orbit around other stars (if the lens is a star, which normally will not be bright enough to be visible, happens to have a planet in orbit around it, then this may inﬂuence the way the source star’s light is ampliﬁed in a characteristic way that can allow new planets to be discovered). In fact MOA has discovered one planet using this technique in 2003, and possibly another in 1998. The 2003 event is the only probable planet discovery by microlensing (Bond et al. 2004). In 2003 the Japanese principal scientist in the MOA project obtained a grant of about 430 million yen for a new larger telescope for the MOA project. This new 1.8m telescope was constructed at the Nishimura Company in Japan and installed at Mt John in October 2004. It has a Russian made Astrosital mirror and the mounting is alt-az. A large CCD camera with 80 million pixels and covering a ﬁeld of view of about 1.5 degrees is mounted at the f/3 prime focus. The optics for the new MOA telescope were designed in New Zealand at Industrial Research Limited, who also made the four corrector lenses, which are mounted just in front of the CCD detector. More information on the MOA project can be found on the web8 . 16. SALT SALT is the Southern African Large Telescope. This is a large 10m class telescope of novel design currently nearing completion at the South African Astronomical Observatory at Sutherland some 400 km NE of Cape Town. The telescope is now (February 2005) nearing completion. In May 2000 the University of Canterbury became a partner in the SALT consortium, being one of about a dozen partner countries or institutions in South Africa, the United States, Poland, Germany and Britain. Canterbury bought a roughly 5% share in SALT in return for funding for the telescope and for the design and construction of one of three major instruments. In Canterbury’s case, the instrument bid for was the high resolution ´echelle spectrograph, similar 8

http://www.phys.auckland.ac.nz/moa/index.html

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

79

Figure 5. View of the MOA 1.8m telescope building at Mt John, looking north over Lake Tekapo (right) and Lake Alexandrina (left) to some of the foothills of the Southern Alps in the South Island of New Zealand. (Photo courtesy of Fraser Gunn, Lake Tekapo)

80

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

to but larger than HERCULES now in operation at Mt John. At the time of writing the start of construction of the new instrument for SALT is expected later in 2005. SALT will also have a lower resolution spectrograph (for observing fainter objects) known as PFIS (prime focus imaging camera) being built by the University of Wisconsin, which is one of the SALT partners, and a direct imaging CCD camera known as SALTICAM, being built at the South African Astronomical Observatory in Cape Town. Once SALT is operational Canterbury astronomers will have the opportunity to obtain data on one of the world’s largest telescopes and to do research into fainter and more distant objects beyond our local region of the universe. More information on the SALT project and on the Canterbury spectrograph being designed for SALT is available on the web9,10 . 17. AMOR The Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Canterbury has an active group working on the dynamics of interplanetary dust grains. The group operates a radar facility (Advanced Meteor Orbit Radar, AMOR) that determines the trajectories of interplanetary grains near the Earth (Baggaley et al. 1994, Baggaley 2001). The generation of plasma during the ablation in the atmosphere of such grains (size >∼ 30µm) provides a target, the geometry and speed of which are sensed by radar. The AMOR group operates the facility as a collaborative programme supported by the European Space Agency via the operation centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt. The radar work has provided complementary aspects to ESA’s spacecraft detections of interplanetary dust by in-situ detections via the missions Galileo, Ulysses, Helios and Cassini, and the particle collections and Earthreturn by the current Stardust mission. Whereas present space missions provide very limited dynamical information, the radar tracking can provide heliocentric orbits and sources of the material that makes up the solar system dust cloud. One aspect of the programme is to provide models for the spacecraft impact hazard. In addition to the near-Sun environment, the radar project has made the discovery of dust grains entering the solar system from outside (Taylor et al. 1996) and has been able to map the inﬂow of this material (Baggaley & Galligan 2001). Such grains are large enough to penetrate into the heliosphere and are undetectable by conventional long sight-line stellar methods. The sources of dust within the solar neighbourhood can also be mapped. 9 10

http://www.salt.ac.za/ http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/astronomy/salt

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

81

The facility makes use of the time-of-ﬂight between sites separated by approx 10 km to gain the velocity components; sensing the ablating grains’ speed via the radar signal phase characteristics ensures quality velocity calibration enabling heliocentric orbit uncertainties of < 1◦ and 5% in size elements. The programme is under continuous operation, providing surveillance of the Earth’s dust environment with > 106 orbits in the data base. Current targeted sources are cometary streams, asteroidal collisional debris material, Earth-orbit space debris and interstellar grains. 18. Neutrino Astrophysics: RICE and IceCube The particle astrophysics group at the University of Canterbury is currently working on two neutrino experiments located at the South Pole. Icecube is a cubic-kilometre detector at present (2005) under construction. It is an international collaboration including researchers from institutes in the United States, Europe, Japan and New Zealand. It will consist of eighty strings each holding sixty photomultiplier tubes deployed between 1.4 km and 2.4 km below the ice surface. The primary signal will be long range muons from muon-neutrinos interacting with nucleons in the ice. The science goals include the search for transient neutrino sources like gamma-ray bursts or supernovae, as well as the study of candidates of steady or variable sources of neutrinos such as active galactic nuclei and supernova remnants. There will be an eﬀort to search for sources of cosmic rays. The detector can also be used to search for neutrinos from super heavy particles related to topological defects, as well as to search for magnetic monopoles and any new physical phenomena at very high energies. The ﬁrst Icecube string was recently deployed in the 2004-05 southern summer. Full deployment should take about ﬁve to six years. For information on Icecube, see its web site11 . The group at Canterbury is also working on the Radio Ice Cerenkov Experiment (RICE). The lead group is at the University of Kansas in the United States. RICE is also a neutrino detector and its primary signal is a short burst of radio waves emitted after an electron-neutrino interacts with a nucleon in the ice and the energy is dissipated through an electromagnetic cascade. The science goals are similar to Icecube, but RICE probes a higher energy regime and uses a diﬀerent ﬂavour of neutrino. The current RICE detector consists of about twenty radio antennas at various depths between 100 m and 300 m below the ice surface and 100 m wide. The detector is sensitive to electron neutrinos of energy above 1 PeV, and is sensitive to interactions in the ice up to 1 km away from the antenna array. Analysis of the data thus far has revealed no unambiguous ultra-high energy neutrino candidates. This has allowed RICE to place upper limits on various 11

http://icecube.wisc.edu/

82

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

models of cosmic ray neutrino sources (Kravchenko et al. 2003). Plans for an upgrade and expansion of the experiment are currently being made. 19. Radioastronomy in New Zealand and the SKA A new development in 2004 was the establishment of the Centre for Radiophysics and Space Research at the Auckland University of Technology. This new centre is led by Professor Sergei Gulyaev and the aim is to develop a VLBI capability in New Zealand in collaboration with radio-astronomers in Australia. The ﬁrst goal is to acquire a telecommunications dish from a telecommunications company in New Zealand and convert it into a radio telescope and link it to the Australia Telescope VLBI array for the initial trials. This project should proceed during 2005 and beyond. A longer term goal is for New Zealand to become part of Australia’s Square Kilometre Array consortium (ASKAC). If the proposed Square Kilometre Array is sited in Australia, then one or more nodes in the array of antennas could be placed in New Zealand. 20. The future of New Zealand Astronomy Astronomy world-wide has undergone a fundamental revolution over the last hundred years. In most of the 19th century and before, astronomy was ﬁrst of all, an aid to maritime navigation and a means of accurate mapping of localities on the Earth. To this end, time-keeping and astrometry were two of the principal tasks undertaken by astronomers. Starting in the 1860s, changes in the way astronomers in Europe practised their science began to take place. For the ﬁrst time they began to ask fundamental questions about the physical nature and properties of the stars. At ﬁrst physics was hardly advanced enough to provide many answers. But physics also underwent a revolution, and by the early twentieth century astronomers began applying physics to interpret their observations. This revolution was only really successful from the 1920s, when a real understanding of stellar spectra using physics became possible, based on atomic theory and the concept of ionization. The development of New Zealand astronomy mirrors these developments on a world scene. Certainly the ﬁrst New Zealand astronomers practised time-keeping, navigation, the determination of geographical coordinates and astrometry. Later observers studied meteors and comets and theoreticians speculated on the nature of variable stars (Bickerton) and the origin of lunar craters (Giﬀord). It is fair to say that New Zealand was slow, however, to embrace astrophysics. The Carter Observatory, established in 1941, undertook some solar physics, and a photoelectric photometer to measure

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND

83

star brightness was used there soon after the Second World War (Thomsen 1950). But lack of resources prevented a fully-ﬂedged research programme from being developed. Further study of meteors by radar was made at Canterbury in the 1950s and 60s. But only when Mt John Observatory was established with American help in the 1960s can we say that a ﬁrm base in observational astrophysics was established in New Zealand. By this time observatories specializing in astrophysics had already celebrated over 50 years or more of existence in many European countries and in North America, and the Commonwealth Solar Observatory on Mt Stromlo in Canberra, Australia, which was founded in 1924, has also provided a been developed into a strong centre for astrophysics. In this sense, New Zealand has had a late start in astrophysical research. With Mt John now a successful research observatory, with astronomy and astrophysics being taught and researched in ﬁve of New Zealand’s eight universities, and with important contributions to astronomy from a thriving amateur community, and New Zealand’s participation in international astronomy projects such as MOA, IceCube, AMOR and SALT, and the new development of radioastronomy at AUT (with possible participation in the SKA project), the future of astronomy in New Zealand now looks reasonably bright, at least in some areas of astronomy. In spite of a late start, there is no doubt that New Zealand is now making a signiﬁcant mark on the world scene in selected areas of astronomy and astrophysics. Perhaps only about a dozen to twenty professional astronomers actually work in New Zealand (the number depends on how one deﬁnes an astronomer), mainly in our universities. On the other hand about four dozen New Zealanders are professional astronomers overseas, and many have been or are astronomers of international distinction (e.g. Beatrice Tinsley, Gerry Gilmore, Dick Manchester, Andrew Cameron, David Buckley and others). If we add these people to the tally of astronomers in New Zealand, including a dozen or more amateur astronomers who make valuable research contributions, there is no doubt that in proportion to the total population (4.0 million), New Zealanders are making a signiﬁcant contribution to the world of discovery in astrophysics and space science. Acknowledgements The author of this review thanks Alan Gilmore and Pam Kilmartin (both at Mt John University Observatory) for helpful discussions and for drawing my attention to many of the references cited in the text. Dr Surujhdeo Seunarine at Canterbury kindly supplied information on the IceCube and RICE projects and Prof. Jack Baggaley (also at Canterbury) kindly supplied information on the meteor orbit radar AMOR.

84

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26.

Andrews, F.P. & Budding, E. 1992, Carter Observatory’s 9-inch Refractor: The Crossley Connection, Southern Stars 34, 358-366. Austin, R.R.D. 1994, Albert Jones – The Quiet Achiever , Southern Stars 36, 36-42. Baggaley, W.J. 2001, The AMOR Radar: An Eﬃcient Tool for Meteoroid Research, Adv. Space Res. 28(9), 1277-1282. Baggaley, W.J., Bennett, R.G.T., Steel, D.I. & Taylor, A.D. 1994, The Advanced Meteor Orbit Radar: AMOR, Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 35, 293-320. Baggaley W.J. & Galligan G.P. 2001, Mapping the Interstellar Dust Flow into the Solar System, European Space Agency Special Report SP-495, 703. Bateson, F.M. 1964, Final Report on the Site Selection Survey of New Zealand, Publ. Univ. Pennsylvania, Astron. Series X, iv + 139 pp. Bateson, F.M. 1978, The Southern Dwarf Nova, Z Cha, Monthly Not. R. Astron. Soc. 184, 567. Bateson, F.M. 2001, The Variable Star Section, RASNZ, Southern Stars 40, 7-11. Best, E. 1922, The Astronomical Knowledge of the Maori, First published 1922; new edition 1955 published as Dominion Museum Monograph 3. Bond, I.A., Udalski, A., Jaroszynski, M., Rattenbury, N.J., Paczynski, B., Soszynski, I., Wyrzykowski, L., Szymanski, M.K., Kubiak, M., Szewczyk, O., Zebrun, K., Pietrzynski, G., Abe, F., Bennett, D.P., Eguchi, S., Furuta, Y., Hearnshaw, J.B., Kamiya, K., Kilmartin, P.M., Kurata, Y., Masuda, K., Matsubara, Y., Muraki, Y., Noda, S., Okajima, K., Sako, T., Sekiguchi, T., Sullivan, D.J., Sumi, T., Tristram, P.J., Yanagisawa, T. & Yock, P.C.M. 2004, OGLE 2003-BLG-235/MOA 2003-BLG53: A Planetary Microlensing Event, Astrophys. J. 606, L155-L158. Budding, E. 1989, Eightieth birthday of Dr Frank M. Bateson, Southern Stars 33, 169. Burdon, R.M. 1956, Scholar Errant, Pegasus Press, Christchurch, NZ. Calder, D. 1978, Joseph Ward: Pioneer Astronomer and Telescope Maker, Southern Stars 27, 104-108. Campbell, R.N. 2001, Henry Skey 1836-1914, Southern Stars 40/2, 11-12. Dick, S.J., Love, T. & Orchiston, W. 1998, Queenstown and the 1874 Transit of Venus, Carter Observatory Information sheet 11. Dodson, A. 1996, Thye With-Browning Telescope at Pauatahanui, Southern Stars 37, 45-51. Doughty, N.A., Shane, C.D. & Wood, F.B. 1972, The Canterbury Sky Atlas, Publ. Dept. of Physics, Univ. Canterbury, NZ. Eiby, G. 1970, Captain James Cook and the Universe, Southern Stars 23, 140-152. Einstein, A. 1936, Lens-like Action of a Star by the Deviation of Light in the Gravitational Field, Science 84, 506-507. Evans, R.W. & Lucas, K.J. 1989, The Skey-Ashburton College Telescope, Southern Stars 33, 178-187. Gilmore, G. 1982, Alexander William Bickerton: New Zealand’s Colourful Astronomer, Southern Stars 29, 87-108. Harper, C.T., Warren, O. & Austin, R. 1990, J.T. Ward and the NZO Double Stars, Southern Stars 33, 281-294. Hayes, M. 1987, In Spite of his Time, a Biography of R.C. Hayes, NZ Geophysical Society. Hearnshaw, J.B., Barnes, S.I., Kershaw, G.M., Frost, N., Graham, G., Ritchie, R.A. ´ & Nankivell, G.R. 2002, The Hercules Echelle Spectrograph at Mt John, Experimental Astron. 13, 59-76. Jones, A.F. 1989, F.M. Bateson: A Tribute from an Observer, Southern Stars 33, 170-171. Kingsley-Smith, C. 1967, Astronomers in Piupius: Maori Star Lore, Southern Stars 22, 5-10.

ASTRONOMY IN NEW ZEALAND 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

85

Kravchenko, I., Frichter, G.M., Miller, T., Piccirillo, L., Seckel, D., Spiczak, G.M., Adams, J., Seunarine, S., Allen, C., Bean, A., Besson, D., Box, D.J., Buniy, R., Drees, J., McKay, D., Meyers, J., Perry, L., Ralston, J., Razzaque, S. & Schmitz, D.W. 2003, Limits on the Ultra-high Energy Electron Neutrino Flux from the RICE Experiment, Astropart. Phys. 20, 195-213. McIntosh, R.A. 1935, An Index to Southern Meteor Showers, Monthly Not. R. Astron. Soc. 95, 709-718. McIntosh, R.A. 1970, Early New Zealand Astronomy, Southern Stars 23, 101-108. Nankivell, G.R. 1994, The 9.5-inch Cooke Objective of the Wanganui Observatory, Southern Stars 36, 1-9. Orbell, M. 1995, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Maori Myth and Legend, Canterbury University Press, Christchurch. Orchiston, W. 1998, Nautical Astronomy in New Zealand, Publ. Carter Observatory, Wellington. Orchiston, W. 2001, The Thames Observatories of John Grigg, Southern Stars 40 3, 14-22. Orchiston, W. 2002, Joseph Ward: Pioneer New Zealand Telescope Maker, Southern Stars 41, 13-21. Orchiston, W., Love, T. & Dick, S.J. 2000, Reﬁning the Astronomical Unit: Queenstown and the 1874 Transit of Venus, J. Astron. History and Heritage 3, 23-44. Seymour, J.B. 1995, The History of the Thomas King Observatory, Wellington, Southern Stars 36, 102-114. Taylor, A.D., Baggaley, W.J. & Steel, D.I. 1996, Discovery of Interstellar Dust Entering the Earth’s Atmosphere, Nature 380, 323-325. Thomsen, I. 1950, Proceedings of Observatories: Report from Carter Observatory, Wellington, NZ, Monthly Not. R. Astron. Soc. 110, 163.

Appendix Astronomers Currently Working in New Zealand Universities The appendix lists astronomers currently active in teaching and research in New Zealand universities. Only those with tenured staﬀ appointments are listed. University of Auckland (Faculty of Science, Tamaki campus) − Assoc. Prof. Phil Yock (MOA project, cosmic rays) Auckland University of Technology (Centre for Radiophysics and Space Research) − Prof. Sergei Gulyaev (radioastronomy, interstellar medium, theoretical astrophysics) − Dr Slava Kitaev (radioastronomy, computer science, electronics) University of Canterbury (Dept. of Physics and Astronomy) − Dr Jenni Adams (astro-particle physics, IceCube project, neutrinos, cosmology) − Dr Michael Albrow (microlensing, variable stars, globular clusters) − Prof. Jack Baggaley (meteors, meteor orbit radar) − Assoc. Prof. Peter Cottrell (stellar spectra, variable stars, SALT project)

86

JOHN B. HEARNSHAW − Prof. John Hearnshaw (stellar spectra, astronomical spectrographs, history of astrophysics, MOA project, variable stars) − Dr Karen Pollard (variable stars, microlensing) − Dr William Tobin (CCD photometry, eclipsing binaries, astronomical history, MOA project) − Dr David Wiltshire (general relativity, fundamental particle physics, black holes)

University of Canterbury (Mt John University Observatory) − Alan Gilmore (comets, asteroids, variable star photometry, gamma-ray bursters) − Pam Kilmartin (MOA project, comets, asteroids, variable stars) University of Canterbury (Dept. of Chemistry) − Prof. Murray McEwan (planetary atmospheres, interstellar chemistry) University of Canterbury (Dept. of Electronic and Computer Engineering) − Assoc. Prof. Phil Bones (astronomical imaging, image processing) University of Canterbury (Dept. of Geological Sciences) − Prof. Jim Cole (planetary geology and vulcanology) Massey University (Albany campus, School of Mathematics) − Dr Ian Bond (MOA project, CCD photometry, extrasolar planets) − Dr Winston Sweatman (theory of stellar dynamics, MOA project) Victoria University of Wellington (School of Chemical and Physical Sciences) − Assoc. Prof. Denis Sullivan (MOA project, pulsating white dwarf stars)

THE CURRENT STATE OF AUSTRIAN ASTRONOMY

SABINE SCHINDLER

Institut f¨ ur Astrophysik Universit¨ at Innsbruck Technikerstraße 25 A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria [email protected]

Abstract. We report on the current situation of astronomy and astrophysics in Austria: the institutes, the funding situation, international connections. The lack of access to large telescopes is especially pointed out.

1. Overview Astronomy has a long tradition in Austria. Currently, astronomical research is pursued mainly at three university institutes (Fig. 1): Graz1 (with the Solar Observatory Kanzelh¨ ohe2 ), Innsbruck3 and Vienna4 (with the Leopold Figl Astrophysical Observatory5 ). In contrast to most other countries, there is no astrophysics present at other research institutes, like the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) in Germany6 , the Istituto Nazionale di Astroﬁca (INAF) in Italy7 , or the Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS) in France. Note that the Space Research Institute of the Aus¨ trian Academy of Sciences [Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 8 ¨ (OAW)] in Graz focuses mostly on the Solar System using space probes (i.e. in-situ measurements) and does therefore not perform astronomical research as deﬁned by the European Space Agency (ESA). 1

http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/igamwww/ http://www.solobskh.ac.at/ 3 http://astro.uibk.ac.at/ 4 http://www.astro.univie.ac.at/ 5 http://www.astro.univie.ac.at/∼foa/ 6 See e.g. the chapter by J. Tr¨ umper (2004) in OSA 5. (Ed.) 7 See e.g. the chapter by V. Castellani (2003) in OSA 4. (Ed.) 8 http://www.iwf.oeaw.ac.at/ 2

87 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 87–95. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

88

SABINE SCHINDLER

The commissioning of the Figl Observatory in 1970, hosting a 1.5m telescope, represents the last major publically funded facility in Austria for astronomical research. By joining ESA in 1987 an important step towards the integration of Austrian astronomy into the European scientiﬁc community was made. In contrast to almost all other European countries, Austria still does not have any direct access to ground-based telescopes at world-class astronomical sites. This is currently the biggest problem of Austrian astronomy. In order to solve this problem, Austrian astronomers have been trying for a long time to get access to such facilities by joining ESO. In April 2003 and again in February 2005 the “Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development” (which is involved in all major decisions of the Austrian government on research) has issued recommendations to the Austrian Federal Government to start negotiations with the European Southern Observatory (ESO) on an Austrian membership. So far negotiations have not started yet. In line with the current joining-ESO initiative, the Austrian Society for ¨ Astronomy and Astrophysics [Osterreichische Gesellschaft f¨ ur Astronomie 9 ¨ )] was founded in Autumn 2002. This society und Astrophysik (OGAA represents all astronomical researchers and all related research institutes. Over 150 professional astronomers and astrophysicists as well as amateur astronomy associations guarantee a broad level of support for the commu¨ nity. The OGAA is an aﬃliated organisation of the European Astronomical Society and a partner of the German Astronomical Society [Astronomis¨ represents the interests che Gesellschaft (AG10 )]. In this way the OGAA of Austrian astronomy within Europe. All the details of preparations for ¨ Austria’s joining of ESO is handled by the OGAA’s ESO Working Group. 2. Institutes, Personnel and Education The number of permanent positions at the Institutes in Vienna, Innsbruck and Graz amounts to a total of 29, of which 4 are full professors (2 in Vienna, one each in Innsbruck and Graz). Around 5 scientiﬁc positions are currently used to support library and computing facilities as well as teaching administration duties. In addition to these permanent positions, 16 post-doctoral and 37 postgraduate position are funded each year through a number of grants from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF11 ), the Austrian Academy of Sciences ¨ (OAW), the Ministry for Education, Science and Culture (BMBWK12 ), 9

http://www.oegaa.at/ http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/AG/ 11 http://www.fwf.ac.at/ 12 http://www.bmbwk.gv.at/ 10

AUSTRIAN ASTRONOMY

Figure 1.

89

Locations of the three astronomical/astrophysical institutes in Austria.

the Ministry for Traﬃc, Infrastructure and Technology (BMVIT13 ), the Tyrolean Science Foundation and other international sources. This adds up to more than 80 scientiﬁcally active professional astronomers and astrophysicists plus a good number of of MSc students. The age distribution of astrophysicists with permanent positions is shown in Fig. 2. Three Austrian universities oﬀer astronomy as part of their curricula. At the University of Vienna, a Master’s degree in astronomy can be obtained, while in Innsbruck and Graz, astrophysics is oﬀered as part of a larger physics curriculum with a possible specialisation in astrophysics. All of them also oﬀer a PhD degree. In the near future a Bachelor’s degree will be oﬀered as well. Astronomy is popular among the students, e.g., in Autumn 2004 at the University of Vienna a total of 402 students chose astronomy as their major with additional students attending selected classes. The increase in the number of students over several years is demonstrated in Fig. 3, where the number of students successfully passing the course “Introduction to Astronomy” as well as the number of participants of the ﬁrst lab course is shown. The number of graduations in Vienna (Astronomy) and in Innsbruck (Physics) ﬂuctuate around 14/year and 20/year, respectively, 13

http://www.bmvit.gv.at/

90

SABINE SCHINDLER

and are slowly increasing. Currently a reorganisation of the university structures is in progress at all Austrian universities. At the University of Vienna, astronomy is part of the specially promoted ﬁeld of “Matter and Cosmos”. At the University of Innsbruck astrophysics is leading two proposals for such promoted ﬁelds, one on “Astro- and Particle Physics” and one on “High-Performance Computing”, the latter involving several departments. Some astrophysical research is also performed at other Austrian institutes. Intense collaborations exist with the University of Vienna (mathematics, theoretical physics), the Technical University of Vienna (nuclear and theoretical physics), and the University of Innsbruck (computer science, mathematics). 3. Funding and International Collaborations On the average, more than 10 grants are obtained each year through the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF), the Austrian Academy of Sciences ¨ ¨ (OAW) and the Austrian National Bank (ONB). These grants are mostly used to fund non-permanent researchers, while other personnel for research and instrument development is funded directly by the two above-mentioned ministries BMBWK and BMVIT. The quality of astronomical research ¨ is reﬂected in the amount of grants received – from FWF, ONB, OAW, BMBWK, BMVIT, the Austrian Space Agency (ASA), the European Union (EU) mobility programmes, the Swiss National Fonds (SNF), the German Science Foundation (DFG) and others. This amounts to about 1.1 Million Euros per year and thus is roughly six times the available amount of direct funding. Austrian scientists are participating in the development of new satellites – they are co-investigators in the ESA cornerstone mission Herschel, CNES projects such as EVRIS und COROT, and the Canadian project MOST – as well as in new instruments (DENIS, TIMMI2). The international recognition of the Solar Physics research in Graz is demonstrated by the election of its leader as the President of the world-wide Organization of Solar Observatories. In addition to the above-mentioned activities, the Austrian astronomical institutes collaborate with a large number of institutes all over the world. For example, the institute in Graz has collaborations with more than 20 high-ranking solar-physics departments world-wide and the institute in Innsbruck has published articles together with colleagues from 58 institutions in the interval 2000-2004. The Kanzelh¨ ohe Solar Observatory (Fig. 4) is part of a world-wide network of monitoring stations of the Sun in high-resolution Hydrogen Alpha mode led by the US Big Bear Solar Ob-

AUSTRIAN ASTRONOMY

91

Figure 2. Number of Austrian astrophysicists (graduated) versus age working in Austria ¨ or abroad. (Source: OGAA’s ESO Working Group)

Figure 3. Number of students successfully passing the course “Introduction to Astronomy”(full line) and the second-year lab course (dashed line) versus time.

servatory. Furthermore, the Institute of Astronomy in Vienna coordinates a large world-wide network of telescopes. The development of the publication rate is shown in Table 1. The numbers of publications per Austrian astronomer is similar to that in Germany, and slightly below the European mean. This is especially surprising, given the diﬃcult conditions, e.g. the limited access to telescopes, no exisiting research institutes, and limited funding.

92

SABINE SCHINDLER

TABLE 1. Publications by astrophysicists working in Austria. Type/Year

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Average

Personnel

65

75

80

75

70

58

71

Refereed publications

46

83

76

77

59

61

67

Other publications

35

61

93

98

95

76

76

Ref. pub. per person

0.7

1.1

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.05

0.9

TABLE 2. Use of large telescopes by astronomers working in Austria. 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Size (m)

2-4

>4

2-4

>4

2-4

>4

2-4

>4

2-4

>4

2-4

>4

Nights

30

0

22

0

83

0

30

0

82

26

32

12

ESO nights

3

-

6

-

6

-

13

0

41

26

1

12

ESO (%)

0.8

0.8

1.8

3.2

3.4

2.3

4. Telescope Use Observational projects require successful applications for telescope time on both ground-based and space telescopes. For those projects needing small telescopes (less than 2m), this can be achieved using the available national facilities or through collaborations with foreign observatories. For projects requiring space telescopes or large ground-based telescopes, Austrian astronomers have to apply for time at international facilities to which Austria has not contributed any funding. This usually implies that such access is much harder. Consequently, Austrian astronomers typically get around 40 nights a year on medium-sized telescopes, in addition to observing time obtained at foreign Solar Observatories, but very little time on the stateof-the-art large telescopes (see Table 2 for full details). An exception are the ESA space telescopes, as Austria is a full member of ESA and therefore has equal access to these facilities. 5. Scientiﬁc Topics Austrian astronomy concentrates on two main topics, on stars and their planetary systems and on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology. Both

AUSTRIAN ASTRONOMY

The Kanzelh¨ ohe Solar Observatory. (Courtesy KSO)

93

Figure 4.

94

SABINE SCHINDLER

topics are treated observationally and by numerical simulations. The ﬁrst topic includes research on astro-seismology, structure and dynamics of stellar atmospheres, solar physics, chemical composition of stars and extrasolar planets, late stellar evolution and feedback/interaction to/with the interstellar medium, star forming regions and stellar births. The second topic is represented by chemo-dynamical evolution of galaxies, galaxies and their interaction with their environment, clusters of galaxies, dark matter and cosmology. Various satellites are used for observations in diﬀerent wavelengths: MOST, ISO, HERSCHEL, XMM-Newton, CHANDRA and in the future also ASTRO-E2. HERSCHEL and MOST have been developed partly by Austrian astronomers. 6. Collaborations and Synergies Austrian astronomers participate in a large number of international collaborations. The number of these collaborations increased in particular in the last 3 years and continues to increase. Also intra-Austrian collaborations exits, e.g. several groups were involved in a large long-term project on “Stellar Astrophysics” funded by the Austrian Science Foundation from 1995 to 2000. A new long-term project on “Galaxies and Their Environment” is planned. These projects aim particularly at linking theory and observation on the one hand and at linking researchers from diﬀerent institutes on the other hand. A regular exchange of seminar speakers and lectures between the Austrian institutes furthers the exchange of ideas and the planning of joint research projects. An annual meeting of the Austrian Society for Astron¨ omy and Astrophysics (OGAA) consolidates these. The Society also aims at more international contacts through collaborations with the German and European Astronomical Societies. Astrophysics in Austria seeks out and welcomes many additional connections to other ﬁelds. Currently the most active in this respect is the ﬁeld of astro-particle physics, a combination of high-energy physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. The main questions of interest involve dark matter and cosmic rays. Another upcoming ﬁeld is astrobiology, which deals with the possibilty of extra-terrestrial life. It is a combination of biosciences, chemistry, physics, medicine, and of course astrophysics. This ﬁeld has enormous potential and will undergo rapid expansion over the next 10 years. The ﬁrst steps that have been made are the study of cosmic dust and an interdisciplinary lecture series. Present-day astronomy requires the processing of enormous quantities of data, high-performance computing power, and fast networks. This implies

AUSTRIAN ASTRONOMY

95

close links with computer science. Over the next 10 years, an involvement in GRID is essential. All the above are needed for data archiving as well as for large parallelised numerical calculations, which are spread over many diﬀerent computers. The astronomical community is therefore participating in the AUSTRIAN GRID and other interdisciplinary high-performance computing initiatives. ¨ The OGAA is an important platform for interdisciplinary contacts in this respect. 7. Public Outreach and Education Because of the lively public interest in astronomy, all institutes regularly conduct public outreach and media related activities. Researchers frequently give talks at meetings of amateur associations and at schools. In addition they actively participate in science public outreach events (“Science Week”, “University Meets Public”, exhibitions, etc.) and in work with schools (projects for pupils and advanced training of teachers). 8. Summary and Conclusion Austrian astronomy and astrophysics is internationally well-connected and highly active in research, education and public outreach activities. This is demonstrated by the number of successful applications for internationally competitive funding and observing time, and international collaboration in the development of astronomical instrumentation. Astronomy is very important to attract students to the natural sciences and technical subjects. However, the complete absence of direct access to large groundbased telescopes puts Austrian astronomy at risk of becoming isolated and marginalised. Therefore joining ESO is of utmost importance for Austrian astronomy. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Michel Breger, Arnold Hanslmeier, Herbert Hartl, Josef Hron, Eelco van Kampen, Ronald Weinberger, and Werner Zeilinger who have been helped considerably in preparing this article.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

ROBERT E. STENCEL

Chamberlin and Mt Evans Observatories Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Denver 2112 East Wesley Avenue Denver CO 80208-0202, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Observing stations at elevations in excess of 4000m are rare. This report discusses the eﬀorts to sustain and preserve one such site in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, in North America. The long-term value of such sites can be measured in terms of their optical and infrared characteristics, as well as their ability to inspire astronomers and students to study the universe. The sustainability of this site is yet to be determined.

1. Introduction Historically, the placement of telescopes atop hills and mountains improved the access to as much sky as possible. Since the days of George Hale, advantages of higher sites for reasons beyond panoramic views have emerged, including seeing and transparency, especially at near- and non-optical wavelengths. Colorado, in North America, is blessed with numerous peaks in excess of 4000m elevation. Hale himself site-tested Pikes Peak in 1894, but unfortunately sampled the site during the height of a Spring blizzard, and never returned to these longitudes (Hale 1894). 1.1. RATIONALE FOR THIS HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

Mt Evans, Colorado is located 35 miles [53km] west of Denver, at altitude 14 148ft [4305m] above sea level, at Latitude 39◦ 35 13 N, Longitude 97 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 97–109. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

98

ROBERT E. STENCEL

105◦ 38 25 W. The measured local acceleration of gravity is reduced to g = 9.79006 m/sec2 at this relatively extreme altitude. Between 1972 and 1999, it was consistently listed as highest observatory in the world in the USNO Astronomical Almanac, eclipsed only recently by newer facilities in India (Hanle, 4467m) and proposed facilities in the Atacama desert in Chile at elevations in excess of 5000m. The combination of good seeing due to treeless tundra and unobstructed airﬂows, low water vapor columns on average in terms of infrared transparency, and favorable cloud statistics all result in excellent site advantages for astronomy from the Mt Evans summit. Road access to the site promotes relative ease in training and instrumentation, and the site should be preserved for future scientiﬁc use. To appreciate the opportunities aﬀorded by the Mt Evans site, a review of local astronomy history is appropriate. In 1880, Herbert A. Howe arrived from the Cincinnati Observatory as a new professor of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Denver. By the end of that decade, a patron enabled Howe to design and build Chamberlin Observatory featuring an 0.5m aperture Clark-Saegmueller refractor. Site selection seemed to involve ﬁnding a level parcel of land near the young university, then located well outside Denver city. The south Denver parcel featured dark skies, good airﬂow and access convenience. Howe soon reported completion of the observatory, telescope and ﬁrst light (Howe 1894). When did high-altitude sites begin to be used? Early high-altitude installations include Mt Hamilton (Lick Observatory) in 1888, and earlier, Pic du Midi in 1873. During the 19th century, science was expanding with global expeditions of discovery regarding the atmosphere and the spectrum of sunlight. This set the stage for an early proponent of high-altitude observatories, the Astronomer Royal of Scotland, Charles Piazzi Smythe, who in 1856 climbed Mt Teide on Tenerife and detected infrared radiation coming from the Moon. Br¨ uck (2002) states that, despite his discovery, Smythe was not able to persuade the British government to ﬁnance a mountain station in that era. 1.2. SITE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

According to Colorado historical sources, in 1888, the Cascade and Pikes Peak Toll Road Company completed a 16 mile [26km] road up the north side of Pikes Peak. This became a major attraction, drawing tourists away from Denver area. Not to be outdone, Denver’s Mayor Speer proposed that a road be constructed to the top of Mt Evans. In 1917, he was able to procure state funds to build the road that was completed in 1927. Soon thereafter, Arthur Compton of Chicago University arrived to study cosmic

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

Figure 1. G. Kronk)

99

Panoramic view of Mt Evans Observatory taken in 2003. (photograph

rays at altitude (Rossi 1990). Bruno Rossi himself demonstrated the time dilation eﬀects on µ mesons from atop Mt Evans in 1939. In the post-World War II era, an international collaboration of researchers sponsored by the University of Denver ﬂocked to Mt Evans and its Echo Lake facilities. This activity ﬂourished into the 1960s when accelerators elsewhere began to eclipse the direct observation of cosmic rays from high-mountain sites. During this time, the “Space Race” and increasing interest in air pollution monitoring inspired the Denver Research Institute to propose a telescope for the Mt Evans site, in collaboration with local universities. The ﬁrst telescope was an 0.6m Ritchey-Chr´etien telescope by Ealing-Beck completed in 1972. Funding for operations limited its use to studies of comets Kohoutek (1972) and Halley (1986). The site was nearly abandoned when a bequest to the University of Denver appeared in 1990 that included funds for a new mountaintop telescope and observatory. This author was hired in 1992 to fulﬁll this bequest by William Herschel Womble. Denver University teamed with Eric Meyer, who provided a unique dual 0.7m telescope for the site, and the Meyer-Womble Observatory atop Mt Evans was completed in Summer 1996, with ﬁrst light Summer 1997, following proposal and environmental impact studies with US Forest Service who manage the district. Usage is largely limited to Summer season when access is easiest. Consistent Summer observing programs, guest observers and classes have been held each year since 1997, and observing proposals welcomed via the web site1 .

1

http://www.du.edu/∼rstencel/MtEvans

100

ROBERT E. STENCEL

2. Opportunities What is the research potential of a high, dry site like Mt Evans? First, there is the human need to see as far as possible, the “vision thing”. Imagine a great observatory. It is most likely to be located on a high-mountain site, for reasons including excellent seeing, low water vapor for infrared and sub-millimeter wavelength work, and favorable cloud statistics. Easy access encourages student training and instrument testing. Because few sites of this quality are available, we support the IAU eﬀorts to preserve and protect astronomical sites. However, though Denver city can be seen from the summit, the observatory itself is remote and challenging. To sum it up, “everything up here is an experiment”. The University of Denver has continuously operated a modest weather station atop Mt Evans since January 1991. This station has been outﬁtted with sensors to measure temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, and battery voltage maintained by solar panels. The station’s data logger has been programmed to poll the sensors every minute and report hourly averages, as well as minimum/maximum values and standard deviations for that hour. The bulk of the data presented in this section has been acquired from this station. Partial gaps in the data sets are due to occasional sensor malfunctions during these periods. A pyranometer was added to the sensor package in June 1996. Although battery voltages, despite a voltage limiter in the circuit, can indicate the fraction of sunny hours, the pyranometer provided more direct sunshine statistics. The daily average, minimum, and maximum temperatures as a function of the day of the year were examined for each of the years between January 1991 and the present. The temperature proﬁle is remarkably constant from year to year with diurnal variations being on the order of 10◦ . Also of special note is the infrequency of days below 0◦ F [-18◦ C], although minima of -40◦ F [-40◦ C] and -18◦ F [-28◦ C] were noted. These results are signiﬁcant because the hourly temperature gradient is small, which minimizes thermal distortions, and operationally, one may not require engineering for supercold, arctic conditions (i.e. signiﬁcantly below -40◦ F [-40◦ C]). Wind data has been examined and reveals average and maximum hourly wind speeds for the four seasonal periods December-February, March-May, June-August, and September-November, where median and mean wind speeds average 25 to 30 knots [46 to 56km/h], with sigma about 10 knots [19km/h]. Maximum winds measured to date have not exceeded 107 knots [198km/h], although it would be prudent to plan for higher speeds. The hourly average wind direction versus its corresponding speed clearly demonstrate that when the wind speeds are greater that 15 knots [28km/h], the winds are tightly constrained to a direction out of the west-south-west

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

101

(azimuth = 255◦ ). Below this value, the direction is more random but still generally out of this west south-west direction. This result is important for several reasons. First, the average wind speed is comfortably below dome closure requirements of 40 knots [74km/h]. Second, the wind direction is the most favorable for inducing laminar ﬂow over the observatory parcel, i.e. from the steep western side of the ridge, cresting above the observatory and descending to the east. This latter behavior accounts for the seeing stability noted toward the west side of the sky (see image motion monitoring, below). Relative humidity, barometric pressure, and temperature data can be used to calculate the partial pressure of water vapor at the site (see Allen 1976, p. 120). For the latitude of Mt Evans, the partial pressure of water in millibars, nearly equates to the vertical column of water in precipitable millimeters. A water column less than 2mm (<2mb) corresponds to excellent infrared transparency. The daily averages, as well as the minimum and maximum for the partial pressure of water as a function of day for a given year range between 1.1mm in Winter and 3-4mm during Summer monsoon. Data gaps are primarily due to failures in the relative humidity sensor during those periods. The data show excellent conditions for infrared observations during the Fall and Winter months. If the ground humidity is elevated due to surface evaporation, these results represent upper limits to the dryness of the Mt Evans site. A one hundred page report Water Vapor as a Factor in the Selection of Solar Observation Sites, by N. Medrud, NCAR/High Altitude Observatory (March 1970), is available from this author on request, which includes Rocky Mountain sites. Cloud cover is certainly a very important parameter in determining the quality of any astronomical site. This information, however, is somewhat diﬃcult to obtain as one is generally interested in night time conditions wherein cloud cover data is not readily available. For the Mt Evans site, we believe that conditions at sunrise can serve as a reliable proxy to conditions of the previous evening, at least for the several hours prior to sunrise. In addition, morning daylight hours are often prime time for infrared observations. From the observations to date, we conclude that conditions atop Mt Evans are Suitable For Astronomy (SFA) 60+% of the time with roughly one half of those nights (33% of the time) being of photometric quality. This is based on analysis of satellite data, weather bureau data, line of sight observations and climatology studies. A more recent analysis of cloud cover statistics, available from this author, is A Satellite survey of Water Vapor and Cloud Cover at Selected Existing and Potential Infrared Telescope Sites in the Southwestern USA by A. Erasmus (Dec 2000), which reaches similar conclusions: sub-mm water vapor columns in Winter, 54% photometric nights, 69% useable (spectroscopic or better). Daily records of snowfall have not been measured directly at the summit,

102

ROBERT E. STENCEL

but such data has been acquired at our Echo Lake Lab base camp, located approximately 15 miles [24km] to the north at an elevation of 10 600ft [3230m], during the past several decades. This location should represent an adequate proxy to the summit for measuring snowfall. The monthly snowfall amounts, for six years for the Echo Lake locale, indicate that December and January are very dry months, as also indicated from water vapor data. November and March are the snowiest months with year to year variability being quite large. This is consistent with experience of Colorado skiers, that there are fresh autumnal and Spring snows, separated by a sometimes long, mid-Winter dry spell. Studies of seeing conditions have been made at Mt Evans observatory. As reported by Stencel (1999), vertical acoustic sounding measurements were made at the Mt Evans site during September 1994. Primary conclusions include that (a) refractive and turbulent parameters are comparable to those reported at Mauna Kea by Forbes and others; (b) the measured values imply the atmospheric contribution to the seeing disk due to turblence in the 100 or so meters above the site is no more than 0.1 arcsec; (c) the deduced Fried parameter based on these measurements can be as large as one or more meters. Cn2 values were found to be comparable to Mauna Kea, Hawaii reported testing, circa 10−17 m−2/3 . CCD images were acquired at the summit for selected double stars. Double stars were used to accurately determine the plate scale of the images. Seeing was ascertained by measuring the full width half maximum of the individual stars. Visual inspection of the images at the telescope suggest the camera did not ideally record the true seeing quality, due to residual aberrations in the 10 and 24 inch telescopes used. None of these data have been deconvolved with the telescope diﬀraction limits (0.25 and 0.15 arcsec), nor enhanced by any active optics. Despite these problems with CCD frames, it seems reasonable to conclude, based on these measurements, that at least “arcsecond” quality seeing (0.68 arcsec formally) is routine on Mt Evans. Hartmann mask diﬀerential image motion montoring oﬀers the potential to directly observe the seeing cell sizes and their ﬂuctuations (cf. Bally et al. 1996). We conducted a series of these measurements during Summer 1995. Fried parameters were found to occur between 5 and 24cm, and these appear to correlate with azimuth of the star observed, being larger toward the west (windward) side of the sky. Analysis is ongoing, and preliminary results show a range of r(o) values from 5-10cm on the leeward side of the observing site, to 10-35cm on the windward (upwind) side, as might be expected for air ﬂowing over the ridge. These values include unmitigated dome seeing eﬀects. Mt Evans experiences excellent seeing, due to its isolated location and elevation. The site is situated some 3 000ft [914m] above tree line and the

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

Figure 2. A. Heck)

103

The author in front of Mt Evans Observatory on 30 May 2004. (photograph

routine west-southwest winds come from a direction that is unobstructed for several miles. The only local obstruction to the telescope site is the true summit situated to the north. Airﬂow is highly laminar as it crosses the observatory parcel. Preliminary measurements of sky brightness were conducted during September 1994, resulting in an estimated 21.5 mag/sq.arcsec, V band, zenith. This compares favorably with estimates by Garstang (1989) of sky brightness at Mt Evans. Natural background of 22 mag/sq.arcsec is almost achieved, and factors involving solar activity and regional forest ﬁre smoke

104

ROBERT E. STENCEL

could be factors in the results to date. A series of VRI observations of cluster NGC 7006 has been carried out since 1998 with the Meyer Binocular Telescope to monitor increasing sky brightness. The city lights of Denver fortunately do not aﬀect more than about 5 to 10 degrees of the eastern sky due to relatively low altitude scattering and a semi-stable inversion layer over the city, although population increases are a factor. In summary, Mt Evans oﬀers an attractive continental infrared site with conditions comparable, at times, to the best astronomical IR sites. The combination of extreme high altitude, existing special use permits, nearby base camp, access to supplies and transportation make Mt Evans an appropriate site for a signiﬁcant astronomical facility. An unusual dual-aperture 28.5-inch, f/21 Ritchey-Chr´etien telescope has been completed and installed in the high-altitude observatory facility, with ﬁrst light in August 1997 (Stencel 1999). It was designed by Eric T. Meyer to optimize high spatial resolution imaging. This Meyer Binocular Telescope incorporates active thermal management of the telescope structure. The secondary mirror support elements are fabricated from INVAR and permit active tip-tilt and focusing capability. The optics were fabricated from Zerodur by Contraves USA, and each system has a measured total wavefront error <0.050 at 633nm. All optical surfaces are coated with a multi-layer dielectric enhanced silver, providing high reﬂectance from below 350nm to beyond 26 microns. The telescope control system has been designed to allow initial operation from an insulated control room. Longterm plans call for totally remote operation from the University of Denver campus – 53 km line of sight distance – via direct microwave radio link. 3. Challenges 3.1. ACCESS

The observatory is situated at the end of a 14 mile [20km] state highway that is paved to the 14 115 ft [4302m] level, with the last few hundred yards [meters] unpaved, to the building base at 14 125 ft [4305m]. Conditions along the route vary even in the best weather, including rockfalls and frost heaving of the surface near Summit Lake (elevation 12 500 ft [3810m], mile 9.5). The latter road damage creates undulations that grow vertically a few centimeters per year in contrast on a scale of a meter or two in horizontal terms. With tight budgets, this situation is not expected to be repaired soon. Despite all this, with state highway assistance, routine access by vehicle has been possible between early May and mid-October annually. With eﬀort and preparation, virtually all months can allow access.

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

105

Figure 3. Aerial view of Mt Evans Observatory, looking Southwest over the observatory site and toward the similarly high peaks [4000 m] of the continental divide in central Colorado. (photograph R.E. Stencel)

3.2. WEATHER

Mid-latitude, mountain weather can be variable and ﬁerce at times. During the 1990s, a weather station was operated and data collected reﬂecting hourly averages and extremes. John Starkey both designed and installed this solar photovoltaic and battery powered modem-accessible device. Extremes include temperatures ranging from highs of 65◦ F [23.6◦ C] to lows of -40◦ F [-40◦ C]. Wind speeds have been recorded up to 107 knots [198km/h], although rime icing has taken a toll on simple anemometers, so maxima could be higher. However, the monitoring shows a wind rose with average speeds under 20 knots [37km/h] and strongly from the WSW direction. Observing experience conﬁrms this tendency. 3.3. USFS RULES AND FEES

In the United States, most interesting astronomical sites tend to be under the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. The Forest Service operates

106

ROBERT E. STENCEL

under a plethora of rules and regulations, driven by the 1967 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). As such, Mt Evans observatory operates under a Special Use permit, which has been renewed regularly since the 1970s, now valid until 2015. The 1994 proposal to modernize the observatory triggered an expensive Environmental Assessment study during 1995 and eventually a construction permit for 1996. The study considered a variety of impact factors, such as water, air, ﬂora and fauna and visual eﬀects of the proposed project. Although the established use patterns of the site helped demonstrate that there would be no additional impact on biological factors, the “visual impact” of the new building resulted in design constraints that tripled the eventual cost of the structure (rounded, rock-faced, tan coloration of the dome). Following the approval for the new building, the Forest Service has been relatively unobtrusive about managing activities at the site – other than relentless increases in permit fees – but this may be due to staﬃng and budget cuts on a national scale, rather than willingness to micromanage their dominion. Should we wish to charge for access to the telescopes, the Forest Service expects a hefty share of the proceeds, making this cost ineﬀective. 3.4. POWER

A key factor for remote sites is the provision of electrical power and communications. The Mt Evans summit is 15 miles [24km] from the nearest land lines for either. For power, we have traditionally relied on diesel generators to produce the local 220/110V AC, but this involves importation of fuels. Natural energy supplies in the form of sun and wind are abundant but challenging to harvest. We did get cooperation and some grant funding to place solar photoelectric panels atop adjacent buildings near the observatory, capable of providing 1500W under peak sun, and partial support for the addition of another 1200W of panels on the observatory itself. However, these are allowed only during Winter season, due to ‘visual impact’. Wind power is an excellent option for the site, but the Forest Service will not permit free-standing towers or additional major structures. In addition, storage of captured energy is non-trivial. Fuel cells represent an interesting option, but the wait for low-maintenance, aﬀordable units continues. 3.5. COMMUNICATIONS

As mentioned, the nearest land lines are over 20 km distant, requiring us to solve communication problems with wireless means. An acceptable solution for internet access has been achieved with a low power, spread-spectrum 900MHz link with the University of Denver campus, 53 km distant, pro-

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

107

viding a workable internet for observers. Cell phones and their reception territory have evolved nicely since the mid-1990s. Today, an observer can take mobile calls, at the telescope, atop the mountain, whereas ten years ago, a weighty, high power analog portable phone unit was required for intermittent communications. This is one beneﬁt of the line of sight from the summit to Denver city below, despite the price paid in increased sky glow from poorly designed urban lighting. 3.6. STAFFING AND GUEST OBSERVERS

The major resource shortage of the observatory since its founding in the 1970s has been staﬃng – rarely more than two full-time equivalents (FTE) during Summer season, excluding construction periods. Comparison with published UKIRT2 budgets, suggests we should have a minimum of 4 FTE: one for electro-optical maintenance, one for computer support and two FTE for observer support. In part, this shortfall has been overcome in part with guest observers who volunteer time during Summers in exchange to telescope access. Guest observers from academic institutions and astronomy clubs have participated since 1998. 3.7. TOURIST SITE

Because the Mt Evans summit can be accessed by paved road, the highway is maintained by the state of Colorado (largely for tourism purposes). This brings a mixed blessing for the research site. On one hand, the maintenance allows for easy travel during the Summer season. On the other hand, there is a persistent public demand for access to the telescopes during the limited number of clear and dry Summer nights needed for research and training. Balancing those is challenging, although the beneﬁts of some tourist accommodation are recognized, and scheduled programs have been oﬀered in recent years. With additional staﬃng, more astronomy outreach during the day could be done. 4. Further Opportunities 4.1. NIMBY & NOMBY

In the USA we have a catch-phrase, NIMBY, regarding where development is to be sited. NIMBY refers to opposition of neighbors: “Not In My Back Yard”. Understandably, no one wants a toxic waste dump to open next to their home. However, with the disappearance of environmentally unspoiled wilderness, pressures increase to protect remaining areas from all human 2

United Kingdom Infrared Telescope.

108

ROBERT E. STENCEL

encroachment. Only the historical use pattern of research at Mt Evans, and the ability to mobilize interested local amateur and professional astronomers to weigh in with the Forest Service and balance the de rigeur pro-conservation petitions that almost any proposed action in wilderness can be expected to generate, allowed the project to move forward. However, with the proliferation of 10 and 30m class telescopes at world class sites in Hawaii and Chile, mid-latitude sites may disappear due to lack of professional interest. Similarly, as there are advantages of site convenience and control, one sees a NOMBY response from astronomical peers – Not Other than My Back Yard – in terms of resistance to pooling resources among possibly redundant small-scale eﬀorts. 4.2. SPACE STATION MT EVANS

One of the strongest scenarios for the future of the Mt Evans observatory involves the eﬀort toward complete automation and remote control. The severity of conditions drives a need for highly redundant saﬁng systems, which themselves require reliable power. However, the advantages in terms of productivity would be substantial if a fully remote system could be realized. Only funding separates us from that end. Human participation, on site or over the net would continue under that arrangement as appropriate. 5. Quo Vadis? By 2015, the special use permit for the observatory to occupy its lofty perch comes up for renewal. According to permit rules, facilities added to the land must be removed when the permit is no longer in force. If the University of Denver does not augment staﬃng for astronomy, and/or external interest in the research and educational potential of the site does not materialize, it is possible that the site will be lost to the astronomical community. During the present golden era of 10 and 30m ground-based telescopes, and multiwavelength telescopes in space, perhaps a small facility is not justiﬁed. However, once lost, this site may prove diﬃcult to reclaim. Acknowledgements There are many people to acknowledge in a project like the development and continuance of the Mt Evans Observatory, in addition to my very tolerant wife Susan and daughter Claire. I thank William Herschel Womble for provision of a bequest to the University of Denver in support of mountaintop astronomy and the pursuit of educational research in astronomy and astrophysics. Patrick Meyer and his team of heroic builders made the construction possible during limited Summer seasons. Eric Meyer provided

OPERATING A HIGH-ALTITUDE SITE

109

the initial telescope system. John Starkey, deceased, pioneered the communications and power infrastructure that makes work at the summit feasible, along with Joe Burdick and Ken Thames. A generation of cosmic-ray scientists, as well as atmospheric and astronomical researchers helped secure the site through the 20th century, for its current 21st century uses. Student interest sustains me, even if outside professional interest is limited. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Allen, C.W. 1976, Astrophysical Quantities, 3rd ed., Athelone Press, 310pp. (ISBN 0485111500) Bally, J., Theil, D., Billawalla, Y., Potter, D., Loewenstein, R., Mrozek, F. & Lloyd, J. 1996, A Hartmann Diﬀerential Image Motion Monitor (H-DIMM) for Atmospheric Turbulence Characterisation, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 13, 22. r¨ uck, M.T. 2002, Agnes Mary Clerke and the Rise of Astrophysics, Cambridge Univ. Press, 275pp. (ISBN 0511029381) Garstang, R. 1989, Night-Sky Brightness at Observatories and Sites, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 101, 306. Hale, G. 1894, cited by H.Howe in his private diaries (University of Denver archives). Howe, H.A. 1894, The 20-inch Equatorial of the Chamberlin Observatory, Astron. Astrophys. 13, 709. Rossi, B. 1990, Moments in the Life of a Scientist, Cambridge Univ. Press, 194pp. (ISBN 0521364396) Stencel, R.E. 1999, First Light at the New Mt Evans Observatory, J. Amer. Assoc. Variable Star Observers 27, 61.

AN INSIDER’S PERSPECTIVE ON OBSERVING TIME SELECTION COMMITTEES

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

JILA University of Colorado and NIST Boulder CO 80309-0440, USA [email protected]

Abstract. The process of selecting the best proposals for observing time on observatories in space and on the ground is vitally important for astronomy and is generally done well, but the system has problems and can be improved. I identify four types of bias that enter the process when the oversubscription of observing time is large. The negative interaction between the large oversubscription rates and these biases should be recognized and can be mitigated. I believe that selection committees provide the most competent and least biased advice when they are given a modest number of proposals (roughly 50) covering a coherent but modest range of scientiﬁc topics, and the approximate time allocations among the committees covering the diﬀerent scientiﬁc topics are driven largely by proposal pressure. There are several mechanisms for revising when necessary the allocations of observing time among the various committees.

1. Introduction Astronomers today have access to an unprecedented range of powerful telescopes on the ground and in space. From the long wavelength radio to the highest energy gamma rays, the entire electromagnetic spectrum is open for sensitive observations of the universe and its constituent components – galaxies, interstellar and intergalactic gas, stars, and planets. Major instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory, XMM-Newton, VLT, Keck, and soon ALMA are typically international in funding and generally open to the global astronomical community. A critical question is how best to allocate the available observing time. Or, to pose the question slightly diﬀerently, how can the astronomical community 111 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 111–116. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

112

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

obtain the best science from the large investment of money that is being made to construct and operate these telescopes. The historical approach is to appoint peer review committees to select the best science proposals that astronomers submit in response to periodic calls for proposals. While this approach is probably our best available choice, we should recognize that the quality of the selections depends critically on the selection process itself, in particular on whether the inherent problems of selection are addressed and mitigated. In short, what is already a good working system can and should be improved. What are the major problems with the present selection process? My perspective on the selection process comes primarily from serving on peer review committees for three large space observatories (HST, Chandra, and XMM-Newton) and several smaller observatories. While my experience is mainly with peer review committees for large NASA space observatories, I believe that the problems I have seen are generic to the proposal selection process rather than being speciﬁc to the three observatories. As I see it, the major problem is a clash between oversubscription and inadequate perspective. 2. What Happens When Oversubscription Rates Are Very Large Observing time on major observatories is typically oversubscribed by a factor of 5 or more. For certain types of observations, including large programs, time critical programs, and programs requiring simultaneous or contemporary observations by several instruments, the oversubscription rate can be much larger. The oversubscription rate likely becomes self-limiting as astronomers know the odds and often refrain from proposing when the perceived odds for success are too low. In practice, oversubscription means that an observatory must send to its selection committees a very large number of proposals. In the case of HST more than 1000 proposals are received every year. For a mature observatory where the astronomical community knows very well the capabilities and idiosyncracies of the instruments onboard the observatory, typically one third of the proposals are, in my opinion and in that of many committee members with whom I have spoken, of exceptionally high quality. Unfortunately, the high oversubscription rate requires that a large percentage of these high quality proposals must be turned down for lack of available observing time. In my opinion, peer review committees are generally very good at identifying with minimal bias the top one-third of the submitted proposals. An argument could be made for a random selection among the top one third of the proposals, thereby avoiding the biases that I will describe below. However, since the consensus objective is to select the very best science

INSIDER’S PERSPECTIVE ON SELECTION COMMITTEES

113

proposed, no observatory has attempted this random selection approach. 3. Four Types Of Bias The problems occur when the cut must go deeper and the oversubscription problem starts to interact negatively with the other, less appreciated problem – inadequate perspective, another name for bias. Bias begins when the panel member are selected. Serving on a peer review panel is timeconsuming hard work. To carefully read and evaluate 50 to 100 detailed proposals takes many days prior to the panel meeting, which itself takes another 2 to 4 days including travel. Often there is no monetary compensation for this one-to-two week expenditure of time. The only compensations are altruism, love of one’s ﬁeld of work, some recognition for service, and the privilege of seeing what others are doing. Many astronomers routinely volunteer (or agree to be drafted) for this work. They deserve praise, and, I believe, some compensation in addition to a few free meals and an airplane ticket. Many do not volunteer often enough. In particular, astronomers with teaching responsibilities often cannot serve on committees during the academic year. Since critical expertise in many ﬁelds is often concentrated among those who teach at universities, selection committees may lack the critical expertise to properly evaluate some proposals. This is especially true in ﬁelds with a relatively small number of practitioners. One might call this problem a “lack of expertise bias.” A second bias results from the very broad range of problems that a large observatory can address and the methods employed for parceling out proposals among diﬀerent observing time selection committees. For example, HST proposals are given to panels for extragalactic, galactic, and solar system astronomy. There are multiple panels for each of these three areas to avoid conﬂicts of interest. However, each area is very broad and a panel typically must evaluate proposals covering the whole subject area. In the case of galactic astronomy, the area for which I am most familiar, the panels evaluate proposals to study all types of stars, stellar systems, and interstellar gas in our Galaxy and neighboring galaxies. The logic is that by having one panel evaluate proposals covering a broad range of astrophysics at the same time, the best astronomical proposals will be selected. This approach requires that each committee contain many people, typically 10, to have suﬃcient expertise to cover the whole broad subject, and the committee must evaluate a large number of proposals, typically 100, to avoid the cost and impracticality of bring a great many astronomers to the review. The committee is then overloaded with proposals to evaluate, leading to insuﬃcient attention to many of them. A more subtle problem is that proposals from a lesser known or very new area of astronomy may

114

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

not get proper support in a large committee. My experience is that for a proposal to be ranked in the top 15% (by requested observing time), which is often needed for selection, at least 3 panel members must enthusiastically convince the remaining 7 members to give the proposal a very high score. This is not too diﬃcult when the proposal is on a topic that most panel members are familiar with and understand. However, for proposals on a topic that most panel members are unfamiliar with, there may only be one panel member who really understands the subject area. It often proves diﬃcult to convince the remaining 9 members to give the proposal a top score. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to have smaller panels covering smaller topic areas and evaluating fewer proposals. The XMMNewton Observatory, for example, adopts the later approach with panels of 5 members evaluating about 50 proposals covering a narrower range of topics. In my opinion, this approach leads to a more thoughtful selection. One might refer to this problem as “subject-area bias.” A third bias occurs because of the interests of the observatory. Each observatory naturally aims to maximize the science that it obtains. As a result, panel members are typically urged to select proposals that are most feasible given the observatory’s capabilities and advised not to select observing programs that can be done by other observatories. This guidance tends to narrow the panel’s perspective. For example, an observing program that would be considered routine or unexciting for the observatory but provides critical data needed by a major program on another observatory may not be selected on its own merits. Programs to obtain data on standard objects are often not selected for this reason. The observatory’s advisory committee could provide guidance to the selection committees to minimize this “inadequate perspective bias.” The ability of some selection committees to approve proposals including requests for coordinated observing time on other telescopes is helping to solve this problem. A fourth type of bias comes from the popularity of certain research topics. At any one time, certain topics are ripe for investigation because of new observational capabilities, theoretical advances, or new perspectives on previously dormant topics. Exciting science should be pursued, but the question is one of balance. If astronomers only address the most exciting topics, what about the less exciting basic research questions and fundamental data upon which the whole ﬁeld relies? Clearly there needs to be a balance, but proposals to obtain fundamental but less exciting data very often are not supported when the oversubscription is very large. There is often a strong tendency for committee members to “go with the ﬂow.” Here is another area where the observatory’s advisory committee could provide some guidance to avoid the “lemming bias.” There are other issues that emerge when the available observing time is

INSIDER’S PERSPECTIVE ON SELECTION COMMITTEES

Figure 1.

115

c ESA) The XMM-Newton Spacecraft. (

very small compared to the time requested. One generic problem is whether to approve continuations of observing programs that have proceeded for several years and for which proposers argue that a few more observations will make the old data scientiﬁcally far more valuable. Another problem is whether or not to select high-risk programs that may provide truly exciting science or nothing of value. Also, new types of observations or programs proposed by people who are new to the ﬁeld are diﬃcult to select when oversubscription is very large. Setting aside large blocks of observing time for what are likely very worthwhile programs makes oversubscription of the remaining observing time even worse and the selection panel’s task more diﬃcult and more likely to suﬀer from the above biases. In my experience, selection panels strive but do not always succeed to minimize these biases. 4. How To Improve The Selection Process Given the problems outlined above that occur when there is a high oversubscription rate, what is the best way to proceed with proposal selection? I think that the best approach is to make the selection panel’s task more feasible and less likely to be biased. I suggest following the XMM-Newton approach of smaller selection panels that evaluate a modest number of pro-

116

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

posals, say 50, covering a modest range of topics. In this way, the proposals will be given the most careful consideration by panel members who most often will understand the topic well. The downside of this approach is that the science in diﬀerent subject areas may not be properly intercompared. However, I believe that the intercomparison by a large panel will more likely be subject to bias in selecting proposals and thus not be the best approach for intercomparing proposals in diﬀerent research ﬁelds. The number of proposals or the amount of observing time requested provides an unbiased ﬁrst approximation to a good distribution of observing time among the various subject areas. If a more reﬁned intercomparison is needed, then a review committee could look at the borderline area proposals identiﬁed by each topical committee. Finally, the proposal selection process could be improved by the observatories providing to the selection committee members some compensation for their hard work and time. Fortunately NASA has begun to do so for some peer reviews. 5. My Perspective On The Selection Process On a positive note, I have been impressed with the diligence and thoroughness with which proposal evaluation committee members do their work. For the most part, proposals are given proper consideration irrespective of the proposer’s institution or country. The observatories make a sincere eﬀort to minimize conﬂicts of interest and provide detailed descriptions of what constitutes a conﬂict. During committee deliberations, I have seen many examples of committee members revealing previously unknown conﬂicts of interest and seeking advice from the observatory staﬀ on whether to leave the room or to participate in the evaluation of a proposal. Although there are egregious examples of committees not understanding proposals and returning to proposers evaluation comments that demonstrate their misunderstandings, such mistakes are not very common. I have been the victim of several such “misunderstandings.” There are also examples of a proposal being given a very low grade one year and the identical proposal being given very high grade the next year. This demonstrates the subjective nature and occasional lack of competence in such evaluations. Despite such problems and the biases described above, the system for selecting observing time proposals works reasonably well most of the time. Nevertheless, the process can and should be improved.

EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF SOLAR OBSERVING PROGRAMS

HAN UITENBROEK

National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak, P.O. Box 62 Sunspot, NM 88349, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Solar observing programs are diﬀerent from their night-time counterparts. The need to obtain a unique dataset in a long-established ﬁeld drives a very ﬂexible setup of instrumention at solar telescopes. This in turn requires heavy involvement of the user in customized instrument deﬁnition and layout. The instrument setup, selection procedures, and user statistics at the Dunn Solar Tower (DST) of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) at Sacramento Peak are discussed as a typical example of a solar observing program.

1. Introduction Solar observing programs are remarkably diﬀerent from most night-time programs for two main reasons. First, the Sun has been observed in great detail with telescopes for more than a century. New and scientiﬁcally interesting discoveries are, therefore, mostly achieved by looking at the Sun in diﬀerent ways than before. Either in previously inaccessible wavelengths, at higher spatial, spectral and/or temporal resolution, or in particular, by ﬁnding diﬀerent combinations of wavelengths to probe diﬀerent layers in the solar atmosphere simultaneously. For these reasons few solar telescopes have standard observing programs with ﬁxed instrument conﬁgurations. Instead, solar observing is very much a hands-on experience, where the observer is heavily involved in a specialized and individual instrument setup, and where speciﬁc targets on the solar disk are selected on the basis of opportunity. Exceptions are solar synoptic programs, which typically utilize ﬁxed instrumentation to perform repetitive observations of the whole solar disk in order to establish a well-calibrated long-term database. 117 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 117–124. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

118

HAN UITENBROEK

A second crucial diﬀerence with most night-time observations is that of timescales. Because of our close vantage point we are able to study small details on the solar surface for which the “information propagation” time, i.e., the time it takes for a disturbance to cross an observed feature, is short, typically of the order of a few seconds to minutes. As a result observations taken at diﬀerent times and/or wavelengths can only be compared in a statistical sense. It is impossible to go back to the same target at a later time and observe an additional wavelength, or add measurements of polarization. In addition, details in the long term evolution of the solar magnetic ﬁeld are unpredictable, which sometimes results in the situation that the intended target of a speciﬁc observing run, e.g. a sunspot or active region, is not present on the solar disk at the time scheduled for the run. 2. Observations at the Dunn Solar Telescope on Sacramento Peak The National Solar Observatory (NSO) operates two main facilities for high spatial resolution solar observations: the McMath-Pierce facility at Kitt Peak, Arizona, and the Dunn Solar Tower (DST) at Sacramento Peak, New Mexico (Fig. 1). As an example of a solar observing program we take a closer look at the procedures at the DST, which is a typical observing facility for the solar case in some respects, but less so in others. The sample of solar astronomers from all over the world that come and observe at the DST is a fairly typical cross section of the solar community. The observing setup at the DST is also typical in the sense that the ﬂexibility of the postfocus instrumentation requires a lot of interaction and insight from the user. Where the situation at the DST is diﬀerent from most solar telescopes is the observing support. In many cases, only technical support is present to repair instruments and monitor the health of the telescope and instruments, whereas at the DST the observing staﬀ sets up the instruments, runs the telescope and instruments, and makes sure the data is written to DLT tape at the end of each observing day. 2.1. TYPICAL INSTRUMENT SETUP AT THE DST

The DST at Sacramento Peak is a 76 cm vacuum tower telescope. The turret, which is placed on top of a 40 m high tower to stick out above the most turbulent seeing layers close to the ground, tracks the Sun during the day and reﬂects the beam through a central vacuum tube down to the primary mirror. The primary is located 80 m underground at the bottom of the central tube in which a vacuum is maintained to prevent image distortion from internal seeing. The f 70 primary can be tilted slightly to point the beam up through one of ﬁve exit ports at ground level. These exit ports are located near the axis of a large circular platform attached

SOLAR OBSERVING PROGRAMS

119

Figure 1. The Dunn Solar Tower (DST) of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) at Sacramento Peak, New Mexico. (Photograph by the author)

120

HAN UITENBROEK

Figure 2. Schematic layout of the Dunn Solar Tower (DST). The heliostat turret is detailed in Fig. 3. (Courtesy Dave Dooling, NSO/AURA/NSF)

SOLAR OBSERVING PROGRAMS

121

Figure 3. The heliostat turret of the Dunn Solar Tower (DST). (Courtesy Dave Dooling, NSO/AURA/NSF)

to the central vacuum tube. Platform and tube rotate during the day to compensate for the apparent rotation of the solar image introduced by the turret motion. At each of the exit ports optical tables are set up on the observing platform, which can support a wide series of instruments and cameras in custom layouts. Instruments include a stigmatic grating spectrograph which can be scanned across the solar image, a tunable dual Fabry-Perot system, a tunable birefringent ﬁlter, several polarimeters that can be combined with the spectrograph, and a host of CCD cameras. Two of the exit ports are since recently equiped with high-order Adaptive Optics (AO) systems,

122

HAN UITENBROEK

so that high spatial-resolution observations can be achieved even under moderate seeing conditions. Since none of the optical layouts is ﬁxed the system is very ﬂexible, allowing the mixing and matching of diﬀerent optical components and cameras through the use of appropriately placed beam splitters, mirrors and and re-imaging lenses. This ﬂexibility, however, also requires considerable optical, electronic and computer-related expertise of the observing staﬀ. For the process to be eﬃcient, it also requires that the visiting observer is aware of the large number of possible conﬁgurations and knows how to employ them to get an interesting new dataset. For this reason visiting observers often team up with one of the resident astronomers on observing proposals and rely on them to provide this insight. 2.2. THE SELECTION PROCESS

Observing time at the DST is allocated per quarter year. The observing season lasts all year, with the exception of Christmas day and New Year’s day. Allocation periods vary over diﬀerent observatories. At the Big Bear Observatory, CA, time is allocated for each month, at the German VTT and the Swedish SVT on the Canary Islands, Spain, one of the other prime solar sites, time is allocated per calendar year, and the observing season there lasts from April through November. Requests for observing time at the DST are submitted via the worldwide web for review by the Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC). The deadline is one and a half month before the beginning of the quarter for which time is requested. Requests from the observatory staﬀ, which include time for instrument development as well as regular observing time are included in this process in the same way as outside proposals. Initially, the proposals are scanned by the observing staﬀ to catch potential technical problems and to assess feasibility of the proposed instrument setup. This is an important step because the ﬂexibility of the instrumentation allows many diﬀerent setups, and judging the feasibility of them requires intimate knowledge of the hardware and software. On the observing request form, potential observers can indicate how many days are requested, when they would be unavailable in the quarter and when in the quarter they would prefer to be allocated time. Most importantly observers are asked to give a scientiﬁc justiﬁcation for their request in addition to a description of the intended observing procedures and required equipment. A special eﬀort is made to accommodate requests that coordinate with spacecraft observations to obtain simultaneous wavelength coverage of a particular region on the solar disk at UV and X-ray wavelengths in addition to the optical. Spacecraft observations are sched-

SOLAR OBSERVING PROGRAMS

123

uled often further in advance than the quarterly cycle at the DST, so that their time is already ﬁxed when the DST schedule is determined. The TAC includes all scientiﬁc staﬀ at the observatory, and some of the observing staﬀ. Currently, it does not include any members from outside the observatory, but this may change if demand for time continues to increase. Typically, the total amount of time currently being requested per quarter exceeds the available time by 20 to 50%, but this amount has been steadily increasing over the last few years with the advent of the AO subsystems at the DST. Some of this over-subscription can be accommodated by reducing the time requested in individual proposals, and sometimes by combining proposals. Normally the TAC prefers not to allocate less than 7 days to any proposal for the following reasons. Since instrument setup for each proposal takes one to two days (or sometimes more if sunlight is required for setup and not available due to cloudy weather or other weather circumstances), it is considered too much of a risk to allocate less than a week given that there is a chance that some days are clouded out. After a review for the technical feasibility by the observing staﬀ, the requests are ranked on their scientiﬁc merits by the scientiﬁc staﬀ members of the TAC. If, after possible reduction of requested time in individual proposals, there is still too much time requested, proposals are rejected according to their ranking. To avoid conﬂict of interest, NSO staﬀ members that are co-investigator on a proposal are asked not to advocate this proposal during the ranking discussion. 3. Who applies For the six quarters spanning 2004 and the ﬁrst half of 2005 (the period that electronic submission has been in eﬀect), NSO received a total of 69 requests for observing time at the DST. This amounts to 11.5 proposals per quarter with an average of 10.7 days requested per proposal. With an average of 91 days of available observing time per quarter the oversubscription for these six quarters was on average 35%. The proposals are sorted by the aﬃliation of their Principal Investigator (PI) in Table 1. Out of the total of 69 proposals, 41 (60%) were submitted by a PI aﬃliated with NSO, but this number includes a number of proposals that were submitted by NSO staﬀ on behalf of outside observers. Likewise, a number of proposals submitted by a PI outside of NSO have one or more NSO staﬀ as co-investigator (this was the case in 6 of the 28 proposals submitted by an outside PI in the last six quarters). Of the 41 proposals submitted by a NSO PI 19 were labeled as engineering/instrument development, and 22 as science proposals.

124

HAN UITENBROEK

TABLE 1. Proposals submitted for observing time at the DST for the year 2004 and the ﬁrst two quarters of 2005, sorted by aﬃliation of the Principal Investigator (PI). PI aﬃliation

Number of proposals

France Italy Russia Spain US other than NSO NSO

3 6 1 4 14 41

Total

69

4. Summary Because of the short timescales of phenomena we observe on the solar surface, and the fact that this surface has been observed already many times before, Solar observing is often a hands-on experience where the telescope user is heavily involved in instrument setup in order to create a unique dataset. As a result, considerable instrumental knowledge is required from the user. Precisely for this reason a substantial fraction of the observing time is used by users that are aﬃliated with the institute that runs the telescope and are intimate with its operation, not only at the NSO/DST as illustrated here, but also at other solar telescopes.

EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF RADIO ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS: THE CASE OF THE 100M RADIO TELESCOPE AT EFFELSBERG

ROLF SCHWARTZ, ALEX KRAUS AND J. ANTON ZENSUS

Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Radioastronomie Auf dem H¨ ugel 69 D-53121 Bonn, Germany [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract. The Eﬀelsberg 100m radiotelescope is an internationally highly requested astronomical instrument. Here we describe the Programme Committee Eﬀelsberg (PKE) and how observing proposals are evaluated by the PKE. Additionally, some information about the scheduling process is given.

1. Introduction The Eﬀelsberg 100m radio telescope of the Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Radioastronomie began test operation in 1971; regular astronomical observations started in August 1972. Being the largest fully steerable radio telescope of the world for more than 30 years, it still belongs to the two biggest antennas worldwide, and was – and is – an internationally highly requested astronomical instrument. This high-precision antenna operates at wavelengths ranging from 70cm up to 3.5mm. The receiving systems are positioned at the focal point of the main reﬂector, just beneath the prime focus cabin mounted on four support legs. At this focus, only one receiver can be used at a given time. Changing receiving systems needs employment of two technicians and about an hour time. Alternatively, an elliptically curved secondary reﬂector can focus the incoming radiation towards the central point of the surface. There, in the secondary focus cabin, it is possible to use several additional receiving systems; switching between these is possible remotely within 30 seconds. Although 125 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 125–131. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

126

ROLF SCHWARTZ ET AL.

this means more frequency agility, observations at short wavelengths – especially spectroscopy – favour the use of prime focus receivers, as here the sensitivity is higher and appearance of interfering standing waves between the foci is avoided. The radio telescope is used exclusively for research in radio astronomy, both as a stand-alone instrument and regularly for global Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) experiments. The combination of receiving systems covering a broad wavelength range with various backends allows a large number of scientiﬁc targets to be studied, e.g. solar system objects, star forming regions, supernova remnants, pulsars, interstellar matter, magnetic ﬁelds in the universe, cores and jets of radio galaxies and quasars, gravitational lenses, etc. (see Table 2). Access to the radio telescope is open to all qualiﬁed scientists based on scientiﬁc peer review. The assignment of observing time at the 100m telescope can serve as an example for the evaluation and selection of observing programs in Radio Astronomy. 2. The Eﬀelsberg Program Committee (PKE) The Max Planck Institute for Radioastronomy (MPIfR) was founded in 1964. The Max Planck Society and the German astronomical community agreed that the 100m radiotelescope should not only be used by the Institute’s staﬀ; a signiﬁcant amount of observing time should also be accessible to scientists from outside the MPIfR. It was expected that the telescope would be used primarily by German astronomers, but the close international cooperation in radioastronomy led very soon to a high demand for observing time from other countries – exceeding the demand from German universities. Examples of the distribution of observing time to various institutions/countries are shown for three diﬀerent periods (of 5 years each) in Table 1. This table shows how the amount of observing time used by German astronomers decreased from the 1970s to the present, while in the same period the amount of time used by European astronomers (partly also by Americans) increased signiﬁcantly. This was mostly due to Very Long Baseline Interferometry observations, which have been performed regularly since the mid-1970s. Since the beginning of telescope operations the rule has been established to allocate observing time on the basis of regular evaluations of the observing proposals submitted by Institute’s members as well as by scientists from outside. The Programme Committee Eﬀelsberg (PKE) started its work in 1972 with the evaluation of the ﬁrst proposals for the new telescope. The PKE was established as an important panel (advisory to the directors) in the constitution of the Institute.

RADIO ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS

Figure 1.

The 100m Radio Telescope at Eﬀelsberg.

127

128

ROLF SCHWARTZ ET AL.

TABLE 1. Distribution of observing time (% of total time). 1973-1978

1985-1990

1999-2004

MPIfR University of Bonn other German Insitutes

61.6 3.9 10.2

38.5 4.8 8.9

36.3 7.6 5.9

Germany total

75.7

52.2

49.8

Europe (without Germany) America Asia Africa Australia

9.9 12.2 0.1 0.7 1.4

25.4 15.2 6.4 0.0 0.8

28.2 14.4 6.4 0.2 1.0

The PKE consisted of four scientists selected from Institute’s staﬀ, one astronomer from the University of Bonn, one scientist from the Germanspeaking astronomical community (including Austria and Switzerland), and one astronomer from another European country. In 2004, the Institute became a partner of RadioNet, a close co-operation between several European radio observatories. RadioNet operates several projects funded by the Framework Programme (FP) 6 of the EU. One of these projects is “Transnational Access” (TNA), which oﬀers improved access to radio astronomical observations for European scientists. The composition of the PKE was changed in 2004 to conform to the rules of the European Community for funded projects. The PKE now consists of three Institute’s members, one astronomer from Bonn University, one astronomer from another German institute, and three scientists from European countries, giving a ratio of 3:5 between Institute’s members and those from outside. The constitution of the Institute, mentioned above, has been changed accordingly. The term of membership in the PKE is two years. As the 100m telescope is operated in a very ﬂexible way for diﬀerent observing modes, including continuum, spectroscopy, pulsars, and VLBI, it was important that the committee has the expertise and the technical background for the diﬀerent observing techniques and very good knowledge of the main astronomical research areas. Experience over many years indicates that the PKE was able to satisfy this non-trivial demand. Table 2 shows the allocated observing time for diﬀerent observing modes and an overview of observing wavelength used. The increase of spectroscopic observations from 1980 to 2004 reﬂects

RADIO ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS

129

TABLE 2. Distribution of observing time (% of total time). 1980

2004

Spectroscopy Continuum Pulsars VLBI

40.1 28.7 8.2 23.0

45.7 24.8 8.9 20.6

λ < 2 cm 2 cm ≤ λ ≤ 11 cm λ > 11 cm

20.8 54.0 25.2

28.3 37.8 33.9

the point that the telescope has been scheduled with a dual observing plan since the late 1980’s (see Sect. 4): Plan A with high priority consists of sensitive projects for good weather conditions (these are usually projects which require high frequencies). Plan B – as a “backup plan” – is choosen in case of poor weather conditions. It consists of measurements at longer wavelengths, mostly spectroscopic observations (HI). The high amount of observing time between 2cm and 11cm in 1980 comes from the demand for 2.8cm (Continuum) and 6cm observations (VLBI and Continuum). The improved technical possibilities for short wavelength observations after 1980 led to a signiﬁcant increase of observation below 2cm until now. 3. How the PKE Works The PKE is given the task of judging the observing proposals for the 100m telescope, deciding which programs should “make it to the telescope” and how much time is assigned to each project. To do this, various criteria are applied to each proposal submitted: − Scientiﬁc signiﬁcance: Does the proposal reﬂect proper and up-to-date science? Is the justiﬁcation properly written? − Technical feasibility: Can the goals of the suggested project be achieved with the proposed observing method? Is the technical equipment sufﬁcient to fulﬁl the needs of the observers? − Observing eﬃciency: Is a proper source list and time estimate given? Is the telescope used eﬃciently? Reﬂecting these points, each proposal receives a grade (currently on a scale of 1-5) which gives the priority of the project (or possible rejection). Additionally, a time allocation is made for each project: either the time

130

ROLF SCHWARTZ ET AL.

requested is allocated fully or only a reduced (sometime even an increased) amount of time is given, depending especially on the quality of the observing eﬃciency. There are three deadlines per year (currently, February, June, October 1st) for applying for observing time at the telescope, after which all proposals received by the Institute are distributed to the referees. The referees give each proposal a grade and suggest the time which should be assigned to the project. These grades and time assignments serve as a basis for the discussion about each project in the following meeting of the PKE in which a ﬁnal decision (grade and time allocation) about each project is made. The proposers are notiﬁed about the results of the evaluation by the PKE, i.e. the ﬁnal grade and time allocation; additional comments are given as well. In the event of new scientiﬁc developments, it is possible to apply for observing time at short notice, i.e. between the ﬁxed deadlines. These “targetof-opportunity” proposals are distributed to at least the internal members of the PKE, and it is usually possible to reach a fast decision. With beginning of regular VLBI experiments between the 100m telescope and the VLBA (Very Long Baseline Array – operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory of the USA), VLBI proposals have been approved by two diﬀerent Programme Committees: the NRAO PC and the PKE. The agreement between both PCs usually is very good. A ﬁnal decision about joint scheduling is done by the schedulers, based on the ratings of the PCs. Since the foundation of the European VLBI network (EVN) in 1980 any EVN related VLBI proposal is judged by a special PC, in which each EVN member institute is represented by one scientist. Consequently, the number of proposals to be discussed in the PKE decreased a bit. 4. Scheduling The scheduler of the 100m telescope is a member of the MPI scientiﬁc staﬀ appointed by the directors. He is also the chairman of the PKE without having voting rights. It is the responsibility of the scheduler to assign telescope time to the proposers, based on the ratings and comments of the program committee, but also taking account of the constraints given by technical matters or international obligations (like VLBI agreements). Technical constraints are mostly given by maintenance periods, that includes also the long-term planing of the receiver employment. Concerning international obligations like VLBI, observing time is often assigned weeks or even months in advance. Another important constraint for Eﬀelsberg is the weather, which poses no problem at long wavelengths (> 6cm), but causes severe diﬃculties for observations at short wavelengths (especially at 1.3cm). In order to avoid

RADIO ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS

131

wasting observing time during bad weather conditions, two observing schedules are made for Eﬀelsberg whenever possible. The ﬁrst – high priority plan – contains weather-sensitive observations (at short wavelengths), with the possibility to reject the oﬀered time in case the weather forecast is not favourable. In this case the second schedule becomes active, which usually contains observation at long wavelengths (≥ 11cm), e.g. HI observations or pulsar timing. These programs are usually carried out by local astronomers or – remotely – by the telescope operators. 5. Conclusion The method of evaluation and selection of observing programs for the 100m antenna described here has now been in use (with minor changes only) for more than 30 years now, and has always guaranteed the eﬃcient use of the Eﬀelsberg telescope. One of the changes was a more international composition of the programme committee since 2004 with respect to the rules for EU funded projects. Within this framework, we also plan to incorporate a uniﬁed form for electronical proposal submission, which will be developed for the European radio observatories. Other issues currently under discussion are e.g. the handling of projects, which can be carried out only under very good weather conditions (low water vapour content) and the evaluation of proposals with extremely high demand of observing time (“key projects”). The technical improvement of the telescope (new subreﬂector with active surface, and automatic, fast receiver changes) – planned for 2006 – will give the opportunity of a more ﬂexible allocation of observing time as well as a very eﬃcient use the telescope. Acknowledgements We thank Richard Porcas and Wolfgang Reich for critically reading the manuscript.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HST SCIENCE METRICS

J.P. MADRID, F.D. MACCHETTO∗ AND CL. LEITHERER

Space Telescope Science Institute 3700 San Martin Drive Baltimore MD 21218, USA ∗ Aﬃliated with the Space Telescope Division European Space Agency ESTEC NL-2200 Noordwijk AG, The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] AND G. MEYLAN

Laboratoire d’Astrophysique ´ Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne Observatoire CH-1290 Chavannes-des-Bois, Switzerland [email protected]

Abstract. In this chapter, we outline how a metrics program for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been developed at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). We highlight results regarding the productivity and impact of the HST. We also present a comparison with other major observatories and discuss the importance of the data archives. The process and results presented here can be reproduced by other facilities wishing to monitor and improve their scientiﬁc output.

1. Introduction One of the most important goals for Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) on the second decade of operations of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST – Fig. 1) is to optimize its science program. The development of sci133 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 133–143. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

134

J.P. MADRID ET AL.

ence metrics facilitates the evaluation of the scientiﬁc output of HST and allows the improvement of this output through educated decisions. The parameters we use to evaluate the inﬂuence of HST on astronomical research are: (i) the number of refereed papers based on HST observations that we link to speciﬁc observing programs, and (ii) the number of citations generated by these papers. This method has been used by Crabtree & Bryson (2001) to evaluate the eﬀectiveness of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and by Leibundgut et al. (2003) to measure the European Southern Observatory’s scientiﬁc success. The ﬁrst step was to gather the necessary data on published papers, citations, and observing programs. We then proceeded to assess the productivity and impact of HST through statistics presented in Sect. 3 & 4. We also evaluated the ranking of HST among the observatories that provide data to papers of High-Impact in Sect. 5 & 6. In Sect. 7, we describe the growing importance of the archives. The full scientiﬁc and public impact of a facility may be evaluated through additional metrics, such as the number of press releases (Christian 2004), the “most important” discoveries, etc. In this chapter we present science metrics that are solid, objective and reproducible. 2. The databases The starting point for the development of these metrics was to establish a comprehensive database of papers using data obtained with the HST. Creating such a database can be onerous and the process still needs substantial human intervention. The advent of digital libraries greatly facilitates the compilation of a bibliography. The NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) is the predominant search engine used by astronomers to access the technical literature. Its is widely known that astronomers use the ADS on a daily basis (Kurtz et al. 2005). We thus naturally turn to the ADS to complete an existing bibliography maintained by the STScI Library. We include in our database all refereed papers that publish at least an image or a spectrum taken with HST or new values derived directly from HST data. A new system of dataset identiﬁers is in the process of being implemented (Eichhorn et al. 2004). Identiﬁers associated with speciﬁc astronomical datasets will be included on papers using data from major observatories. This will improve drastically the hyperlinks between the literature and online data. It can also make compiling bibliographies for observatories much easier.

HST METRICS

135

Figure 1. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, the curvature of which is well visible in this picture. (Courtesy NASA)

136

J.P. MADRID ET AL.

A database of observing programs is needed as well. This database should contain a log of each observation taken by the telescope for all observing programs. For HST this database can be accessed through the server of the Multimission Archive at Space Telescope (MAST). The database is populated with information collected during the process of time allocation and with the planning and scheduling observation log. Every observing program has links to all refereed papers using its data. Thus we can ﬁnd out which programs are the most eﬀective. 3. Productivity A now-standard measure of the productivity of an observatory is the number of published papers using its data. Most refereed papers using HST data are published in the ﬁve core journals of astronomy viz. the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ), the Astronomical Journal (AJ), Astronomy and Astrophysics (A&A), the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), and the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc (PASP). In addition we count all papers in the other refereed journals, such as Nature and Science. Here we report the number of papers published through the end of 2004. In Fig. 2, we plot the number of refereed papers using HST data as a function of the year of publication. HST has been called the “Energizer Bunny of Astronomy” (Guinnessy 2003) for good reasons. Since its launch in 1990, HST has provided data used in more than 4700 papers. In the year 2004 alone, HST data was used in more than 600 refereed papers. We are not aware of any other working telescope more productive than HST. The ever increasing productivity of HST can be explained by the regular servicing missions to upgrade its science instruments and thus maintaining state-of-the-art technology in a telescope launched ﬁfteen years ago. Careful operations, selection and scheduling of the observations performed by HST maximize its scientiﬁc output. To date the Hubble Deep Field, an icon of modern astronomy, is the most productive HST program with 132 refereed papers. Other very productive programs include the Medium Deep Survey, the Quasar Absorption Line Survey, the Determination of the Extragalactic Distance Scale and the Snapshot Survey of 3CR Radio Galaxies. The whole set of HST papers is available to the astronomical community through the main search form on the ADS. 4. Impact In order to assess the impact of the science done using HST, we obtained the citations to papers using HST data. Our citation counts are based on

HST METRICS

Number of refereed papers based on HST data per year.

137

Figure 2.

138

J.P. MADRID ET AL.

the numbers provided by the ADS. There are diﬀerent providers for citation statistics, each provider has its own strengths and its weaknesses. See, for instance, Sandqvist (2004) and Heck (2003) for mistakes made by citation statistics providers. The NASA-ADS provides a reliable, easy access, and free of charge source of citation counts for Astronomy. We decided to use the ADS for its convenience and for the kind willingness of the ADS staﬀ to provide technical assistance and cooperation during the development of the HST science metrics. In Fig. 3, we present the mean number of citations per paper using HST data as a function of years since publication. We also plot as a comparison the mean number of citations for refereed papers in astronomy. Fig. 3 shows how HST papers have an average citation rate much higher that the average paper published in the ﬁve major journals of astronomy. A couple of years after publication most papers using HST data are cited. Roughly only 2% of HST papers remain uncited two years after publication compared to 25% for all refereed papers in astronomy. HST has unmatched observing capabilities in the UV, visible and nearinfrared. The high citation rate of HST reﬂects the excellent quality of its observations. HST has contributed data to many of the most cited papers in astronomy during the last decade. Chief examples are the papers about the Hubble Deep Field, the determination of the Hubble constant, and the determination of cosmological parameters through observations of distant supernovae. 5. High-Impact Papers Knowing which telescopes provide the data for the most cited papers is a metrics of interest for many. The Institute for Scientiﬁc Information (ISI – see e.g. Abt 2003) coined the term High-Impact Papers (HIP) for the 200 most cited papers published in a given year. In Meylan et al. (2004) we gave a complete description of the method we use to establish which telescopes have the highest impact on the astronomical literature. Brieﬂy, we obtain the 200 most cited papers in a given year through the ADS. We then access the full text and decide whether it is an observational or a theoretical paper. For all observational papers we determine which telescope provides the data. In the case of several telescopes contributing data for one paper we assign a share of the total number of citations to each facility involved. In Meylan et al. (2004), we published the HIP for the years 1998 to 2001. We present here new results for 2002 and 2003 in Table 1 and Table 2

HST METRICS

139

Figure 3. Mean number of citations of refereed HST papers by publication year. The papers considered were published in the ﬁve major journals (ApJ, AJ, A&A, MNRAS & PASP).

140

J.P. MADRID ET AL.

respectively. For the years we studied, HST has always been among the telescopes of high impact, occupying the ﬁrst place in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Along with HST, Keck, Chandra, and ESO are permanent members of the select high-impact club. Spitzer should be joining soon. Some facilities have important but transient impact like it was the case for Boomerang and Scuba. It will be interesting to know the impact that SDSS and WMAP have in future years.

TABLE 1. ADS High-Impact Papers 2002. Telescope CHANDRA SDSS Apache Point Observatory HST ESO 2dF Anglo Australian Observatory Sudbury Neutrino Observatory DASI XMM-Newton Keck ROSAT

Fraction of the Total 11.7 10.9 8.7 7.2 7.0 7.0 5.4 4.9 4.7 3.5

TABLE 2. ADS High-Impact Papers 2003. Telescope WMAP SDSS Apache Point Observatory Keck ESO HST CHANDRA Kamiokande 2MASS XMM-Newton CBI

Fraction of the Total 24.9 11.2 7.4 7.2 6.1 5.0 4.3 3.3 2.4 2.0

HST METRICS

141

6. Other observatories All major observatories like Keck, Chandra, ESO, Spitzer, and XMMNewton, have developed very similar metrics programs to evaluate the scientiﬁc output of their telescopes. A detailed comparison between the HST and the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) science metrics can be found in Grothkopf et al. (2005). This paper shows how 120 refereed papers use data of both HST and VLT. HST images taken with WFPC2 are often combined with spectroscopy taken with ISAAC. The combination of HST and Keck or HST and VLT is now common (Trimble et al. 2005). Data collected with diﬀerent facilities can now easily be combined to complement each other. A prime example is the Virtual Observatory (VO) that provides a framework to facilitate the cross-matching of datasets at all wavelengths to fuel new scientiﬁc results. 7. Archives Archives holding data acquired with large telescopes are of increasing importance in astronomy and will certainly expand in the future, the VO is again an excellent example. MAST is in charge of storing and distributing the data for HST. In a recent study the proportion of HST papers that are based on archival data was assessed (Levay 2005). For each paper we compared its authors against the names of the authors of the observing program associated. The result of this exercise is that 35% of HST papers are published by diﬀerent authors than the ones who made the original proposal. MAST was crucial in providing the data for 35% of the HST bibliography. The availability of HST data through MAST will ensure that papers will certainly keep using HST data even beyond the end of the mission as it is the case for IUE today. 8. Conclusion The productivity and impact of HST continues to grow ﬁfteen years after its launch: today HST is the most productive telescope. HST is building a legacy of data for the astronomical community that will keep yielding scientiﬁc results for many years to come. Acknowledgments We thank the ADS team and specially Michael Kurtz and Carolyn SternGrant. We are grateful to the MAST team at the STScI, particularly Karen

142

J.P. MADRID ET AL.

Figure 4.

The Hubble Deep Field. (courtesy NASA)

Levay for the numerous times she has helped storing and handling the data used in this study. The STScI Librarian Sarah Stevens-Rayburn has made important contributions to the HST bibliography. References 1. 2. 3. 4.

Abt, H.A. 2003, The Institute for Scientiﬁc Information and the Science Citation Index, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 3, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 197-204. Crabtree, D.R. & Bryson, E.P. 2001, The Eﬀectiveness of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada 95, 259-266. Christian, C.A. 2004, The Public Impact of the Hubble Space Telescope: A Case Study, in Organisations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-216. Eichhorn, G. & Astrophys. Datacenter Exec. Committee Collab. 2004, Connecting

HST METRICS

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

143

to On-line Data: A Progress Report, Bull. American Astron. Soc. 36, 1542. Grothkopf, U., Leibundgut, B., Macchetto, D., Madrid, J. & Leitherer, C. 2005, Comparison of Science Metrics Among Observatories, ESO Messenger 119, 45-49. Guinnessy, P. 2003, Astronomers Lobby for New Lease on Hubble’s Life, Physics Today 56, 29-31. Heck, A. 2003, Wrong Impact!, European Astron. Soc. Nsl. 26, 4-5. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Demleitner, M. & Murray, S.S. 2005, Worlwide Use and Impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System Digital Library, J. American Soc. Inform. Sc. Technol. 56, 36-45. Leibundgut, B., Grothkopf, U. & Treumann, A. 2003, Metrics to Measure ESO’s Scientiﬁc Success, ESO Messenger 114, 46-49. Levay, K. 2005, private communication. Meylan, G., Madrid, J. & Macchetto, D. 2004, Hubble Space Telescope Science Metrics, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 116, 790-796. Sandqvist, Aa. 2004, The A&A Experience with Impact Factors, in Organisations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 197-201. Trimble, V., Zaich, P. & Bosler, T. 2005, Productivity and Impact of Optical Telescopes, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 117, 111-118.

THE SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN

Space Telescope Science Institute Homewood Campus 3700 San Martin Drive Baltimore MD 21218, USA [email protected] AND GREG DAVIDSON

Northrop Grumman Space and Technology One Space Park Drive Redondo Beach CA 90278, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Scientists, observatories, academic institutions and funding agencies persistently review the usefulness and productivity of investment in scientiﬁc research. The Science News Metrics was created over 10 years ago to review NASA’s performance in this arena. The metric has been useful for many years as one facet in measuring the scientiﬁc discovery productivity of NASA-funded missions. The metric is computed independently of the agency and has been compiled in a consistent manner. Examination of the metric yields year-by-year insight into NASA science successes in a world wide context. The metric has shown that NASA’s contribution to worldwide top science news stories has been approximately 5% overall with the Hubble Space Telescope dominating the performance.

1. Introduction The Oﬃce of Space Science (OSS) of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), recently absorbed into NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, is responsible for developing a space science program with a primary objective to accomplish fundamental science. Ultimately, like many science organizations, NASA’s success is measured in part by the achievement of scientiﬁc insights relative to the cost. NASA OSS consid145 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 145–156. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

146

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

ers scientiﬁc potential and output of missions in strategic planning and is held accountable for the associated costs. Independent measures of scientiﬁc accomplishments have been an integral part of this strategy. While fundamental science is the primary objective of the Space Science program, it is also among the most diﬃcult of outcomes to measure. In the early 1990’s, one of us (Davidson) led an eﬀort at NASA to identify science metrics. At the most fundamental level, a good metric is something that you can count which is correlated with what you want. Desirable secondary characteristics include ease of data collection, precision, and low levels of bias. The group at NASA explored both prospective measures (planned capabilities in terms of angular resolution, spectral resolution, sensitivity, and time resolution, all as a function of wavelength coverage) as well as retrospective measures (quantity of data, number of observations, and bibliometric measures such as number of refereed papers or frequently cited refereed papers). Two retrospective metrics were selected from this analysis as being particularly well-suited to address NASA strategic planning needs. Key advantages of these metrics included relative ease of collection, independence of NASA, correlation with other, more complex metrics (particularly the citation bibliometrics) and ability to communicate results in a meaningful way to policy makers and to the public. These metrics are not perfect surrogate measures of all aspects of scientiﬁc performance, but they do provide important insights into fundamental scientiﬁc performance. The ﬁrst measure, colloquially referred to as the “Science News Metric” is based on the annual listing of “most important stories” in the journal, Science News. This listing has a 31-year history and is published at the end of each calendar year. The Science News Metric essentially tracks “what’s hot” in science on a year-by-year basis. The second metric formulated for OSS is the “Textbook Metric”. This measure is an attempt to penetrate how the “hot” science topics of a single year get incorporated in the body of knowledge. The purpose is to understand OSS’s capture of “intellectual market share” (what percentage of textbook material is based on OSS contributions) in the long term as well as overall growth of knowledge about astronomy. This metric will not be discussed herein. A similar metric was discussed by Christian (2004) in evaluating the impact of the Hubble Space Telescope mission. 2. A Description of the Science News Metric Science News is published weekly. It summarizes scientiﬁc ﬁndings in ﬁelds as diverse archeology, biomedicine, chemistry, mathematics, psychology, space science, and technology. Science News captures the essence of ref-

SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

147

ereed scientiﬁc publications in a digest form. Since 1973, Science News has published an annual list highlighting over 100 (usually 125-170) of the “most important stories” in science. Each year, the Science News Metric is compiled (by Davidson) to track those stories and estimate the OSS contribution to each. The metric represents the scientiﬁc or technical accomplishments for each year and from this the performance of Space Science funded by NASA can be compared over to all other “world-class” science in ﬁelds as diverse as archeology to biomedicine. 2.1. CALCULATION

The Science News Metric is calculated as follows: 1. All the “most important stories” are screened. Those that are not based on discoveries (data collected and scientiﬁc inferences made) or technological accomplishments are eliminated, usually about 15% of the total. 2. One point is awarded for each “most important story”. In most cases, the discovery is due to collaborative eﬀorts, and so credit is apportioned among the groups (foreign, ground-based astronomers, etc.) referenced by Science News as being responsible for the discovery. 3. NASA “points” are compared against points for all other scientiﬁc discoveries to establish NASA Space Science as a percentage of world science. The method allows comparison of NASA with other federal agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation). For example, in 2002, one of the top stories involved Dark Matter. In fact, Science News had three separate articles on this particular subject. The contributing NASA missions were the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the High Energy Astronomical Observatory (HEAO), and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), but with diﬀerent contributions (WMAP being the most signiﬁcant followed by HST). The discovery was deﬁnitely based on data and research results, and involved more that one agency. WMAP was given 0.38 points, HST given 0.25 points, HEAO given 0.03 points and the SDSS given 0.05 points. The total number of points allocated is less than 1.0 because non-space facilities contributed to this story. 2.2. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The strengths of the Science News Metric for the purpose intended are, ﬁrst, that the data used to generate this metric have been determined independently of NASA. The news stories are selected by a completely independent entity. The research and assessment following the publication of the

148

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

year-end issue of Science News in December is conducted autonomously. Additionally, this metric provides data on individual missions as a function of time, thus yielding insight to support life-cycle cost trade-oﬀs. One correlation with bibliometrics that was surprising to some in the early 1990’s was that 30%-40% of science return occurred after the completion of prime mission lifetime. A parallel study of bibliometrics on IUE and OAO showed that peak publication of papers was 4-6 years after launch, and that peak publication of frequently cited papers (>5 citations/year) occurred 5-7 years after launch. Note there is some randomness in the metric due to the incidence of discoveries in a given calendar period. As an example, two black hole discoveries may share one point in one year. If the results had been split between years, the stories might have been attributed to more than one point. As an additional caveat, it is recognized that the Science News Metric is based on the journal Science News, and not as rigorous as a refereed scientiﬁc journal. One can argue that the number of “most important stories” from a mission as highlighted by a commercial journal is not necessarily correlated with the scientiﬁc value of that mission. What researchers value as the most important advances in their discipline may loosely correlate with what Science News reports, but the correspondence is not necessarily one-to-one. Also diﬀerent science stories may involve varied levels of eﬀort. For example, the importance of the single ﬁnding of the origin of the universe based on the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission data and analysis took considerable time and eﬀort. In some sense the Science News Metric can capture the importance and level of eﬀort in such situations because, for example, the COBE result was so signiﬁcant that the story re-emerged repeatedly in subsequent years as a “most important story”. Alternatively, attempts at using refereed publications on a year-to-year basis to evaluate the impact of speciﬁc discoveries and research results is time consuming and problematic. Usually refereed publications take considerable time to reach publication and an important subject may take years to accumulate the representative articles that would indicate “importance”. Using a “subject citation index” if it existed as such would also be diﬃcult in that it takes several years for a speciﬁc set of results to be assimilated by the scientiﬁc community and then referenced. It follows that refereed publications and citations can be useful for retrospectives, but as timely measures of productivity they are risky. The importance of the Science News Metric should be understood. As one facet of the accomplishments that NASA uses to formally report activity under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), this indicator clearly is taken as a serious measure. The metric can have some

SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

149

deliberate inﬂuence on the funding for missions and speciﬁc lines of scientiﬁc inquiry. Certainly missions that appear favorably with high Science News Metrics use the metrics as a leverage point in arguing for continuation or augmentation. 3. Science News Metrics 3.1. TOP MISSIONS

Table 1 exhibits the 2004 Science News Metric results for the top scoring missions. The data are the accumulated points for all NASA missions during the period 1973 to 2004. The points accumulated through 2003 also are shown in the third column entitled “Points 03”. It can be seen from this table, and has been borne out by previous analyzes, that the Hubble Space Telescope has been the single most productive mission NASA has supported. Other missions have had signiﬁcant stories, surprisingly persistent over a long period of time, for example Voyager. This table cannot capture the whole picture of science productivity however. Stories such as the discovery of evidence for water on Mars and the success of the Mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit in 2004 are undisputed, but the accumulated points for those missions in one year do not project those individual missions into the top 25 consistently generating signiﬁcant results. 3.2. 2004 TOP STORIES

Another cut at the data includes the top stories listed by Science News that contain results attributable to NASA missions. These results are exhibited in Table 2. This table contains the story description (Column 5) and the fractional points (Column 1) attributable to a speciﬁc NASA mission or program (Column 4). The NASA Center (for example Jet Propulsion Laboratory = JPL or Goddard Space Flight Center = GSFC) are designated in the third column. The Sponsor column refers to an agency (such as European Space Agency = ESA or the US Department of Defense = DoD) or a branch of NASA as it existed in 2004. The designation “S” indicates Space Science, “Y” indicates Earth Science, “M/U” indicates the Human Space Flight enterprise and “R” indicates Aerospace and Technology. It can be seen that many stories are split between missions and facilities, demonstrating the multi-instrument, multi-wavelength nature of space science investigations.

150

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

TABLE 1. Top 25 Most Productive Space Programs (1973-2004). Points show the cumulative number of discoveries between 1973 and 2004 or 2003 Points 04

Points 03

1 2 3 4 5

53.0 15.7 15.2 11.2 9.8

50.2 15.7 15.2 11.2 9.8

6 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 15 16 17 17 19 19 21 22 23 24 25

9.5 9.2 7.7 7.5 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7

9.5 9.2 7.7 7.5 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7

Program Hubble Space Telescope Voyager Viking Galileo Apollo, Skylab, Apollo Telescope Mount, Apollo-Soyuz Space Shuttle (HEDS and Microgravity) Gamma Ray Observatory Mars Global Surveyor Chandra X-ray Observatory Salyut NOAA Satellites Pioneer 10/11 Pioneer-Venus Physics and Astronomy Rockets and Balloons ISTP (SOHO, WIND, Polar) ROSAT Nimbus 4-7 Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) Mariner 9/10 Venera Magellan Astromaterials High Energy Astrophysics Observatories (HEAO)

3.3. NASA PERFORMANCE

Table 3 compares NASA to a few other agencies represented in the news stories of 2004. The NASA enterprises are broken out, illustrating that Space Science has carried the bulk of the important stories for the agency. It also emphasizes the valuable investment the Oﬃce of Space Science has made in public information and outreach based on solid scientiﬁc research. Figure 1 exhibits the 31-year history of the NASA’s contribution to the top stories, where the total for NASA is exhibited as well as the individual branches of NASA. The mid-1980’s dip is associated with (a) the relatively weak scientiﬁc payoﬀ from large investments in shuttle-based instruments,

SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

151

TABLE 2. 2004 Most Important Stories, sorted by mission. Note: Center refers to the institution responsible for building or operating the spacecraft making the discovery; in most cases the science investigations are done by scientists elsewhere in the other community or at other Centers. No. stories

Sponsor

Center

Program

Discovery

0.8

S

JPL

MER

0.2 1

ESA S

ESA JPL

Mars Express Cassini

0.65 0.05 0.3 1

S S S S

HQ JPL GSFC GSFC

grants SST HST HST

1

S

JPL

Stardust

0.5

S

GSFC

HST

0.9 0.5

S S

JPL GSFC

SST HST

0.5

S

GSFC

HST

0.5

S

JPL

SST

1

Y

JPL

QuikSCAT

0.5 0.5 0.5

R R DoD

LARC DFRC DoD

Hyper-X Hyper-X DMSP

0.5

S

JPL

MER

1

ESA

ESA

ERS

Discovery of evidence of past water on Mars Evidence of methane on Mars New measurements at Saturn and new high-resolution images Discovery of Sedna Discovery of Sedna Discovery of Sedna Hubble Ultra-Deep Field shows some of the earliest galaxies Highest resolution images ever taken of a comet Discovery of the earliest known galaxies Youngest star ever detected Dark energy is found to be uniformly spread across the universe Planetary debris disks found around Sun-like stars Planetary debris disks found around Sun-like stars Wind “highways” carrying spores and vegetation bits account for similarity of plant species on islands thousands of kilometers apart First ﬂight of X-43a scramjet First ﬂight of X043a scramjet Frost ﬂowers provide a source of ozone-destroying bromine Iron Oxide concretions in Utah are similar to those on Mars Satellite InSAR imagery shows geomorphological changes associated with past underground nuclear tests

152

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

Table 2 (continued). No. stories

Sponsor

Center

Program

Discovery

0.5

Y

JPL

GRACE

0.25

Y

GSFC

LAGEOS

0.25

ESA

ESA

LAGEOS

0.25

S

JPL

SST

0.1

S

HQ

Grants

0.02

S

GSFC

HST

0.5

M/U

HQ

NSBRI

0.125

Y

JPL

QuikSCAT

0.25

Y

JPL

TOPEX

0.125

Japan

0.5

Y

Demonstration of gravitational frame dragging and test of general relativity Demonstration of gravitational frame-dragging and test of general relativity Demonstration of gravitational frame dragging and test of general relativity Discovery of the youngest planet known and organic compounds in a space region with potential for planets Detection of three of the lightest known planets Detection of three of the lightest known planets A class of proteins seem to trigger muscle atrophy The onset of the El Ni˜ no phenomenon can be forecast as much as two years in advance The onset of the El Ni˜ no phenomenon can be forecast as much as two years in advance The onset of the El Ni˜ no phenomenon can be forecast as much as two years in advance Oxygen was present in small quantities on the Earth’s surface 2.32 billion years ago, 100 million years earlier than expected

ADEOS

ARC

Astrobiology

plus (b) the launch slips of the major planned missions of the 1980’s (Hubble, Galileo, Magellan, COBE, GRO) due to both developmental issues and the 3.5 year shuttle launch hiatus after Challenger was lost. At the end of the decade and into the 1990’s, NASA productivity soars as returns come from both from those 1980’s legacy missions as well new missions starting development in the 1990’s. Figure 2 exhibits the cumulative percent contri-

SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

153

TABLE 3. NASA Enterprise Performance (1973-2004). Points 2004

Percent 2004

Points 2003

Percent 2003

5074

100

4865

100

Total “Most Important” stories in Science News

308.9 228.2 47.9 19.5 13.0 7.6

6.09 4.50 0.94 0.38 0.26 0.15

296.2 220.1 44.8 19.0 12.3 7.1

6.09 4.52 0.92 0.39 0.25 0.15

12.6 30.5

0.25 0.60

12.6 29.0

0.26 0.60

5.6

0.11

5.6

0.12

NASA Space Science Earth Science Human Exploration Aeronautics/Technology U.S Department of Defense (Space) Soviet Union/Russia (Space) European Space Agency (and member states) Japan (Space)

366.0

7.21

350.5

7.20

Total Space Activities

butions of individual missions, where it is seen that HST has contributed most signiﬁcantly over time. 4. Synopsis The Science News Metrics, created under the auspices of NASA, have been instrumental for many years as one tool for determining the scientiﬁc discovery productivity of missions. The metric has merit because it relies on autonomous evaluation of data compiled independent of the agency. The metric has been compiled in a consistent manner for over 12 years and is valuable as a yearly probe of mission productivity and also draws strength as a multiple year measure of NASA science successes. The Science News Metrics ﬁt well into the year-by-year analysis and reporting by NASA for internal purposes as well as to the federal government. The metric has shown that NASA’s contribution to world wide top science news stories has been approximately 5% overall with the Hubble Space Telescope dominating the performance. Other measures, such as the number of scientiﬁc refereed publications based on mission data, also provide useful retrospectives on productivity. Publication history is a measure not only of new scientiﬁc insights but also of the longevity and integrity of speciﬁc results over periods of time

154 CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

Figure 1.

Thirty one year history of NASA’s contribution to Science News top stories.

Cumulative Contributions of the 10 Most Productive NASA Programs 60

50

Points

30

20

10

0 1970

1975

1985

1990 Year

1995

2000

2005

2010

Individual NASA mission contribution to Science News top stories.

155

Figure 2.

1980

SCIENCE NEWS METRICS

HST Voyager Viking Galileo Apollo STS GRO MGS Chandra Rockets & Balloons

40

156

CAROL A. CHRISTIAN AND GREG DAVIDSON

longer than a year. Other metrics serve diﬀerent purposes as well, and in combination can give a variety of perspectives on the success of NASA scientiﬁc endeavors within the agency and compared to other organizations. Acknowledgements This work is supported by a contract, NAS5-26555, to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. for the operation of the Hubble Space Telescope at Space Telescope Science Institute. Additional support for the annual production of the Science News Metric, performed by Luke Sollitt and Rick Ohlemacher, has been provided by contract SV3-73015, to Northrop Grumman Space Technology. References 1.

Christian, C.A. 2004, The Public Impact of HST: A Case Study, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-216.

A CITATION-BASED MEASURE OF SCIENTIFIC IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

FRAZER R. PEARCE

School of Physics and Astronomy University of Nottingham Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom [email protected] AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing Swinburne University Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia [email protected]

Abstract. We discuss the application of citation-based scientiﬁc impact measures described by Pearce (2004), listing various caveats and things to consider before they can be reliably applied. We also examine the 1000 most cited astronomy papers: as of December 2004, 279 citations were needed to obtain a place on this list. Using this list we count the number of papers published by each author, ﬁnding those astronomers with the most entries. For the 15 authors who appear most often we apply the impact measures of Pearce and compare these to those of the ﬁeld as a whole. Finally we compare the output of the most cited members of the Astronomical Society of Australia to those at the University of Durham, illustrating the eﬀect of a citation hotspot.

1. Introduction How does one objectively determine the “worth” of a scientiﬁc endeavour? In an era of limited total funds, if two projects are deemed equally worthwhile, how do you choose between them? This is an insidious question that is inherently impossible to answer: who is to say that any one ﬁeld is “better” than another? With this in mind, we have attempted to generate some objective measures of scientiﬁc impact, whose worth is by deﬁnition 157 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 157–168. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

158

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

limited: they should be applied with caution and come with a government health warning. Measures of scientiﬁc research output are scrutinized by government funding agencies, who wish to evaluate how well they have spent their monies, as well as forming part of the framework by which individuals and departments are ranked. In the UK for example, in the next Research Assessment Exercise, active researchers will be ranked as being of local, national or international standard by some as yet ill-deﬁned procedure. Whether or not this process will involve any objective measure of performance is unclear at this stage. It is certainly true that citation counts are already often used by Universities and research institutes as a key measure for determining promotion within an organisation. On a more personal level, surely individual researchers have an interest in knowing which of their publications has been read and made an impact on their colleagues? Until recently, the most widely used measure of output was a simple count of the number of papers published in reputable refereed journals, with perhaps the added sophistication of a page count. Now though, thanks to the accessibility and usefulness of electronic searchable databases, the quantity of papers is rapidly being replaced as a measure of research output by some objective measure of research impact. Although far from perfect, the objective measure that is commonly used is a citation count, i.e. the number of times a given paper is referenced in other works and hence its impact within the discipline. As emphasized by Martin & Irvine (1983), citations should not be taken as a measure of a papers’ quality or importance. Citation counts are also complicated by the general growth in the number of papers published each year (Peterson 1988). A number of previous studies have conducted a citation analysis of astronomers and astronomy papers. These include several works by H.A. Abt (e.g. Abt 1980, 1981, 1984 & 1998), V. Trimble (e.g. Trimble 1985 & 1996) and E. Davoust and L. Schmadel (Davoust & Schmadel 1987, 1992). More recent studies have taken advantage of electronic databases, such as the Institute for Science Information (ISI) or the Astrophysical Data Services (ADS), to carry out more extensive citation searches. For example, Burstein (2000) created a list of cited papers for the years 1981 to 1997, their citation rate and the names of over 6000 astronomers world-wide. He went on to tabulate the most cited astronomers and the most cited astronomical papers over that time period. Sanchez & Benn (2004) investigated the inﬂuence of the host country institution of the ﬁrst author on citations. The USA, UK, Switzerland and Canada were above the world average, an eﬀect they attributed to their large communities and language bias. Recently, Schwarz & Kennicutt (2004) examined how citations for astronomy papers vary with demographics and the eﬀect of ‘pre-publication’ on a preprint

MEASURE OF IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

159

server. Pearce (2004) used the ADS database to deﬁne the 1000 most-cited astronomy papers and calculate the frequency of papers that achieve certain citation thresholds. For example, in the last 5 years, a paper needs over 91 citations to be in the top 1% of the most-cited astronomy papers. He also calculated the relative ranking of research-active (deﬁned as producing at least 5 papers in the last 5 years) astronomers world-wide. By performing a similar analysis of Australian astronomers using the Astronomical Society of Australia membership list we have determined that despite their relative isolation Australian astronomers compare well with the average citation rates determined by Pearce (2004). 2. Method Our preferred scheme, and the one whose advantages and limitations will be discussed here, is that of Pearce (2004). For convenience, we re-iterate the main methodology below; − Citations are measured over a rolling 5-year period that runs from 5 12 years ago up to six months prior to the present date. − Both the total number and the “normalised” number of citations received for all refereed papers published during the speciﬁed timeframe are counted. Obtaining a normalised citation count involves dividing each papers citation count by the number of authors. Citations are not counted in the previous six months because very few citations are generated in this period. A ﬁve year window corresponds to the average time for a paper to reach its maximum number of citations per year (Abt 1981), and also matches the typical grant and evaluation period of many funding agencies. For the two measures, the raw citation count is simply a measure of how many times a piece of work is cited, and takes no account of the number of authors. The normalised count reduces the citation count in inverse proportion to the number of authors. This reduces the eﬀect noticed by Abt (1981) that the number of citations a paper receives linearly increases with the length of the author list, as well as reducing the problem of extensive collaborations producing large numbers of papers. Neither measure takes into account the position of the author in the author list, so that ﬁrst author papers count equally with last author ones; so implicitly all authors contribute equally to a given paper. Both raw and normalised citations are relatively crude measures of impact; however they have the advantage of being simple, well-deﬁned and transparent. More complicated measures, weighting an author’s contribution to any given paper more “correctly” would be impossible to apply in general without an agreed honour system listing these contributions, a state of play

160

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

that is unlikely to become reality in the near future. In any case, given that the majority of well published authors appear in a variety of positions in the author list and contribute various amounts to their portfolio the resultant impact measure would usually lie somewhere between the two rankings produced by the simple measures deﬁned above. 2.1. CAVEATS

A number of caveats should be born in mind when applying our impact measures; they include: Author name confusion: Authors with the same surname and ﬁrst initial are counted as the same person in the data generated by Pearce (2004). We note that name confusion was a signiﬁcant eﬀect in the study of worldwide astronomers by Burstein (2000). He advocated that astronomers be assigned individual identiﬁcation numbers to address this problem. Such a measure would certainly greatly simplify the problem of correctly identifying authors and their papers. In all our work we have endeavoured to eliminate name confusion by using the middle initial facility of the ADS and hand inspection of the paper list returned for highly cited authors. This works less well once thousands of authors are to be considered. Sub-disciplines within astronomy: Diﬀerent sub-disciplines within astronomy may have diﬀerent relative citation rates. Trimble (1993a,b) found that for British and American astronomers, theorists were more cited than observers who were in turn more cited than instrument builders. Optical astronomy was the most cited wavelength regime, and cosmology/extragalactic astronomy the most cited research area. Incomplete citation index: In this study we used the ADS citation index. As noted on their web site “...citation lists in the ADS are not complete”. They go on to identify several sources of possible incompleteness, the main one aﬀecting this study would be errors in page numbers within the citing paper. Timeliness: As it takes on average 5 years for a paper to reach its peak citation rate (Abt 1981), our 5 year window will favour those astronomers who are well established and productive at the start of the study period. Self citation: We have not attempted to remove self citation, but to ﬁrst order this should aﬀect all papers equally. For highly-cited papers, self citation will only represent a small fraction of the total. We note that Abt (1980) deemed self citation “statistically unimportant” at 6.4% of all citations. Citation of only ADS refereed papers: In this study we only include citations to and from refereed papers that are included in the ADS. Thus we do not include non-refereed conference papers, book articles etc, nor do we

MEASURE OF IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

161

include citations from journals that are not part of the ADS system (e.g. Quantum Gravity). Citation of technical papers: Some highly cited papers will be of a technical nature, or are largely data catalogues, such as photometric standard stars. In such cases, citations may reﬂect their usefulness to the community rather than scientiﬁc impact per se.

3. Applying the impact measures In practice, on an individual basis citation measures are of limited use beyond giving a rough indication of the impact a particular individual is currently making on their ﬁeld. A normalised citation score of greater than 40 implies a good citation history over the previous 5 years, however, the diﬀerence between an impact of 40 and one of 80 could easily be dependent on other factors. When evaluating an individual score, consideration should be given as to whether or not a single paper is driving the result. For instance, Randall & Sundrum (1999a,b) accumulated over 1100 citations for each of their seminal contributions to string theory, resulting in an impact score of over 550 for each author for each paper. For these authors, their 5 year citation-based scores are about to dip dramatically as they are concentrated in a couple of papers. Obviously such a major contribution cannot simply be ignored, illustrating the danger of solely relying on recent publications as an exclusive determinant of scientiﬁc impact. Reliable, stable impact scores are achieved in a simple way: what is required is a history of papers each of which accumulates a decent number of citations. Normalising the citations by the number of authors leads to an even more stable result as this takes out the bias of large collaborations producing a large number of papers. Care should also be taken to check where an individual appears on the author list as no weighting is applied according to author position in the citation measures considered here. Ideally an individual will score highly on both raw citation and normalised citation count. Rather than applying the impact measures in general, a better use is for comparing researchers within the same subﬁeld. This eliminates any widescale variation between one discipline and another. Another area where citation-based measures are weak is for young researchers who have not yet had suﬃcient time to build up a body of work and a reputation in their chosen area. Without a suitable baseline over which to assess work any citation or publication-based measure is obviously ﬂawed. This problem can be somewhat alleviated by noting the date of an author’s ﬁrst publication and the length of time that has elapsed since then.

162

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

Where the citation measures work well is in identifying individuals and areas who are eﬀectively research inactive. Normalised citation scores below 10 indicate that an area is receiving very few citations or publishing little new material at the present time. This may of course be because the particular ﬁeld is small or only peripherally related to astronomy but for mainstream areas such low scores, especially when combined with a low raw citation count of less than ∼ 100 are an indicator of research inactivity. One thing that is clear is that using citations obtained in a rolling ﬁve year window in order to measure impact is a procedure that pays little respect to age. As we will see in the next section, even some of the ‘superstars’ of modern astronomy obtain impact scores akin to those of mere mortals if we only look at their recent work. Researchers with well established track records do of course have an advantage when it comes to collecting citations but this eﬀect isn’t so great if we limit the count to recently published material. The greats must continue to publish well read and cited material in order to continue to score well on these impact measures. This can lead to the situation where well established ﬁgures don’t do as well as they expect to in any ranking list produced using a window-based impact measure. This feature of the method is somewhat circumvented if an individual’s entire publication portfolio is considered; we would advocate also looking at the number of papers receiving more than 30 and 100 citations published by any given author. Papers with more than 30 citations have been noticed and well read by the ﬁeld. As Pearce (2004) demonstrated, less than one paper in 50 papers achieves 100 citations, so this is a good indicator of a successful and useful piece of work. Books are also a good indicator of prowess in the ﬁeld that can take a signiﬁcant amount of time to produce and are sometimes well cited, but these are not included in the impact measures considered here. 4. 1000 most cited papers Given the citation counts per paper it is straightforward to extract the 1000 most cited papers from the ADS. An up-to-date listing is given on; http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/∼ppzfrp/top1000.html. As of December 22nd 2004, 279 citations were required in order to obtain a place on this list. By extracting full author lists and sorting it is possible to obtain Table 1, the number of the top 1000 most cited papers each astronomer listed has authored. Also shown in Table 1 are the total number of raw citations received by each author in their career, the total normalised number of citations (citations inversely weighted by author number), the number of citations divided by the normalised citation count, forming an estimate of the average number of authors per paper, and the number of refereed papers published.

163

MEASURE OF IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

TABLE 1. Number of top 1000 papers published by each author. Also, for the same authors, total raw lifetime citations (RC), normalised lifetime citations (NC), an estimate of the average number of authors per paper, total number of refereed papers, number of papers published in the last 5 year time interval plus the raw and normalised citation scores over this same timeframe (5RC & 5NC). The totals are for unique papers, and so do not tally with the numbers above as several papers appear under more than one author. Name

Top

RC

NC

Authors

Papers

5Pap

5RC

5NC

White S. D. M. Efstathiou G. Faber S. M. Frenk C. S. Rees M. J. Ostriker J. P. Sandage A. Dressler A. Huchra J. Gunn J. E. Kennicutt R. C. Blandford R. D. Burstein D. Davis M. Ellis R. S.

18 17 16 15 15 14 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10

19309 17911 15881 16636 18901 19842 25609 13427 20277 19186 12181 12056 11523 15216 15927

6916 5094 3915 3938 9199 8002 15180 4604 5038 5828 6025 4901 3760 4774 2821

2.79 3.52 4.06 4.22 2.05 2.48 1.69 2.92 4.02 3.29 2.02 2.46 3.06 3.19 5.65

225 211 150 178 317 271 337 124 289 257 188 205 116 146 246

72 64 23 80 53 57 23 20 51 86 44 51 16 31 77

3374 3127 1660 4253 1058 2899 310 1432 2113 4943 1319 735 219 785 5008

539 454 224 398 405 503 93 134 236 202 173 162 30 116 414

Total

138

205267

3100

668

21601

3564

With this many papers published, often with various minor name changes, these ﬁgures are as accurate as possible but may not include every last paper. Some name confusion occurs for White, Faber, Gunn, Davis & Ellis but this has been circumvented by hand checking and the use of the middle initial lists maintained by the ADS. Just outside the authors listed in Table 1 with ten or more papers in the top 1000 list are; G. Neugebauer and D. Lynden-Bell with 9; F. H. Shu, A. Maeder, and C. Heiles with 8 and a host of people with seven; S. E. Woosley, P. B. Stetson, P. J. Steinhardt, M. Schmidt, P. L. Schechter, B. A. Peterson, B. Paczynski, C. F. McKee, I. Iben, T. M. Heckman, W. E. Harris, R. Green, A. V. Filippenko, A. C. Fabian, R. L. Davies, and J. R. Bond. Interestingly, several collaborations crop up with multiple entries. Easily top of this category are White & Frenk with 11 papers on which they are both signatories, with the foursome of White, Efstathiou, Frenk & Davis deserving an honorable mention as they contribute four papers. The other

164

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

Figure 1. Likelihood of an author achieving more than a speciﬁed number of citations within a recent 5 year window. The lower curve is for all authors publishing 2 or more papers in the interval, the upper curve is for active researchers with 5 or more recent papers. The labelled vertical lines show the 5 year citation counts for all authors with more than 10 papers within the 1000 most cited papers in astronomy.

major grouping is that of Faber, Dressler & Burstein who achieve nine entries in various combinations. Beyond these, Ostriker & Gunn, Rees & Blandford, and Huchra & Kennicutt all have four papers on which they are co-authors. These really are the superstars of modern astronomy; note that the ﬁfteen authors listed in Table 1 have accumulated over 200,000 citations between them and published over 3,000 papers, each of which averages over 66 citations. They account for well over ten percent of the top 1000 most

MEASURE OF IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

165

Figure 2. Likelihood of an author achieving more than a speciﬁed number of citations within a recent 5 year window. The lower curve is for all authors publishing 2 or more papers in the interval, the upper curve is for active researchers with 5 or more recent papers. The labelled vertical lines show the 5 year normalised citation counts for all authors with more than 10 papers within the 1000 most cited papers in astronomy.

cited papers of all time. Normalising the citations by the number of authors reveals a scatter; Sandage, Kennicutt & Rees clearly publish much material either alone or with a small number of co-authors, as their normalised citation score is a signiﬁcant fraction of their total citations. Conversely, Ellis, and to a lesser extent Frenk, Faber & Huchra often publish with quite a few co-authors. In Figures 1 & 2 we overlay the raw citation and normalised citation counts for the 15 authors with the most papers in the top 1000 on the

166

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES

citation and normalised citation measures for astronomy as a whole derived by Pearce (2004). We have taken the logarithm of both axes as all these “superstars” appear at the high end. As can be seen from the ﬁgures, the 15 authors split into 3 groups: those making a massive current impact on the ﬁeld; White, Ostriker, Efstathiou, Ellis, Rees & Frenk, those who are still highly active but no longer in the “superstar” category; Huchra, Faber, Gunn, Kennicutt, Blandford, Dressler & Davis, and those who are contributing at a more normal level; Sandage & Burstein. Given that the input to these ﬁgures is those authors who have published many eminent papers throughout the history of astronomy, it is perhaps most surprising how many of them are still highly active in the ﬁeld. 5. Citation hotspots In examining the citation histories of the members of the ASA, we have uncovered the ASA members with the highest impact, ranked in Table 2 which gives the top 10. A similar analysis can be performed for the astronomers currently at the University of Durham, also shown on Table 2. The analysis was performed over the same period and at the same time as the ASA study, from March 1999 to February 2004. This produces a perhaps surprising result: measuring impact in this way Durham’s output is comparable to that of Australia. This is of course not a fair comparison given that the Australian research has a much broader base than that carried out in Durham. Still, this table illustrates many of the inherent problems of a purely citation-based statistic; citations rates vary with ﬁeld, with cosmology and extra-galactic work receiving a particularly good return. Obviously; well organised, tightly knit, high proﬁle groups can have a very large impact indeed. The totals obtained are for the unique set of papers published within the ﬁve year interval for each group. The more closely related Durham group appear to collaborate on more work (only 71% compared to 84% of their total papers are unique). Given the fact that the Durham group obtained a smaller number of raw citations but a larger number of normalised citations, it appears that the Australians tend to participate in larger collaborations on average, as would be expected for a geographically separated group. 6. Summary We have revisited the two measures of scientiﬁc impact suggested by Pearce (2004), further exploring potential biases and features of each method. Both are susceptible to problems if not applied carefully, with attention to an individual’s circumstances. They are best applied as general measures, in cases where an individual score is not the point of key interest. If a per-

167

MEASURE OF IMPACT WITHIN ASTRONOMY

TABLE 2. Australian/Durham Citation Rankings (3/99–2/04). The totals refer to unique papers (i.e. for the Australian ﬁgures, there were 443 not 526 individual papers). Name Couch, W Freeman, K Forbes, D Boyle, B Bessell, M Gibson, B Manchester, R Schmidt, B Colless, M Webster, R Total

papers

NC

RC

Name

56 99 40 43 30 67 63 44 41 43

210 200 153 142 142 138 138 134 122 122

3452 1591 540 1875 403 1609 877 1114 2019 559

Smail, I Frenk, C Cole, S Lacey, C Baugh, C Bower, R Eke, V Edge, A Done, C Jenkins, A

443/526

1243

9381

Total

Papers

NC

RC

65 74 40 36 39 36 9 31 32 25

400 378 243 218 193 176 148 144 136 112

2368 3138 2110 980 1577 681 498 604 403 854

276/387

1410

8589

sonal score is required then these measures should at best be seen as a rough indicator of a person’s performance. High values for both recent raw citations and normalised citations are a good sign, low values are not so good. We have also looked at the 1000 most cited papers in astronomy, with particular reference to those authors who have entered this list multiple times. For the 15 authors with the most papers on the top 1000 list we calculated their recent citation and normalised citation histories, and overplotted these on those for the ﬁeld as a whole. Around half of these astronomy superstars are still having a huge impact on the ﬁeld as a whole. Finally we demonstrated a potential problem with citation measures; small, well run groups can achieve very high citation and normalised citation scores indicating a huge impact within what may be a restricted discipline. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Abt, H.A. 1980, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 92, 249. Abt, H.A. 1981, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 93, 207. Abt, H.A. 1984, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 96, 746. Abt, H.A. 1998, Publ. Astron.Soc. Paciﬁc 110, 210. Burstein, D. 2000, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 32, 917. Davoust, E. & Schmadel, L. 1987, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 99, 700. Davoust, E. & Schmadel, L. 1992, Scientometrics 22, 9. Martin, B. & Irvine, J. 1983, J. Research Policy 12, 61. Pearce, F. 2004, Astrophys. & Geophys. 45, 215.

168 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

FRAZER R. PEARCE AND DUNCAN A. FORBES Peterson, C. 1988, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 100, 106. Randall, L. & Sundrum, R. 1999a, Phys. Rev. Letters 83, 4690. Randall, L. & Sundrum, R. 1999b, Phys. Rev. Letters 83, 3370. Sanchez, S. & Benn, C. 2004, Astron. Nachr. 235, 445. Schwarz, G. & Kennicutt, R. 2004, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 36, 1654. Trimble, V. 1985, Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 26, 40. Trimble, V. 1993a, Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 34, 301. Trimble, V. 1993b, Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 34, 235. Trimble, V. 1996, Scientometrics 36, 237.

A COMPARISON OF THE CITATION COUNTS IN THE SCIENCE CITATION INDEX AND THE NASA ASTROPHYSICS DATA SYSTEM

HELMUT A. ABT

Kitt Peak National Observatory P.O. Box 26732 Tucson AZ 85726-6732, USA [email protected]

Abstract. From a comparison of 1000+ references to 20 papers in four ﬁelds of astronomy (solar, stellar, nebular, galaxy), we found that the citation counts in Science Citation Index (SCI) and Astrophysics Data System (ADS) agree for 85% of the citations. ADS gives 15% more citation counts than SCI. SCI has more citations among physics and chemistry journals, while ADS includes more from conferences. Each one misses less than 1% of the citations.

1. Introduction Astronomers now have two independent sources for citation counts to papers, namely the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). Do they give the same results? The pioneering Science Citation Index was started in 1961 by Eugene Garﬁeld at the Institute for Scientiﬁc Information in Philadelphia, PA to help people locate scientiﬁc papers by subjects and by authors in the rapidly-growing ﬁeld of scientiﬁc publication (Abt 2003). However, a main use quickly became to collect citations and citation counts for individual papers, authors, institutions, and journals. Pertinent to the following discussion, the SCI has several criteria for the inclusion of journals. One is that they must have a proven record of prompt publication. When the SCI wishes to close a year, it does not want to delay publication because of tardy journal issues. Another criterion is that each journal be often cited in the ﬁeld. Of the estimated 100,000 serial publication in Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, only the 169 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 169–174. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

170

HELMUT A. ABT

most-used 8700 journals in all the sciences are listed in SCI and only 42 of those are in astronomy and astrophysics. The SCI was initially available in printed form only (roughly several meters of volumes per year) but is now available on-line by subscription as the “Web of Science.” The other source for citation counts had a diﬀerent origin. Many astronomers and institutions cannot aﬀord the huge libraries needed for full scientiﬁc searches, but it is now possible to put volumes on-line. Guenther Eichhorn and Stephen D. Murray at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory undertook the large job with NASA funding of copying onto a computerized base all of the major astronomical journals. It became the ADS (see Eichhorn 2005). Those reproductions are like photographic images called bitmaps; they are not like the on-line versions of the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) and Astronomical Journal (AJ) in which one can click on references in the text and they will appear in full on the screen. However, those bitmaps are now available for all of the major astronomical journals, many conference volumes, and some books; they are now copying many observatory publications. They make doing astronomical searches nearly as complete as in a major observatory library. Furthermore, this service is free whereas the SCI is expensive and can be aﬀorded only by large libraries. An added attraction of these on-line astronomical publications is that through optically scanning reference lists, the citations within this body of publications to any paper in the set is given. Thus we have two sources (SCI and ADS) for obtaining citation counts for astronomical papers. However, they are based on diﬀerent bodies of material. The SCI includes all the major journals in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and related sciences, while ADS is not that broad. SCI includes only the IAU symposia (because they are all published by one publisher), but not the IAU colloquia (which have a large variety of publishers and therefore are hard to ﬁnd) or the Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc (ASP) conference series or most other conferences. ADS includes only those conferences for which it has received printed volumes. In its process of scanning pages in an optical reader, it must physically cut the pages from the volumes and therefore destroy the volumes. Neither source includes observatory publications, although ADS is working on those. However, few observatory publications are being published now so they are of decreasing importance. Increasing numbers of monographs (books) are being published so it becomes increasingly diﬃcult to buy or scan them. A minor comment is that for Spanish names that include the mother’s maiden name as an apparent second family name, the SCI lists papers under the ﬁrst one and ADS under the second one. Some astronomers have access only to the ADS, while others have access to both the SCI and ADS. How do citation counts from the two compare?

171

CITATION COUNTS IN SCI AND ADS

TABLE 1. Citation Counts in SCI and ADS for 20 Sample Papers. Field

Paper

SCI

ADS

Common to SCI & ADS

Solar

Appourchaux et al. (1997) Duvall et al. (1997) Frohlich et al. (1997) Kosovichev et al. (1997) Wilhelm et al. (1997)

16 48 75 122 183

23 58 90 131 205

14 38 63 94 169

Stars

Chakrabarty et al. (1997) Johns-Krull & Basri (1997) Prato & Simon (1997) Henry et al. (1997) Iben (1997)

42 31 35 36 52

44 29 37 48 69

41 28 35 34 51

Nebulae

Piskunov et al. (1997) Tafalla et al. (1997) Kudoh & Shibata (1997) Ryu et al. (1997) D’Alesso et al. (1997)

58 21 38 23 22

62 21 45 24 28

56 19 34 22 21

Galaxies

Murray & Chiang (1997) Goldader et al. (1997) Rand (1997) Prochaska & Wolfe (1997) Lara et al. (1997)

47 54 48 68 25

59 59 63 77 29

47 50 45 67 25

1044

1201

953

Sums

This study involves comparing citation lists for sample papers and provides lists of which citations are missing in each. 2. The survey We copied lists for ﬁve papers in each of four ﬁelds: solar physics, stellar astronomy, gaseous nebulae and the ISM, and galaxies. The papers were generally the ﬁrst ﬁve published in 1997 in the appropriate journals: solar papers in Solar Physics and the others in ApJ. I wanted to include other journals (AJ and Astronomy and Astrophysics) but most of them yielded too few citations in eight years to give statistically-valid results. Table 1 gives the four ﬁelds, ﬁve papers in each, and citation counts until February 2005 in SCI and ADS, and the citations in common for the two.

172

HELMUT A. ABT

TABLE 2. Citations to the 20 Selected Papers Found in SCI but not in ADS. Advances in Space Research Annals of the New York Academy of Science (2) Annales de Physique Astronomy Reports (2) Astrophysics Astrophysics and Space Science (4) Chaos Comptes Rendes (2) Current Science (5) Earth Observations and Remote Sensing Geomagnetism & Aeronomy (2) Geophysical & Astronomical Fluid Dynamics Icarus IAU Symp. (32) International Journal of Modern Physics Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Series Fizicheskaya (7) Journal of Atmospheric Science & Terrestrial Physics Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics (2) JGR – Space Physics J. Quant. Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer Nuovo Cimento Physics & Chemistry of the Earth Progress in Theoretical Physics Supplement Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan Quaternary Science Review Recherche Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments (2) Science (2) Space Science Reviews

From the sums of the last three columns of Table 1 we see that ADS lists 15.0±4.2% more citations than ADS. From the ﬁrst and third columns of numbers, we see that SCI and ADS have 85% of their citations in common (91% of the SCI citations and 79% of the ADS citations). Therefore at the 15% level of accuracy, the two sources give similar counts, but within that accuracy there are selection diﬀerences. Now consider the 1044 – 953 = 91 citations listed in SCI but not in ADS. Our sample of 20 papers has a total of 28 journals that are not cited very often (maximum of 7 for Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Series Fizicheskaya) plus 32 citations to IAU Symposia. Those journals plus symposia are listed

CITATION COUNTS IN SCI AND ADS

173

in Table 2. The numbers following the titles are the numbers of times they cited the 20 papers. In addition, there are 8 citations too recent for SCI and 3 errors in ADS. TABLE 3. Citations to the 20 Selected Papers Found in ADS but not in SCI. ASP Conference series (103) Other conferences (106) Books (7) Too recent to be included in SCI (8) Misc. journals (JKAS, Mem. D. Soc. A. Ital., IBVS) (7) Wrong references (6) Omitted by SCI (10)

TABLE 4. Citing Papers omitted in SCI. Citing Paper

Cited Paper

Unruh et al. (1997) Basu (1958) Tikhomolov (1998) Perez & Doyle (2000) Spadaro et al. (2000) Psaltis & Chakrabarty (1999) Gonzalez (1998) Iben & Tutukov (1998) Moy et al. (2001) Prochaska & Wolfe (1997)

Frohlich et al. (1997) Kosovichev et al. (1997) Kosovichev et al. (1997) Wilhelm et al. (1997) Wilhelm et al.(1997) Chakrabarty et al. (1997) Henry et al. (1997) Iben (1997) Goldader et al. (1997) Prochaska & Wolfe (1997)

Now consider the 1201 – 954 = 247 citations listed in ADS but not in SCI. Those are listed in Table 3, and are primarily conference papers. The diﬀerences between SCI and ADS counts would be nearly halved if SCI included ASP conference papers; like the criterion used to include IAU symposia, all ASP conference papers are published by the same publisher. Therefore users of these two sources of citation counts have to decide whether they wish to have included the many secondary physics and astronomy journals (in SCI) or the many conference papers (that are not refereed papers) in the ADS. We found 10 journal papers listed in ADS but not in SCI. Those omissions in SCI are listed in Table 4. That omission of 10 papers relative to the

174

HELMUT A. ABT

1044 papers found constitutes a 1.0% error, which agrees with the similar error found by Abt (2005) in a survey of Solar Physics papers. 3. Conclusions (1) SCI and ADS give the same citation counts for 85% of the papers. (2) That percentage would increase to 92% if SCI included ASP conference papers. (3) ADS has 15% more citations than SCI. (4) The primary diﬀerence is that SCI includes citations from a wide variety of physics, chemistry, and mathematics journals while ADS includes many more conference papers. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Abt, H.A. 2003, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, p. 197. Abt, H.A. 2005, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc., in press. Appourchaux, T. et al. 1997, Solar Phys. 170, 27. Basu, S. 1998, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 298, 719. Chakrabarty, D. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 414. D’Alessio, P. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 397. Duvall, T.L. 1997, Solar Phys. 170, 63. Frohlich, C. et al. 1997, Solar Phys. 170, 1. Eichhorn, G. 2005, this volume. Goldader, J.D. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 104. Gonzales, G. 1998, Astron. Astrophys. 334, 221. Henry, G.W. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 503. Iben, I., Jr. 1997, Astrophys. J. 475, 291. Iben, I., Jr. & Tutukov, A.V. 1998, Astrophys. J. 501, 263. Johns-Krull, C.M. & Basri, G. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 433. Kosovichev, A.G. et al. 1997, Solar Phys. 170, 43. Kudoh, T. & Shibata, K. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 362. Lara, L. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 179. Moy, E. et al. 2001, Astron. Astrophys. 365, 347. Murray, N. & Chiang, J. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 91. Perez, M.E. & Doyle, J.G. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. 360, 331. Piskunov, N. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 315. Prato, L. & Simon, M. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 455. Prochaska, J.X. & Wolfe, A.M. 1997, Astrophys. J. 487, 73. Prochaska, J.X. & Wolfe, A.M. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 140. Psaltis, D. & Chakrabarty, D. 1999, Astrophys. J. 521, 332. Rand, R.J. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 129. Ryu, D. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 378. Spadaro, D. et al. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. 359, 716. Tafalla, M. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. 474, 329. Tikhomolov, E. 1998, Astrophys. J. 499, 905. Unruh, Y.C. et al. 1997, Astron. Astrophys. 345, 635. Wilhelm, K. et al. 1997, Solar Phys. 170, 75.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE AAS NEWSLETTER: A PERSONAL STORY

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

JILA University of Colorado and NIST Boulder CO 80309-0440, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Since 1987 the American Astronomical Society Newsletter has published some 142 Letters to the Editor that provide the personal statements and concerns of astronomers about the policies, priorities, and experiences of being an astronomer. While these Letters do not provide a scientiﬁc sampling of the issues, they do provide an illuminating picture of the astronomical scene as seen from the perspectives of our colleagues. I describe the history and policies of the Letters section, then summarize the issues presented and debated in these Letters. The topics (in order of numbers of Letters published) are: (1) publishing and refereeing, (2) how the AAS and IAU conduct their business, (3) jobs and how to get them, (4) support for astronomy, (5) scientiﬁc units and time, (6) public policy issues, (7) planning for telescopes and space missions, (8) how astronomers do their work, (9) women in astronomy, (10) the work environment, and (11) other issues. A chronological list of the Letters by title and author is included.

1. History There is an old proverb that says, if my memory is correct, “be careful what you ask for”. Perhaps I should have thought about this earlier, but then I would not be writing this chapter. It is no secret that when talking to other astronomers, we discuss more than just our latest scientiﬁc results. We also talk about other matters that concern us such as the policies and priorities of the government funding agencies, the lack of opportunities for permanent positions, whether women and minorities are judged fairly, and concern about the quality of refereeing of our scientiﬁc papers and 175 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 175–189. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

176

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

observing proposals. In short, the policies, priorities, and practicalities of our chosen ﬁeld are matters of vital concern to all of us. Unfortunately, there has been no mechanism for widely disseminating such concerns as the refereed journals publish only scientiﬁc articles. The magazines of more general interest like Science, Nature, and Sky and Telescope, discuss some of these matters but without the give and take of a dialog or the beneﬁt of personal perspectives. After considerable thought about this lack of an appropriate communication channel, I teamed with some of my colleagues to write a letter to the American Astronomical Society requesting that the AAS Newsletter publish Letters to the Editor. In this 1987 letter, we pointed out that the AAS Newsletter had wide circulation among astronomers in North America and elsewhere, but the information ﬂow in the Newsletter had been only in one direction. What was needed was a forum whereby individual astronomers could bring their concerns about vital issues to a large audience in order to inﬂuence how their issues would be addressed. We envisioned that the Letters to the Editor would be personal communications from the authors without either formal or informal endorsement by their institutions. Apparently the AAS Council thought highly of this modest proposal as our letter was published in the March 1987 issue of the Newsletter together with an announcement that Letters to the Editor would now be welcome and should be sent to the new Associate Editor, Letters – namely myself. I had not volunteered for this august position, but I could hardly say no given our public statement. This is how the Letters section started, and after some 18 years and 142 Letters, it is a ﬁxture of the AAS Newsletter with the same Associate Editor. 2. Policies for the Letters Section When we started the Letters to the Editor section, the AAS Oﬃce and I agreed on a set of policies, which have not materially changed since then: (1) The Associate Editor, Letters would be appointed for a one-year renewable term. I was appointed for this term but have never received formal notice of reappointment or termination, so I guess that I have been granted a lifetime tenure. However, I would not be adverse to standing down if someone else were to desire the position. (2) The Associate Editor has the license to choose and edit correspondance for publication. Although the Editor of the Newsletter has the ﬁnal say as to what is published, I cannot remember a single occasion when the Editor decided not to publish a Letter. In all likelihood, the AAS Ofﬁce was pleased to have the task of saying no to authors placed outside of their responsibility. I have exercised my license with restraint. My main

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

177

concern is that Letters address only issues pertaining to astronomy and astronomers. Complaints about or attacks on individuals are not allowed. I also require authors to keep to one speciﬁc topic in a Letter and to write (or rewrite) their Letter in clear, unambiguous prose. If I am confused by what an author is trying to say, then the general reader would likely also be perplexed. (3) Authors of Letters may not be anonymous. At the same time, the Letters represent what an individual wishes to say without the implication that his/her institution supports what the author says. To make this clear, the Letters are signed by the author with either his/her email address or city. While anyone can look up the university, observatory, or laboratory where the author works, not citing the author’s place of employment makes it clear that the Letter is a personal statement. This is especially important for US government employees. (4) We try to present both sides of a controversial topic in the same issue of the Newsletter. Since the publishing time between individual Newsletters can be as long as 2 1/2 months, I try to solicit a Letter with an opposing view to be published with the ﬁrst Letter when an issue is clearly controversial and timely. However, deadlines often make this impossible. When this happens, Letters with contrary viewpoints are published in the next issue. (5) Letters should be short, about 250 words. This requirement was instituted because of limited space in the Newsletter and because readers typically pay more attention to short articles than long ones. I must admit, however, that a number of Letters not meeting this criterion have been published. This typically occurs when an issue is just too complex to be addressed adequately in 250 words. Contrary to my apprehensions, my interactions with authors have almost always been cordial, despite the strong words that some authors use when stating their case on controversial topics. When I have asked authors to tone down their rhetoric, or keep to the topic, or shorten their Letter by deleting some of their favorite prose, the response has always been positive. I hope that this cordiality continues. Most of the time I request that authors revise their original draft to clarify their message or address related issues to improve the presentation. Authors usually make the changes and sometimes even thank me for suggesting them. One well-known astronomer sent me an email saying, “I was admirative [sic] of the way you were not automatically accepting what was written and were pushing me to explain what I meant exactly. A good exercise too and I am also grateful for the lesson or model in this respect.” Another well-known astronomer once asked me the purpose of the Letters section since most of the Letters involve complaints of some sort. I

178

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

responded by saying that many Letters are constructive, proposing solutions to problems or calling attention to what needs ﬁxing. I also said that it is important for people to be heard. My experience is that after people know that their concerns and opinions are in print and available for some 6,000 members of the AAS to read and think about, they feel satisﬁed that they have accomplished something positive. One happy result is that potentially heated issues are discussed in a rational manner rather than in emotional confrontations at meetings and elsewhere. 3. What are the issues that the Letter writers have chosen to address? In the table at the end of this paper, I give a time-ordered list of the 142 Letters published in the AAS Newsletter between June 1987 and October 2004. The following is a topical summary of them. 3.1. PUBLISHING AND REFEREEING (23 LETTERS)

Given what astronomers say to each other in private conversations, it is not surprising that the publication process would be the topic of the largest number of Letters. Three Letters questioned the refereeing system for articles published in the astronomical journals. One Letter urged that authors be entitled to make the ﬁnal decision on whether or not to publish a paper when there is a major disagreement with the referee. It further advocated allowing the journal editor to publish his remarks or those of the referee at the end of a paper. Another Letter stated that the quality of refereeing would improve if referees were strongly encouraged to make their identity known. Arguments for and against the refereeing of papers in conference proceedings were presented in another Letter. Six Letters tackled the question of why the change to electronic publishing was not leading to a decrease in expensive page charges for publishing in the astronomical journals. This exchange provided transparency into the actual cost of publishing and elicited statements from the journal editors that after a transition period while the journals learned to processes AASTEX manuscripts eﬃciently, there should be a decrease in page charges and more rapid publication. Two Letters addressed the validity of a survey on the desirability of electronic publishing. Even the term “electronic publishing” elicited a Letter in which the author argued that the proper term for describing the whole environment of dealing with documents electronically should be “electronic information handling”. The question of why ApJ Letters papers occasionally exceed the four page limit (usually by a small amount) led to a response that the existing imprecise system of estimating the length of a paper would be replaced by a macro that would provide an accurate estimate. One au-

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

179

thor complained that footnotes acknowledging that data were obtained at a speciﬁc observatory supported by an identiﬁed funding agency are boring and should not be required by observatories. This lively issue led to three Letters supporting or opposing the deletion of such footnotes. Finally, reﬂecting the concern that astronomers have for the environment, one Letter asked why the Astrophysical Journal does not use recycled paper, eliciting a response that this issue was being considered as the technical problems were being ironed out. 3.2. HOW THE AAS AND IAU CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS (19 LETTERS)

Voting procedures, the method of selection of Nominating Committee members, and the need for candidates to say in their published statements how they would address major issues were identiﬁed as ways to strengthen governance at the AAS. The question of whether a balance (in gender, age, and experience) of nominees for AAS Council positions is desirable or whether competence alone should determine nominees produced a lively debate. The Shapley Visiting Lecturer in Astronomy program was cited as an important tool for public education and the advancement of research, consequently, the program needed more funding. In the words of a retiring councilor, the rapid growth of the AAS was cited as the reason that the Society was becoming less of a community and more of an organization. He oﬀered suggestions for enhancing the community feeling of the AAS. The question of whether it is better for individual AAS members or the AAS leadership to contact Congress concerning funding was discussed in three Letters, which concluded that the whole astronomical community should play an active role. Ten astronomers stated in a Letter that the IAU was making important decisions through votes by the national representatives without notifying or soliciting input from individual members. In response, the IAU President and General Secretary stated that according to the IAU Statutes, changes in the Statutes can only be made by votes of the representatives of the adhering national bodies, and that votes at General Assemblies are generally attended by only a small fraction of the membership. 3.3. JOBS AND HOW TO GET THEM (16 LETTERS)

Beginning in 1993, the diﬃculty that many astronomers faced in ﬁnding employment in the ﬁeld stimulated a large number of Letters. Five Letters spoke of the diﬃculty of ﬁnding permanent jobs in astronomy. They argued that there was an overproduction of PhD astronomers and that, as a result, young astronomers should consider alternatives to astronomy research and teaching positions. Given the anguish that many young astronomers face

180

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

after graduate school, one author advised that incoming students should be given a “full heart-stopping disclosure” of the job situation and encouraged to cross-train in other ﬁelds. A contrary view held that birth control is not good, since winnowing of the ﬁeld is inevitable and even healthy for all professions. One positive Letter encouraged postdocs to acquire teaching experience to better prepare themselves for a permanent position. Two concerns of astronomers going into nontraditional ﬁelds were that (1) mechanisms for retraining astronomers, perhaps with the help of the AAS, need to be created and (2) astronomers should not look down on those who pursue nontraditional ﬁelds. Other concerns included age discrimination in employment, the glut of letters of recommendation (which could be reduced by requesting them only for candidates who survive the ﬁrst cut), the need for a uniform application deadline for postdoctoral positions, and the need for a “consumer’s digest” of astronomical departments. 3.4. SUPPORT FOR ASTRONOMY (14 LETTERS)

Concerns about federal funding for astronomy and its distribution were identiﬁed in eight Letters. Speciﬁc concerns included too few ground-based telescopes for coordinated observations with NASA’s great observatories, the need for international collaborations to fund large new facilities, and the lack of travel support to observe at NOAO facilities. One Letter pointed out that while NSF’s grant support for astronomy has been level or decreasing, NASA’s astronomy grant funding had been increasing signiﬁcantly. However, four Letters argued that the support for ground-based astronomy by the NSF had fallen to a critical level and could not be compensated for by NASA’s increased support of other aspects of astronomy. One author proposed that the NSF establish a program of small support grants for retired or almost retired astronomers who are still engaged in research. Funding support was requested for the measurement of fundamental atomic and molecular data. Finally, one Letter urged astronomers to play a more active role in urging that NASA place more emphasis on scientiﬁc projects and less on manned exploration. 3.5. SCIENTIFIC UNITS AND TIME (14 LETTERS)

Only an astronomer could love (and perhaps understand) the very technical topics addressed in some Letters. A total of seven Letters discussed the pros and cons of astronomers adopting and using the International System of units (SI) whose basic units include the meter, kilogram, second, and Angstrom, Jansky, parsec, or other preﬁxes every factor of 103 , but not the ˚ units that astronomers love. The responses to this Letter were mainly negative with some authors decrying “political correctness”. The cumbersome

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

181

way of expressing time in terms of hours, minutes, and seconds led another astronomer to propose that we decimalize our units of time and even rationalize the stellar magnitude system. Three technical aspects of timekeeping raised in Letters were the potential change to coordinated universal time, discussions about whether or not to abolish leap seconds, and methods for standardizing how to express calendar dates in journal articles. 3.6. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES (14 LETTERS)

The single largest public policy question, addressed in four Letters, was how astronomers should respond to attempts by states and local school boards to require that creationism be taught in public schools. A related concern was the public’s inadequate understanding of scientiﬁc methodology. These Letters provided advice on how scientists can eﬀectively deal with both issues. The AAS has a policy on creationism adopted in January 1982. The proposal that the AAS make an oﬃcial statement concerning global climate change stimulated three Letters opposing the statement on the grounds that the topic was a highly controversial political issue and that, as scientists, we may have only a limited understanding of this highly complex problem. A responding Letter argued that, as scientists, we have the responsibility to educate the public on matters within our scientiﬁc expertise. Other Letters on public policy raised concerns about light pollution in Southern California, opposition to the building of telescopes on Mt Graham, and the deterioration of the space environment for astronomical satellites. One Letter provided advice to astronomers on how to interest young people in astronomy, while another Letter advised astronomers to take steps to prevent the media from “spinning” statements made during an interview into a colorful, but inaccurate, story. 3.7. PLANNING FOR TELESCOPES AND SPACE MISSIONS (13 LETTERS)

Astronomers are always planning for the future because new telescopes, especially observatories in space, have very long gestation periods. Arguably, astronomers are better at reaching a consensus and at presenting our requests in a coherent way to funding agencies than most other scientists. Some Letters discussed issues, such as future planetary science missions, the need for international collaborations, the balance between small and large facilities, and adequate infrastructure, that upcoming Astronomy Survey Committees should address. One Letter called for the continuation of a speciﬁc observatory, speciﬁcally the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE). The need for astronomers to serve as program oﬃcers at the NSF and NASA was stressed in another Letter. Three Letters described the importance of virtual observatories and on-line catalogs. The absence of tan-

182

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

gible rewards, like guaranteed observing time, for astronomers who spend an enormous eﬀort to build instruments for ground-based telescopes was cited in three Letters as a major discouragement to building important new instruments in the future.

3.8. HOW ASTRONOMERS DO THEIR WORK (9 LETTERS)

Many Letters expressed concerns about how astronomers do their work. With respect to observing, astronomers noted the importance of timely observations of targets of opportunity, the need for advice concerning imaging IR arrays, and the desirability of timing for IR cameras. NOAO budget cuts and the construction of 3 to 4 meter class private telescopes led one astronomer to propose the formation of a national small telescope network. While astronomers now consider data bases as essential tools in their work, an August 1990 Letter requesting information on establishing an interactive data base for multiwavelength programs was visionary. Another Letter pointed out the value of participating in high school science fairs as a means of recruiting future astronomers. One Letter requested that professional astronomers recognize the abilities of many amateur astronomers in obtaining high quality observations. Finally, several Letters provided practical advice to astronomers presenting posters and giving talks about their work at professional meetings.

3.9. WOMEN IN ASTRONOMY (8 LETTERS)

These Letters addressed the question of whether there is a level playing ﬁeld for women in employment, salary, and recognition of achievements through the awarding of prizes by the AAS. One Letter pointed out that young women astronomers face fewer problems than the older generation did when they were young and continue to face even today. Another requested that surveys about employment of women astronomers be done correctly, and another requested that the existing strict age limit requirements for the AAS awards makes it diﬃcult for those whose careers are interrupted by things outside of astronomy. The endorsement by the AAS of the “Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy”, which called for afﬁrmative action in the hiring and advancement of women and action to end sexual harassment, elicited concerns in one Letter and support in another. I am surprised that there have not been any Letters concerning problems faced by minority astronomers.

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

183

3.10. THE WORK ENVIRONMENT (5 LETTERS)

The presence of degrading images of women at astronomical facilities was raised by a 1987 Letter signed by 51 astronomers. This Letter led to two responses. Another Letter discussed life as a gay astronomer. Out of concern for safety, one Letter advised astronomers not to drive after a long night of observing. 3.11. OTHER ISSUES (11 LETTERS)

The remaining Letters included public thanks for service to the community, requests for historical information or data (sky spectra at the times of intense solar ﬂares and information concerning Project Moonwatch in the 1950s to 1970s), information about international meetings, and requests for help for astronomers and observatories in other countries. 4. Final thoughts Looking back at the Letters published over a period of 18 years, I am pleased that many issues of concern to astronomers have been addressed in a rational way in the Letters section. In many cases, there have been important dialogs in which diﬀerent astronomers dispute or support the statements made in the original Letters, leading to a fuller understanding of the issue. In some cases, I believe that Letters have actually led to solutions or at least ameliorations of problems. Are there some issues that have become less or more important as measured by the publication rate of Letters? The issues of refereeing of journal articles and page charges appear to be of less concern recently as the most recent Letter on these topics was published in 1997. The last Letter pertaining to problems or opportunities in the job market was published in 1998, but I seriously doubt that such problems have disappeared. On the other hand, public policy issues such as global climate change and “scientiﬁc creationism” are generating an increasing number of Letters. There are some issues that have not been raised at all or addressed in only limited ways. One is the funding priorities of NASA and the NSF. A second is the consequences of the huge oversubscription of observing time on large telescopes, especially those in space. A third is the appropriateness of the recommendations made by advisory committees such as the Astronomy Survey Committees run by the National Academy of Sciences each decade. A fourth is the working environment and frustrations of faculty, postdocs, and graduate students. Given what I hear astronomers say to each other, I would have expected to receive and publish more Letters concerning such matters. While astronomers are often highly opinionated individuals, few

184

JEFFREY L. LINSKY

of us apparently have the guts to go public on some issues that aﬀect us all in major ways. In particular, the important question of Hubble refurbishment has never been mentioned in a Letter. I am uneasy and disappointed at the number of times that astronomers who have voiced important problems to me also refused to put their concerns into print despite my strong encouragement. In any case, I look forward to receiving your Letters on key issues of concern in astronomy. I promise to give your Letter careful attention and will most likely oﬀer suggestions for making your case more cogent.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Editors of the AAS Newsletter Peter Boyce and Robert Milkey for their tolerance and support and the Assistant Editors Pamela Hawkins, Carol Hartley, Heather Dalterio, Judy Johnson, Lynn Scholz, and Crystal Tinch for their help on many occasions. A ﬁnal thanks is due to the many Letter authors who have taken the time to write and then rewrite their contributions.

List of Topics Appearing in the Following Table A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

How astronomers do their work Publishing and refereeing Jobs and how to get them The work environment Thanks for service to the community Support for astronomy Astronomy outside of North America Planning for future telescopes and space missions How the AAS conducts its business Public policy issues Women in astronomy How the IAU conducts its business Historical information Scientiﬁc units and time

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

185

A time-ordered listing of the Letters to the Editor. Date

Topic

Title

Authors

6/87 6/87

A C

Target of opportunity observations Management fees for the journals

12/87 12/87 12/87

C D E

3/88 3/88 3/88 3/88 6/88

D D F G B

6/88 6/88

A F

8/88 8/88

B A

8/88 10/88 10/88 3/89

E H H I

3/89 6/89

A F

10/89

J

10/89

K

12/89

F

12/89

N

3/90

F

3/90 3/90 3/90 3/90

F F F N

Application deadline chaos Degrading posters in observatories Thank you to the people who produced the AAS Photo-bulletin Degrading images and the ﬁrst amendment Degrading images and the ﬁrst amendment “Crack” in federal funding Eastern Europeans need journals Who feels the need to reform journal refereeing procedures How to improve posters at AAS meetings A modest proposal concerning funding for astronomy Alternative to proposed journal referee system A proposal to establish a national small telescope network James C. Kemp: pioneer Questions for astronomy in the 1990’s Role of planetary science in the next ASC Important issues not included in the candidate’s statement Advice to speakers No travel money to observe at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo Protecting the space environment for astronomical research More on “a comparison of university salaries for women and men” The funding problem for astronomy is not the total funds available, but their distribution Request for input from astronomers using imaging IR array data Responses to David Morrison’s letter concerning the funding problem ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” A plea for builders of IR cameras to allow for accurate timing

R. Stencel H. Abt, & J. Huchra R.J. Havlen 51 authors B. Schoening J. Felton G.S. Brown J. Stocke M. Slovak H. Arp G. Verschuur D. Harris Ph. Hughes J. Cardelli R. Stencel Br. Balick R. Brown D. Harris K. Krisciunas C. Ambruster D.E. Harris & 2 others M. Kaufman D. Morrison M. Burton P.A. Vanden Bout R. Humphreys J. Mathis N. Devereux E. Dunham

186

JEFFREY L. LINSKY A time-ordered listing of the Letters to the Editor (continued).

Date

Topic

3/90

A

6/90

I

6/90

A

8/90 8/90 8/90 8/90

F I J B

8/90

B

8/90

A

10/90 10/90

J I

12/90

K

Request for input to “MultiWaveLink: an interactive data base for the coordination of multiwavelength programs” A reply to Peter Boyce’s editorial A reply to Don Osterbrock concerning democratic procedures Reconsidering age limits for AAS awards

12/90

B

Reply to Elson-Campbell letter

3/91

N

6/91 8/91

B I

8/91 8/91 8/91 10/91

B B B A

Coordinate decimalization: an astronomical revolution for the millennium Why publish material of no interest to readers? A much closer look at the membership survey results Response to Popper’s letter - I Response to Popper’s letter - II Response to Popper’s letter - III An open letter to directors and chairs of observatories and other astronomical departments and institutions A ﬁnal note concerning footnotes Development threatens southern California observatories The future of IUE is up to you ApJ Letters policy A respone to Tom Statler Congratulations to the winners of the NASA Exceptional Scientiﬁc Achievement Metal

10/91 10/91

B J

10/91 6/92 6/92 8/92

H B B E

Title How “not” to succeed in giving a poster presentation Election reforms and the real issues confronting the AAS Members should get involved with future astronomers NASA and NSF funds beneﬁt all disciplines AAS is democratic Call for involvement in promoting astronomy A response to Helmut Abt’s call for refereeing conference papers Recycled paper for the AAS journals

Authors A. Heck H. Arp A.Nash D. Morrison D. Osterbrock L. Jacobson S. van den Bergh R. Elson & A. Campbell

Fr. Cordova D. Shaﬀer H. Arp S. Madden & M. Barsony H. Abt & E. Conner R. White D. Popper A. Campbell H. Abt P. McCullough S. Wolﬀ M. Cummins & P. Dominy D. Popper Sh. Rush S. Starrﬁeld T. Statler A. Dalgarno E. Wright

187

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

A time-ordered listing of the Letters to the Editor (continued). Date

Topic

12/92 3/93

K H

6/93 8/93

M B

8/93 8/93 8/93

B B N

10/93

I

10/93

I

10/93 10/93 10/93 12/93 12/93 12/93 12/93

N N N N B B I

12/93 12/93 12/93

N C K

12/93 12/93 3/94

B M G

3/94

F

3/94

K

3/94 3/94 3/94 6/94

N C H C

Title

Authors

Objections to proposed feminist bylaw A letter to all astronomers: we are needed in Washington Let’s have the truth about Gemini Electronic publishing should reduce journal page charges Reply from the editor of the Astronomical Journal Reply from the editor of the Astrophysical Journal When and how should astronomers move to the International System of Units? AAS must communicate with members not on internet Response concerning communications with members not on internet Response to Hale Bradt concerning SI Units, 1 Response to Hale Bradt concerning SI Units, 2 Response to Hale Bradt concerning SI Units, 3 Page charges are not needed Page charges are needed Michael Turner’s response An open letter on the future of the Shapley program A recommendation concerning SI Units Over the hill at age 35? Sexist “Baltimore Charter” should not become AAS policy Journal page charges More astronomers have won Nobel Prizes Support needed for astronomers in Eastern Europe and the Third World Support for basic research and education is required Support for the AAS Council’s endorsement of the Baltimore Charter Is pc not PC? The status of non-traditional positions in astronomy This old observatory Reorienting and retraining astronomers for non-traditional careers

J. Felton M. Rieke L. Robinson M. Elitzur P. Hodge H. Abt H. Bradt V. Slabinski P. Boyce B. Gawne D. Grey H. Abt M. Turner H. Abt M. Turner S. Shore H. Bradt G. Clayton J. Felten P. Boyce J. Tenn C. Barrow A. Melott Cl. Canizares M. Seaton J. Cardelli R. Stencel R. Foster

188

JEFFREY L. LINSKY A time-ordered listing of the Letters to the Editor (continued).

Date

Topic

8/94

G

10/94 10/94 12/94 3/95

C N B C

3/95 8/95 8/95 8/95 12/95

H I I I F

3/96

B

3/96 8/96 8/96 10/96

B I I C

12/96

C

12/96

I

3/97 6/97

I C

8/97

A

8/97

C

8/97

C

8/97 10/97

C B

10/97 6/98

D C

8/98

E

Title Appreciation of support for the national observatory of Venezuela Letter of recommendation overkill A uniform system of calendar dates What is electronic publishing? The need for a “consumer’s digest” of astronomical departments Small telescopes are critical for astronomy Who should contact members of congress - I Who should contact members of congress - II Who should contact members of congress - III Molecular spectra data center terminated Are the results of the electronic manuscript submission survey ﬂawed? Reply: the community is connected Thoughts from a retiring AAS Councilor Individual lobbying not working Sage advice concerning the overproduction of astronomy PhDs Careers beyond the conﬁnes of academia can be rewarding Nominating committee’s slate lacks charisma and balance A reply to Jim Felton Anguish in the job market - a response to Joshua Roth Recognition of AAS amateurs who have demonstrated abilities for astronomical research Advice concerning the overproduction of astronomy PhDs Is there a social cost to “excess” astronomy PhDs Another view of the job market Peer review as a measure for amateur-professional collaboration Drinking, driving and observing How to insure that no new instruments are built for ground-based telescopes Thanks

Authors N. Calvet J. Murthy Tr. Kohman A. Heck H. Marshall S. Hawley N. Devereux Fr. Shu P. Boyce L. Snyder & M. Hollis W. Sullivan, III J. Barnes Br. Balick 12 astronomers M. Pound J. Roth J. Felton A. Harris P. Barnes

R. Fried G. Reaves J. Pitesky A. Filippenko R. Wilds S. van den Bergh J. Cohen V. Dixon

LETTERS TO THE AAS NEWSLETTER EDITOR

189

A time-ordered listing of the Letters to the Editor (continued). Date

Topic

Title

Authors

8/98 8/98

C C

There is a positive side to instrument building Those who fund telescopes must invest in and encourage promising instrumentalists Beware of spin doctors Post-docs that include teaching Correcting an error in the Cannon citation The importance of the SETI program Don’t provide ammunition for creationists Concerning ammunition for creationists - I Concerning ammunition for creationists - II How to confront “scientiﬁc creationism” Concerning the status of women in astronomy Author’s response to Michael Merriﬁeld Virtual observatories or rather digital research facilities? The status of women in astronomy Concerning virtual observatories A modest request concerning online catalogs A good time to be gay in astronomy? Establishing a Schommer Education Fund A model for research grants in retirement A request for sky spectra at interesting times

L. Thompson

10/98 10/98 10/98 12/98 8/99 10/99 10/99 12/99 3/01 3/01 3/01

J C E H J J J J K K H

6/01 6/01 6/01 8/01 3/02 8/02 12/02

K H H D I F M

6/03

N

10/03 10/03

J J

A problem with the proposed change in the coordinated universal time Concerning global climate change ” ” ”

10/03 10/03

J L

” ” ” The IAU is undemocratic

3/04

IAU undemocratic?

3/04 6/04 6/04 10/04

L L M N L J

10/04

F

Were you a participant in Project Moonwatch The AAS should weigh in on the leap seconds issue Democracy in the IAU Opposing the AAS endorsement of the AGU statement A response to the reorganization of NASA

R. Ellis B. Haisch D. Haarsma J. van Gorkom T. Wabbel A. Melott P. Noerdlinger L. Golub W. Bridgman M. Merriﬁeld M. Urry A. Heck E. Griﬃn E. Griﬃn St. Shawl R. Danner E. Olszewski Br. Partridge T. Slanger & D. Huestis R. Seaman & St. Allen J. Felton D. Finley & M. Claussen E. Zweibel G. Kaplan & 9 others R. Ekers & O. Engvold P. McCray R. Mansﬁeld C. Scarfe H. Greyber D. Smith

SPACE LAW

JULIAN HERMIDA

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada B3H 4P9 [email protected]

Abstract. This chapter examines the salient characteristics of Space Law. It analyzes the origins and evolution of Space Law, its main international principles, and some current topics of interest to the scientiﬁc community: the delimitation of airspace and outer space, intellectual property, and criminal responsibility.

1. Introduction This chapter1 analyzes the most relevant aspects of Space Law. It is divided in three substantive parts. The ﬁrst one traces the origins and evolution of Space Law with the view to introducing and contextualizing the development of Space Law. The second part examines the most important – international – principles applicable to all space activities. The third part addresses some current topics of Space Law, which are of special interest to the scientiﬁc community. First, it deals with the debate about the delimitation of airspace and outer, which is of enormous signiﬁcance as both spaces are governed by diﬀerent regimes. Although the decision on the boundaries lies with international political bodies, input from the scientiﬁc community is essential. Second, it analyzes intellectual property issues, i.e., the legal regime that governs inventions made by scientists in connection with space activities, particularly in the US and European countries. Finally, the last part of the third chapter is devoted to criminal responsibility that may arise from human presence in outer space. Due to the isolation conditions and the hostile outer space environment, it is expected that there will be a high 1

Sh.S. Muleiro contributed the sections on “Delimitation of Outer Space” (Sect. 4.1) and “Intellectual Property” (Sect. 4.2).

191 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 191–204. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

192

JULIAN HERMIDA

rate of criminal and deviant conﬂicts in any long-term human endeavour in outer space. 2. Evolution of Space Law 2.1. INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW

The ﬁrst phase of Space Law, whose starting point was the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, is characterized by an emphasis on topics and issues of international law2 Strongly inﬂuenced by the political context of the cold war, International Space Law – created through the search for the minimum consensus between the then world superpowers – concentrated mainly on the regulation of the exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes3 Thus, military and humanitarian issues became the almost exclusive concerns of this ﬁeld4 . The United Nations played an essential role in the development of Space Law during this ﬁrst stage. In 1958 the UN General Assembly created the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), where International Space Law would be discussed and codiﬁed5 . COPUOS was divided into two subcommittees: the Legal Subcommittee and the Scientiﬁc and Technical Subcommittee. However, since COPUOS consisted mostly of members from capitalist countries, only after a few years of lengthy negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States that led to an increase of socialist states from 18 to 28 did COPUOS actually start to function6 . The United States was of the view that COPUOS decisions should be taken by a simple majority and then they should be sent to the General Assembly for approval. The Soviet Union was against this procedure, since the United States and its allies outnumbered the socialist states7 . Thus, COPUOS adopted the consensus procedure for decision making. Consensus in COPUOS is conceived as the search for the common ground in a debate by means of a scientiﬁc discussion of the problem until an agreement is 2 M.A. Ferrer (h), “Espacio A´ereo y Espacio Superior” (C´ ordoba: Direcci´ on General de Publicaciones, 1971), p. 396. 3 I. Vlasic, “A Survey of the Space Law Treaties and Principles Developed through the United Nations” (1995) 38 IISL, p. 324. 4 The ﬁrst works on Outer Space Law date from the beginning of this century. These ﬁrst analyses belong to E. Laude (1910) and Vl. Mandl (1932). The most complete and consistent works appeared in the 1950s. Among others, the following must be highlighted: A.G. Haley, E. P´epin, I.H.Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor (then de Rode-Verschoor), and A.A. Cocca. See “Commercial Space” supra note 7, P. 13. 5 N.M. Matte, “Space Policy and Programmes Today and Tomorrow” (Montr´eal: McGill University, 1980) p. 21. 6 Ibid. p. 21. 7 Ibid. p. 21.

SPACE LAW

193

reached. Consensus means the acceptance of the discussed option in all its scopes, which implies a common feeling by those that choose it8 . Through this procedure, COPUOS produced the ﬁve international space treaties9 : (i) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967)10 ; (ii) Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1968)11 ; (iii) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972)12 ; (iv) Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1975)13 ; and (v) Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1979). In the ﬁrst two decades of work devoted to the creation of Space Law, the United Nations achieved important results, providing a fairly general international framework for the activities in outer space. Except for the Moon Agreement, all space law treaties have been widely ratiﬁed by the international community14 . 8 A.A. Cocca, “Desarrollo Progresivo del Derecho Internacional” (Buenos Aires: Consejo de Estudios Internacionales Avanzados, 1991) p. 47. 9 The consensus procedure was abandoned when COPUOS dealt with the declaration on the “Principles Governing the Use by States of Artiﬁcial Earth Satellites for International Direct Broadcasting Television.” Then COPUOS returned to the consensus procedure for the adoption of the three following declarations: “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space” (1986), “Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power in Outer Space” (1992), and “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Beneﬁt and in the Interests of All States, Taking into Account the Needs of Developing Countries” (1996). 10 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205, 18 UST 2410, TIAS No 6347, 6 ILM 386 [hereinafter the “Outer Space Treaty”]. 11 22 April 1968, 672 UNTS 119, 19 UST 7570, TIAS No 6599, 7 ILM 151 [hereinafter the “Rescue and Return Agreement”]. 12 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS 187, 24 UST 2389, TIAS No 7762 [hereinafter the “Liability Convention”]. 13 14 January 1975, 1023 UNTS 15, 28 UST 695, TIAS No 8480 [hereinafter the “Registration Convention”]. 14 As of 1 January 2003, the Outer Space Treaty has been ratiﬁed by 98 States and signed by 27 others; the Rescue and Return Agreement has been ratiﬁed by 88 States and signed by 25 others. One international intergovernmental organization has declared its acceptance. The Liability Convention has been ratiﬁed by 82 States and signed by 25 others. Two international intergovernmental organizations have declared their acceptance. The Registration Convention has been ratiﬁed by 44 States and signed by 4 others and two international intergovernmental organizations have declared their acceptance. The Moon Agreement has only been ratiﬁed by 10 States and signed by 5 others http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/FAQ/splawfaq.htm#index accessed May 20, 2003.

194

JULIAN HERMIDA

2.2. ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE LAW

During this stage, the focus of Space Law shifted from international law to the institutional aspects of the main intergovernmental organizations and to the domestic law of the United States15 . During this stage, known as Organizational Space Law16 , specialized authors devoted mainly, among other aspects, to the analysis of the legal framework of intergovernmental institutions as well as to United States domestic law17 . During this period, United States domestic rules basically referred to authorizations to carry out space activities, liability issues and the use of space facilities, among other matters18 . The law of intergovernmental organizations dealt mainly with the rights and obligations of the members of the organizations and with the regulation of the relationship between the organization and other entities. 2.3. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAW

In the 1980’s Space Law began to focus on the regulation of commercial space endeavors from a business law perspective, stressing on the evolutionary, mixed and multidimensional aspects of commercial space activities19 . As a response to the increasing commercial exploitation of outer space by US and European private entities, several States enacted speciﬁc domestic legislation to regulate the new space business ventures20 . These developments have widely attracted the attention of authors and policy makers around the world, and the enactment of domestic space legislation aimed at regulating space activities of private entities – which many countries are in the process of adopting – constitutes the latest stage in the evolution of Space Law21 . 15 V. Kayser, “Legal Aspects of Private Launch Services in the United States” (LL.M. Thesis, McGill University, 1991) [unpublished], at 136 [hereinafter “Private Launch”]. 16 J. Hermida, “Commercial Space Law: International, National and Contractual Aspects” (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Depalma, 1997) p. 16. 17 N.C. Goldman, “American Space Law: International and Domestic” (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1988). 18 Laws and regulations dealing with satellite telecommunications services were nonetheless quite developed. The approach followed by the United States in this ﬁeld was to declare the Communications Act of 1934 applicable to space telecommunications. After this declaration made by the FCC in 1970 many speciﬁc satellite telecommunications regulations were adopted. 19 ´ M. Couston, “Droit Spatial Economique” (Paris: SIDES, 1994) p. xxvii. 20 J. Hermida, “Legal Basis for a National Space Legislation” (Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004) p. xxi. 21 F.G. von der Dunk, “Private Enterprise and Public Interest in the European ’Spacescape’ Towards Harmonized National Space Legislation for Private Space Activities in Europe” (Leiden, IIASL, 1999) p. 1.

SPACE LAW

195

3. Main Principles All space activities must comply with the following international principles. In other words, any space activity that does not conform to these principles will be considered illegal. 3.1. FREEDOM OF EXPLORATION AND USE

According to article II second paragraph of the Space Treaty, Outer Space has been declared free for exploration and use by all States, without discrimination of any kind. However, the freedom principle has a clearly deﬁned purpose in the Space Treaty and, therefore, it may not be used as a justiﬁcation for arbitrary or illegal activities22 . 3.2. COMMON INTEREST

During the negotiation of the Space Treaty, it was feared that the principle of freedom of Outer Space exploration would lead to a situation of monopoly in favor of the United States and the Soviet Union, which were then the only space powers with capacity and means to explore the Outer Space. That fear decreased with the adoption of consensus on the common interest clause, which determines that the exploration and use of outer space, must be carried out for the beneﬁt and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientiﬁc development, and must be the province of all mankind. According to Tatsuzawa, “the common interest principle forms a counterpart to the principle of freedom of Outer Space, and imposes reasonable restrictions on the latter so as to avoid the abuse of rights. It sets a general goal from which the States must not deviate in their space activities”23 . 3.3. NON-APPROPRIATION

Article II of the Space Treaty embodies the non-appropriation principle, which establishes that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” This principle is highly relevant for commercial space activities, since it precludes the possibility of appropriation of Outer Space and celestial bodies by means of private property. This fact does not imply the non-existence of private property in 22

G.P. Zhukov & Y.M. Kolossov, “International Space Law” (New York: Praeger, 1984) p. 42. 23 K. Tatsuzawa, “The Regulation of Commercial Space Activities by the NonGovernmental Entities in Space Law” (1998) 31 IISL p. 343.

196

JULIAN HERMIDA

Outer Space. On the contrary, in accordance with article VIII of the Space Treaty, the ownership of space objects, even those built in outer space, does not change while such objects are in outer space. Thus, for example, a launched vehicle owned by a private space launch carrier launched into outer space pursuant to the international provisions in force will still be owned by that carrier and that carrier’s rights will be recognized by all the states and non-governmental entities. Additionally, the principle of non-appropriation is not absolute and it does not imply the disregard of certain rights on some areas of outer space, e.g., the right to use a speciﬁc orbital position (as long as the rules of International Law are observed), the right to use a speciﬁc area where a space station is built, or the space vehicle’s right to its trajectory24 , among others. The legitimate exercise of these rights of use implies the recognition of a sort of de facto ownership, which does not seem to contradict the true spirit of the non-appropriation principle, which actually aims at avoiding sovereignty claims by states in outer space and celestial bodies25 . 3.4. PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES. APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Space Treaty prescribes that only the moon and other celestial bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, where the establishment of military bases, installations and fortiﬁcations, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies are strictly forbidden. Thus, the Treaty does not require that activities carried out elsewhere in outer space be exclusively peaceful. The Space Treaty merely states that the activities must be carried on pursuant to international law and in the interest of maintaining international peace and security. 3.5. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY

Responsibility and liability issues play an important role in any space activities. Even if there has never been a successful third party claim for damages resulting from American and European operations, the potentiality of the success of any such claim presents all participants involved in the space launch, and not only the carriers, with considerably high risks. Article VI of the Space Treaty attributes international responsibility to states for national activities in outer space carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the Space 24 25

M.A. Ferrer (h), “El Derecho a la Trayectoria”, (1997) 13 IISL p. 160. L. Peyreﬁtte, “Droit de l’Espace” (Paris: Pr´ecis Dalloz, 1993) p. 50.

SPACE LAW

197

Treaty. This represents a deviation from general international law, for normally states are not responsible and/or liable at international level for the acts of its private citizens26 . Additionally, article VII of the Space Treaty prescribes that each state that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space and each state Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State, its individuals and companies by that object in airspace or in outer space. The Liability Convention elaborates on these principles and adopted an absolute liability standard, i.e., objective liability, where the victim does not have to prove the defendant’s fault, without any monetary limits, for damages caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to an aircraft in ﬂight. Additionally, for damages which take place elsewhere than on the surface of the earth by (i) a space object of a launching State, and (ii) persons or property on board such space object, the Convention adopted a subjective standard, where evidence of negligence is required (article III). As in the case of objective liability, article III claims are not subject to any monetary limitations. The Liability Convention also prescribes that there is joint and several liability for damages caused when a space object is jointly launched by two or more states. In this case, the launching state which has paid compensation for damage is entitled to claim the proportional corresponding amounts to other participants in the joint launching. Thus, all launching states are equally liable for compensation unless they reach an agreement for a diﬀerent division of liability27 . The Convention also establishes joint and several liability for damage caused to third parties. In this regard, it prescribes that in the event of damage caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by space objects of two other launching States, these two States become jointly and severally liable with respect to damage caused to said third State. According to the general provisions of the Convention if the damage has been caused to the third State on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in ﬂight, their liability to the third State is absolute, whereas if the damage has been caused elsewhere their liability will be based on the fault of either of the ﬁrst two States or on the fault of persons for whom either is responsible. In all these cases the burden of compensation for the damage has to be apportioned between the ﬁrst two States in accordance with the extent to which they were at fault; if this may 26

I. Brownlie, “Principles of Public International Law”, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) p. 421. 27 B.A. Hurwitz, ”State Liability for Outer Space Activities” (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoﬀ, 1992) p. 39.

198

JULIAN HERMIDA

not be established, then the burden of compensation has to be apportioned equally between them. The core of the Liability Convention is the full compensation standard imposed on the launching state, which has to restore the victim to the condition which would have existed if the damage had not occurred28 . 3.6. AUTHORIZATION AND CONTINUING SUPERVISION

The Space Treaty provides that the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space will require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate state. The Space Treaty does not determine the way in which the authorization must be granted. Therefore, every state is free to implement the system of permits for space activities. This principle is of central importance as it requires every state to authorize the activities of their private companies. In other words, any private ﬁrm and other non governmental institutions, including universities and research centers that project to carry out activities in outer space must ﬁrst seek state authorization, and these activities will then be subject to state supervision. 3.7. JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OVER SPACE OBJECTS

Article VIII provides that a state on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control29 . In other words, the legislation of the state of registry, including criminal, labor and any other kind of laws, may be applied to space objects and its personnel while in outer space. This jurisdiction may be partially waived in favor of another state by means of agreements on this matter. For instance, the State of Registry may agree on the enforcement of the legislation – or a legislative area – of another state participating in a space activity. Thus, for example, US law could apply to civil matters while Russian law could apply to criminal issues on a speciﬁc Russian or US object if so agreed by the US and Russia. 3.8. REGISTRATION OF SPACE OBJECTS

Based on article VIII of the Space Treaty, the Registration Convention prescribes that when a space object is launched into outer space, the launching 28 Proposals have been made to advance from the system of absolute liability towards total responsibility. While the former leads to the mere compensation of damages, the latter implies a double penalty, both economic and juridical, because of the deep ethical contents it entails. [A.A. Cocca, “From Full Compensation to Total Responsibility”, (1983) 26 IISL p. 157]. 29 This principle has been adopted as a consequence of the abolition of the sovereignty in space. A.A. Cocca, “Prospective Space Law” (1998) 26 J.Sp.L. p. 52.

SPACE LAW

199

State must register the space object in a national registry30 . The registration of the object in the national registry of the launching state transforms such state in the state of registry, and thus, absent an agreement to the contrary, the laws of such state will be applicable to both the space object and the personnel on board. 3.9. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Cooperation was conceived as a means toward perfecting peace and it soon became a necessity for implementing expensive space projects. This principle has been considered to be a legal obligation, which conditions the lawfulness of every space activity31 . However, as stated by Mikldy international cooperation is simply an obligatio de contrahendo and not an unconditional duty. Furthermore, no state may impose upon another one the subject and the terms of cooperation in one or another area and cooperation may only be the result of bilateral and multilateral agreements32 . 3.10. AVOIDANCE OF HARMFUL CONTAMINATION

According to article IX, all space activities have to be conducted so as to avoid harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter. Provisions contained in this principle are rather vague. For example, reference to harmful contamination may appear to suggest that non harmful contamination is allowed. Similarly, reference to the phrase adverse changes is not altogether clear. This principle refers only to harmful contamination of the Earth. Thus, it seems to permit contamination of Outer Space. 3.11. FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

The Space Treaty mandates states to inform the Secretary General of the United Nations as well as the public, and the international scientiﬁc community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of space activities. With respect to commercial activities carried out by private sector companies, the obligation of these companies is just to inform the state which has jurisdiction on them, which in turn has to inform the Secretary General and the general community. Similarly, scientists must inform their state according to their respective 30

Registration Convention, Article II 2.1. A.A. Cocca, “Preface”, in J. Hermida, “Commercial Space Law: International, National and Contractual Aspects” (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Depalma, 1997). 32 M. Mikl´ ody, “International Cooperation. A Legal Obligation in the Law of Outer Space?” (1983) 26 IISL p. 231. 31

200

JULIAN HERMIDA

laws, if any, of the nature and extent of their space activities so that the state can in turn inform the UN Secretary General. 3.12. FREE ACCESS

Article XII, together with articles I and II, assures free access to all celestial bodies and provides means for assuring each party that the other parties are living up to the provisions of the treaty. It requires that all stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles will be open to representatives of all other state parties to the Space Treaty on the basis of reciprocity. 4. Legal Issues Relevant to the Scientiﬁc Community 4.1. DELIMITATION OF OUTER SPACE.

Currently, there is no agreed precise legal, technical or political deﬁnition of either the boundaries separating airspace from outer space or of the term outer space itself33 . Many deﬁnitions have been made to clarify the expressions outer space and airspace, but none of them can express the entire concept of both terms. Legal diﬀerences are signiﬁcant. Over the airspace, states have complete and exclusive sovereignty, whereas in outer space there is no sovereignty. There are two main points of view on the delimitation issue. One approach argues for the need to delimit the boundaries of outer space and airspace. Several theories within this approach presuppose that a demarcation line must be drawn somewhere in space. They diﬀer, however, on where to place that line34 . Other schools argue that there is no need to arrive at a ﬁxed boundary, especially since no conﬂict has yet arisen35 . Making rigid boundaries may even be counterproductive as scientiﬁc progress may render obsolete any present delimitation36 . This approach was adopted in the Report of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space on its 39th Session, held in Vienna from 27 March to 6 April 2000. It held that “it was premature to develop any deﬁnition or delimitation of outer space when the lack of such a deﬁnition or delimitation had 33 The Minister of State, FCO, Hansard, h.c., Vol. 546. W.A. 66, July 23, 1993, from de Never ending dispute: “Legal theories on the spatial demarcation boundary plane between airspace and outer space” Gbenga Oduntan, Hertfordshire Law Journal 1(2) (2003) 64-68. 34 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1973/MayJun/barrett.html (R.J. Barrett). 35 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1973/MayJun/barrett.html. (R.J. Barrett). 36 S.H. Lay & H.J. Taubenfeld, “The Law Relating to Activities of Man in Space” (1970).

SPACE LAW

201

not caused any problems in conducting space activities and that an arbitrary and artiﬁcial deﬁnition or delimitation of outer space would render international law less useful and eﬀective”37 . The following are the main schools of thought that advocate for the need of determining the boundaries from outer space and airspace. 4.1.1. Uniform Criteria The applicable legal regime should be uniform for both air ﬂights and space activities38 . As consequence, aircraft ﬂights and space ﬂights should be governed by the same principles and rules. 4.1.2. The Functional Approach Functional theorists reject any scientiﬁc or legal approach to settle a demarcation and hold that the legal regime should depend on the function of the object rather than on its location. Thus, for example, a space vehicle should always be governed by space laws whereas an aircraft should always be subject to air laws. 4.1.3. The Aerodynamic Lift Theory The von Karman Line theory indicates that the limit between airspace and outer space should be drawn at the theoretical limit of aerodynamic ﬂight. According to deﬁnitions by the Fderation Aronautique Internationale (FAI), “the Karman or Krmn line lies at a height of 100 km above Earth’s surface (i.e., in technical terms 100 km above man sea level). Around this altitude the Earth’s atmosphere becomes negligible for aeronautic purposes, and there is an abrupt increase in atmospheric temperature and interaction with solar radiation”39 . 4.1.4. The Eﬀective Control Theory A state should apply its exclusive sovereignty to the highest point in space where it can eﬀectively apply its authority40 . While this theory has some appeal, it tends to reinforce the hegemony of most powerful spacefarers. 4.1.5. The Lowest Point of Orbital Flight Theory Sovereignty should extend to the lowest perigee of an orbiting satellite, which ranges between 70 km to 160 km. COPUOS, which has been debating the delimitation of outer space and airspace for decades, has not been able to adopt any conclusive position. 37

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/LGLROOE.pdf http://perseus.herts.ac.uk/uhinfo/library/i89918 3.pdf, at 70. 39 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge of space 40 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1973/MayJun/barrett.html 38

202

JULIAN HERMIDA

If and when a limit between airspace and outer space is established, it will have security, traﬃc and political implications. Input from the scientiﬁc community becomes essential. 4.2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The commercial success of any space endeavor largely depends on the possibility of obtaining adequate protection of the inventions and creations that result from space projects. Without this legal protection, there is no possibility of providing satisfactory compensation to inventors. The international space legal framework defers the protection of intellectual property to states. The United States follows the so called ﬁrst to invent approach, i.e., patents are granted to the one that can prove that was the ﬁrst to develop the invention, even if someone else has ﬁled for a patent before the inventor. In the US Congress approved a bill specifically regulating inventions made in outer space41 . This law extends the territorial scope of US Patent Law to outer space, so any invention made in outer space on a space object under the jurisdiction or control of the United States may be patented in the United States. Whenever an invention is made in the performance of a work under a contract with NASA, the invention becomes the property of the United States, if the person who made the invention was employed by NASA, or42 if the invention is related to the contract with NASA. While there may be exceptions especially contemplated in the contract, all patents that have signiﬁcant utility in the conduct of aerospace activities must generally be issued to NASA43 . Unlike the United States, Europe does not have a speciﬁc regime for intellectual property created in outer space. European states follow the ﬁrst to ﬁle system, i.e., a patent is granted to the person that ﬁrst ﬁles for a patent. Also, patents are regulated in each country. Most inventions in Europe are created in connection with programs carried out under the auspices of the European Space Agency. Generally, an invention made by a contractor as a result of work carried out under an ESA contract is the property of that contractor, which is protected by a patent44 . However, the European Space Agency and its member states 41

305 USC § 105. 305 USC § A (1). 43 A. Piera, “Intellectual Property in Space Activities. An Analysis of the United States Patent Regime”, Air and Space Law 29 (2004) 42. 44 Article 37.1 of the General Clauses and Conditions for European Space Agency Contracts. 42

SPACE LAW

203

are entitled to a free of charge, non-exclusive irrevocable license to use the invention45 . 4.3. CRIMINALITY IN SPACE

As corroborated by recent experiences of human responses to isolation conditions in outer space, it is expected that there will be a high rate of criminal and deviant conﬂicts in any long-term human endeavor in outer space46 . 4.3.1. Criminal jurisdiction In the International Space Station agreement, states opted for opted for a criminal jurisdiction system where the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction lies, in principle, in the state of nationality of the perpetrator47 . This reﬂects a very traditional approach to criminal jurisdiction under international law48 . Thus, a partner state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over personnel who are their own nationals irrespective of where the perpetrator is located, i.e., in its own module or in another partner’s module49 . So, for example, if a Canadian astronaut commits a crime in a US module, Canada and not the United States will have primary criminal jurisdiction over the Canadian astronaut. The IGA has also adopted – albeit in a limited fashion – the doctrine of passive personality50 . Thus, in case of misconduct on orbit that: (a) aﬀects the life or safety of a national of another Partner State or (b) occurs in or on or causes damage to the ﬂight element of another Partner State, the Partner State whose national is the alleged perpetrator has the primordial – but not entirely exclusive-right to exercise criminal jurisdiction51 . If it decides to exercise it, then it preempts the right of the aﬀected state. However, the aﬀected state may concur in the exercise of such jurisdiction52 . The only possibility that the aﬀected state has to exercise criminal jurisdiction in an exclusive way is if the state of nationality fails to provide assurances 45 Article 37.2 of the General Clauses and Conditions for European Space Agency Contracts http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/file.cfm?filename=fac-iss-la-ipoe 46 For an analysis of criminological and criminal justice issues in outer space, see J. Hermida, “ Space Risks” (PhD Thesis, Catholic University of Cordoba, Doctorate of Laws Thesis 2000) [unpublished]. 47 St.J. Ratner, “Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station” (1999) 22 BC Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 323. 48 C.T. Oliver et al., “The International Legal System 133-35” (4th ed., 1995) p. 165. 49 IGA, Article 22.1. 50 A.J. Young, “Law and Policy in the Space Stations’ Era 152-53” (1989). 51 IGA, Article 22.2. 52 The IGA is silent as to how to implement in practice this concurrent jurisdiction. St.J. Ratner, “Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station” (1999) 22 BC Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 341.

204

JULIAN HERMIDA

that it will submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution53 . This clearly shows a profound mistrust of each state visa-vis its other partner states, for all partners have orchestrated a system ` where each state’s own nationals will – in principle – be tried by its own prosecutors, before its own courts and according to its won substantive and procedural law. The current International Space Station’s approach, which places a strong emphasis on the state of nationality’s power to try its own national oﬀenders, coupled with severe disciplinary norms – which even include the use of physical force – is thoroughly inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the variety of behavioral problems which will be created. The criminology literature has been proliﬁcally probing the causes of why people commit crimes. None of the existing criminological theories can explain criminality in outer space. Until criminology comes up with a thorough understanding of the causes of crime in outer space, the criminal justice system will lack the necessary theoretical tools to design a criminal law and criminal justice approach to eﬀectively deal with these conﬂicts. 5. Conclusions Space Law has a long history regulating activities in outer space. International principles constitute the fundamental regulatory scenario which all space activities must follow. Created during the Cold War, these principles are rather general and focus mainly on security and humanitarian issues. National and commercial space laws have been gradually growing in the last few years. However, issues of central importance for the scientiﬁc community, such as the delimitation of outer space and airspace, the protection of intellectual property arising from inventions related to space projects, and criminal responsibility derived from human presence in outer space are still either poorly regulated or not regulated at all.

53

IGA, Article 22.2(2).

SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR EXOPLANETS

RAFAEL REBOLO

Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias & Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient´ıﬁcas C/ V´ıa L´ actea s/n E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain [email protected]

Abstract. Since 1995, more than 140 planets around solar-type stars have been discovered. The great success of the ﬁrst decade of observational research in exoplanets, where both the number of planets detected and the number of research groups in the ﬁeld have grown in parallel, will be followed by a golden age in exoplanet discovery. In the next 15 years, current and planned searches with observatories in space and on the ground will increase this number by at least two orders of magnitude unveiling the distribution of masses, periods and eccentricities of exoplanetary systems. We will possibly see the discovery of Earth-like planets around other stars and major eﬀorts will be conducted to detect signatures of biological activity in their spectra.

1. Introduction The search for planets around stars similar to the Sun succeeded in 1995 with the discovery of a giant planet orbiting the star 51 Peg (Mayor & Queloz 1995). The surprising ﬁnding of a planet with a mass similar to Jupiter in a very small orbit, about one hundred times smaller than Jupiter’s orbit, was closely followed by similar ﬁndings around other solar-type stars (Marcy & Butler 1996; Butler & Marcy 1996). The success of radial-velocity surveys has led to the discovery of more than 140 planets and several planetary systems during the past 10 years. At least 7% of solar-type stars appear to have giant planets orbiting at less than 5 AU. A complete updated list can be found for instance in “The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia”1 1

http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html

205 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 205–224. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

206

RAFAEL REBOLO

maintained by J. Schneider. The masses of these planets lie between several times the mass of Jupiter and ∼20 times the mass of the Earth. In the mass range 10 to 0.5 MJup , there is a clear trend to a higher frequency of low-mass planets. At even lower masses, this trend may still exist, but the limited sensitivity of the current surveys prevent a deﬁnitive conclusion. Remarkably, any eﬀort to search for lower-mass planets has found success and the more recent ﬁndings of Neptune-mass exoplanets (Santos et al. 2004; McArthur et al. 2004; Butler et al. 2004) only encourage the search for terrestrial exoplanets. The discovery of an Earth-like planet will be a major breakthrough in astronomy with important scientiﬁc and philosophical consequences. It is fortunate that we are living an epoch where answers to major questions, as the existence of exoplanets able to host life, can be addressed on a technical basis. The techniques required to detect such planets are being intensively explored and will possibly provide the ﬁrst detections during the next decade. Perryman’s (2000) comprehensive paper on extrasolar planets lists the various detection methods used or planned for planet searches. We review hereafter the main strategy searches currently followed for exoplanet detection and the plans to extend these searches to detect and characterise Earth-like planets in the next decade. This is not intended to be an exhaustive, neither exclusive, compilation of planetary searches, as we mainly consider eﬀorts aimed at detecting planets around solar-type stars. Searches around pulsars which have led to the detection of Earthmass bodies (Wolszczan & Frail 1992) will not be discussed here. We essentially adopt here the classiﬁcation scheme by Perryman (2000) and group search strategies according to the detection of: – a. the eﬀect caused by the planet on the dynamics of the star (orbital motion around the barycenter of the system); – b. the direct eﬀect of the planet on the propagation of stellar light (dimming, reﬂection, lensing) and – c. the direct radiation of the planet itself. 2. Searches Based on Dynamical Perturbations Current strategies to search for the dynamical perturbations induced by planets are focused on the measurement of periodic variations either in the radial velocity of stars (Doppler measurements) or in the position of stars with respect to a reference background (astrometric measurements). The extremely high accuracy of pulsar timing also allows searches of planets around neutron stars via determination of periodic changes in pulse arrival times due to orbital motion.

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

207

2.1. RADIAL-VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

The most successful technique in terms of number of planets detected is based on the measurement of periodic Doppler shift variations in the lineof-sight velocity of the central star, as determined from displacements in frequency of spectral lines. Detection of Jupiter-mass companions to nearby solar-type stars with precise radial-velocity measurements is now routine and Doppler surveys are moving toward lower velocity amplitudes. This technique has proven a powerful tool for ﬁnding planets down to masses 15-20 times the mass of the Earth with orbital periods of less than a week. There are currently over 15 active groups in the world carrying out radial-velocity searches at a precision level <10ms−1 . In the late 1980s, three groups began searches at this precision in Texas (Cochran & Hatzes 1991), in Arizona (McMillan et al. 1994) and in California (Marcy & Butler 1992), while Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) at Geneva Observatory used lower-precision measurements with the CORAVEL spectrometer. The construction of the ELODIE spectrograph (Baranne et al. 1996) for the 1.93m telescope of Haute Provence Observatory (OHP) improved the precision (<15ms−1 ) of the Geneva search programme leading to the discovery, in 1995, of 51 Peg b, the ﬁrst extrasolar planet orbiting a solar-type star. The Haute-Provence/ELODIE Extrasolar Planet Search programme (see e.g. Queloz et al. 1998), a collaboration involving about 10 researchers of the Geneva, Grenoble and Haute Provence Observatories, has monitored over 320 stars with limiting magnitude V<7.6 and found about 20 planets (see e.g. Naef et al. 2004). There are plans to replace ELODIE by a new spectrograph, SOPHIE, for measurement precision better than 3ms−1 . Geneva Observatory is also conducting a planet search programme with CORALIE at the Leonard Euler Swiss Telescope (La Silla Observatory, Chile) which involves monitoring over 1650 stars selected from the Hipparcos parallax catalogue with a time allocation of about 200 nights per year (see e.g. Mayor et al. 2004). Geneva Observatory leads the HARPS2 consortium (with OHP, CNRS3 , Bern University and ESO4 ) that has built a higher-accuracy spectrograph (Pepe et al. 2000) and is mainly dedicated to planetary searches at the ESO 3.6m telescope on La Silla. The instrument provides radial-velocity measurements with an accuracy better than 1ms−1 and has achieved the remarkable detection of a planet with a mass close to Neptune (Santos et al. 2004). About 30 researchers (including observers) are involved in the HARPS programme. 2

High-Accuracy Radial-velocity Planetary Search. Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (France). 4 European Southern Observatory. 3

208

RAFAEL REBOLO

Other radial-velocity searches at ESO make use of the Ultraviolet Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) at the Very Large Telescope (VLT), a particularly powerful instrument to conduct planet searches (K¨ urster et al. 2003) around very faint stars (M-dwarfs, brown dwarfs and distant stars). The European eﬀorts on radial-velocity monitoring are also complemented by the Tautenburg Observatory programme in collaboration with McDonald Observatory (Texas) and the Italian SARG5 extrasolar planet search. SARG is the high-resolution spectrograph at the 3.6m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, La Palma). Several Italian observatories coordinated by the Padova group participate in a programme aimed at ﬁnding extrasolar planets orbiting wide stellar binaries. Over 80 binary stars are monitored and a ﬁrst planet has already been discovered (Gratton et al. 2004a). Very successful radial-velocity surveys have also been conducted by American groups both with the largest telescopes (such as Keck, HET6 , Magellan 6.5m) and with mid-size telescopes at Lick, McDonald and Whipple Observatories. The California-Carnegie Planet Search is a programme of the University of California at Berkeley and of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (led by G. Marcy and P. Butler) involving researchers from San Francisco State University, Lick Observatories and the University of California at Santa Cruz. More than 65 planets have been found by this planet search programme, including many of the early detections and ﬁrst planetary systems. Remarkably, Keck and HET have instruments with high enough sensitivity to detect Neptune-mass planets (Butler et al. 2004; McArthur et al. 2004). These eﬀorts are successfully complemented by groups using the Advanced Fiber-Optic Echelle (AFOE) at the 1.5m telescope of Whipple Observatory (Arizona) and the planet searches conducted by the McDonald Observatory team, now also using HET. In total, these other groups involve about 15 researchers. In the Southern hemisphere, the Anglo-Australian planet search is a long-term programme carried out at the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope to search for giant planets around more than 200 nearby stars with V<8. It involves researchers of the Anglo-Australian Observatory, the Universities of Southern Queensland and of Liverpool, and from the California-Carnegie programme. 2.1.1. Externally dispersed interferometry Externally dispersed interferometry (Erskine et al. 2003) is a method to enhance the stability and performance of grating and prism spectrographs 5 6

Spettografo Alta Risoluzione Galileo. Hobby-Eberly Telescope.

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

209

boosting spectral resolution by factors 2 to 10. The interferometer produces a periodic fringe versus wavelength which allows error removal and a control on instrumental errors. It measures Doppler radial-velocity variations of starlight through the phase shifts of moir´e fringes, created by multiplication of the interferometer fringes with stellar absorption lines. A prototype instrument consisting of a ﬁber-fed dispersed ﬁxed-delay interferometer and a medium resolution (R∼6700) spectrograph with a multi-object capability (Exoplanet Tracker, ET) has been successfully tested at the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) 2.5m wide-ﬁeld telescope. A survey using the KPNO single-object ET instrument on the 0.9m coud´e-feed telescope has produced a number of new planet and brown dwarf candidates (van Eiken et al. 2003). The potential of several of these instruments operating at exiting wideﬁeld telescopes (such as SDSS and WIYN7 ) for an all-sky survey is enormous (Ge et al. 2003). Thousands of stars could be measured each night instead of tens with current cross-dispersed echelle spectrographs. In one decade, millions of stars in the solar neighborhood could be searched and thousands of planetary systems discovered. Finally, we note that, next to all these professional radial-velocity searches, amateur astronomers also aim at constructing a 1.1m telescope equipped with a spectrograph to search for extrasolar planets 8. 2.2. ASTROMETRY

The goal here is to determine the small transverse wobbles in the position of a star caused by the gravitational attraction of a planet orbiting it. As the major limitation is the atmospheric phase ﬂuctuation, high-accuracy astrometric observations are therefore better conducted from space or at radio frequencies (using very long-baseline interferometry) than in the optical range. However, high-angular-resolution measurements from optical interferometers in ground and various space observatories will reach in the near future the necessary accuracy to complement radial-velocity searches for extrasolar planets. 2.2.1. Ground-based Observatories Various interferometry projects at very large telescopes will achieve 1050 microarcsec (µas) astrometry during this decade. The ESO Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI, Paresce et al. 2003) pursues the coherent combination of the four VLT Unit Telescopes and the four moveable 1.8m Auxiliary Telescopes (AT). The ﬁrst two ATs are already in operation and have produced fringes. It is expected that, by the end of 2006, the four 7 8

Wisconsin-Indiana-Yale-NOAO (consortium). http://www.spectrashift.com/

210

RAFAEL REBOLO

ATs will be operational. With baselines as long as 200m, this will be an extremely powerful instrument for precise narrow-angle astrometry. Implementation of the Phase-Referenced Imaging and Microarcsec Astrometry (PRIMA) instrument will enable detection of Sun-Jupiter systems to a distance of 1kpc and small planets (of the order of 10 Earth masses) around the closest stars (a Jupiter-mass planet around a Sun-mass star at 10pc would produce a wobble with an amplitude of 0.5 milliarcsec). The twin Keck telescopes form a two-element interferometer (Colavita et al. 1998) with a separation of 85m. With the light-gathering capability of the two 10m telescopes, the resulting inteferometer will give a resolution 8.5 times better than that of a single Keck telescope. Using the outrigger telescopes (Bell et al. 2004), the Keck interferometer will provide narrow-angle astrometry with an accuracy of tens of µas necessary to survey hundreds of nearby stars out to 25pc for the presence of planets (Boden et al. 1999). It is claimed that planets like Uranus will be detected at such distances. The Large Binocular Telescope (LBT, Mt Graham, Arizona) consists of two 8.4m primary mirrors mounted with a 14.4m center-center separation. There are two interferometric beam combiners being developed: NIL9 (10 microns) and LINC10 (0.6-2.4 microns). First fringes are anticipated in 2006. A comprehensive list of operational optical long-baseline interferometers and links to research groups on optical interferometry all over the world can be found on the web11 . Large groups are located in Heidelberg, Grenoble, Leiden and Pasadena. In Europe there is a network integrated by these and other smaller groups under the auspices of OPTICON (the European Network for Coordination of Optical and Infrared Astronomy). 2.2.2. Space observatories The Hubble Space Telescope astrometry programme has searched for planets around Proxima Centauri and Barnard’s star using the white-light interferometer (Fine Guidance Sensor 3) (Benedict et al. 1998) setting limits to the presence of Jovian planets. The largest eﬀort made on astrometry from space was the Hipparcos satellite (ESA) which provided ∼1mas astrometry for more than one hundred thousand stars. A number of space missions will be dedicated during the next decade to achieve astrometry measurements of a much larger number of stars with two orders of magnitude higher accuracy. 9

Nulling Interferometry for the LBT. LBT Interferometric Camera. 11 http://olbin.jpl.nasa.gov/links/index.html 10

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

211

Figure 1. The space missions SIM (NASA) and GAIA (ESA) will lead to the detection of thousands of giant planets in the solar neighbourhood during the next decade. (based on images by courtesy of ESA and NASA)

GAIA12 is ESA’s Cornerstone Mission to survey more than one billion stars. It will be launched prior to 2012 with a nominal lifetime of 5 years. It should achieve an accuracy of ∼10µas, ∼200 times better than Hipparcos. Simulations indicate that GAIA will detect all existing Jupiter-mass planets within 50pc and with periods between 1.5 and 9 years. There is a good overlap with the range of periods probed by spectroscopy. The number of expected detections of Jupiter-mass planets lies between 10 000 and 50 000. Thousands of new planets might be discovered (Lattanzi et al. 2002) and a signiﬁcant fraction will have orbital parameters measured to better than 30% accuracy. It will be possible to determine the relative formation and evolution of planetary systems. The Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) is a NASA optical 10m interferometer operating in an Earth-trailing solar orbit. Scheduled for launch in 2011, it will determine the positions and distances of stars several hundred times more accurately than Hipparcos. This will allow to probe Earthsize planets around nearby stars (Catanzarite et al. 1999). The terrestrial planet search with µas accuracy around the nearest 250 stars (all stars with a distance less than 8pc) is possibly the most demanding programme 12

Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics.

212

RAFAEL REBOLO

of this mission. SIM will also determine the degree of co-planarity in multiple systems. At the more limited accuracy of 3µas, Neptune-like and larger planets will be searched around a few thousand stars. Searches for planets will also be conducted around young stars to study migration in the early evolutionary stages of planetary systems. 3. Searches Based on Photometric Perturbations 3.1. TRANSITS

The detection of planets by their transits was originally proposed by Struve (1952). The occultation method allows direct determination of the radius of the planet from the luminosity drop since the dimming of the stellar light is proportional to the square of the ratio of the planetary to the stellar diameter. It also gives the inclination of the orbit and the orbital period, provided more than one transit is detected. The transit technique obtained its ﬁrst successful result detecting the transit of the planet around the star HD 209458 (Charbonneau et al. 2000; Henry et al. 2000). This planet was previously known from Doppler measurements. Since then, the occultation method has shown the presence of planets around six stars and many other candidates have been discovered. In particular, the OGLE13 lensing project (1.3m Warsaw telescope at Las Campanas) has detected several transit planet candidates, and a few have been later conﬁrmed by spectroscopic observations (Konacki et al. 2003). Similarly, the STARE14 project, now called Trans-atlantic Exoplanet Search (TrES, a collaboration between the High-Altitude Observatory at Boulder, several US universities and the Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias) has recently achieved the detection of a transit planet (TrES-1) from Teide Observatory (Alonso et al. 2004). This collaboration between European and American astronomers search for transits with 10cm diameter telescopes installed on both sides of the Atlantic. There are more than 20 other active transit survey programmes involving more than 100 astronomers and a large suite of telescopes and observatories. These are possibly the most widely distributed planet searches, mostly focused on the detection of “hot-Jupiters”, i.e 51 Peg b analogues (see K. Horne’s web page15 for a list of links to these projects). Remarkably, some of these projects (e.g. PASS16 , Deeg et al. 2004) are aimed at monitoring permanently all stars down to a limiting magnitude of V∼ 9-10. 13

Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Stellar Astrophysics and Research on Exoplanets. 15 http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/∼kdh1 16 Permanent All Sky Survey. 14

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

213

Figure 2. Many of the current transit searches for exoplanets are conducted with rather small telescopes (10-20cm aperture) like STARE at Teide Observatory (part of the Transatlantic Exoplanet Search). Future space missions like Kepler will signiﬁcantly increase the number of monitored stars and the photometric precision to the level required for detection of Earth-like planets. (based on images by courtesy of IAC and NASA)

3.1.1. Space missions The transit method is able to detect Earth-like planets in habitable zones deﬁned as the orbital distance at which the planet temperature allows the presence of liquid water. An Earth-like planet decreases the intensity of a solar-like star by 0.01%. This is detectable just from space based observations. Measuring various transits with a consistent period, duration and change in brightness provides a rigorous method for discovering and conﬁrming planets. A dedicated space mission for detection of planetary transits was ﬁrst proposed by Borucki et al. (1994). Three space projects

214

RAFAEL REBOLO

aim at measuring transits and at achieving detection of Earth-like planets around solar-type stars: COROT, Kepler and Eddington. While COROT and Kepler will be launched in a near future, the ESA project Eddington has been unfortunately stopped due to budget limitations. COROT is a space mission of the French Space Agency (CNES) dedicated to the sismology of celestial bodies and to the study of the extrasolar planets (Baglin 2003). It is to be launched in June 2006. Participants to the mission belong to Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Spain, ESA and ESTEC. The spacecraft consists of a ∼30cm telescope with an array of CCD’s as detectors. It will monitor about 50 000 stars with a precision in the range 1-5 × 10−3 . The overall potential of COROT in the exoplanet ﬁeld is to detect several Earth-size planets. NASA’s Kepler mission (Borucki et al. 1997), with a 1m telescope and 12◦ ﬁeld of view, promises to monitor ∼80 000 stars of V<14 with a precision of 10−5 . The detection of a few hundred transiting Earth-size planets, several of them within the habitable zones of solar-like stars, is likely. In addition, Kepler will detect the reﬂected light component from close-in extrasolar giant planets. For many of these transit discovered planets, the intervals between successive transits will be measured with an accuracy of 0.1 to 100 minutes. Timing measurements will allow the detection of additional planets in the system (not necessarily transiting) by their gravitational interaction with the transiting planet. 3.2. REFLECTED LIGHT

Giant planets in close-in orbits reﬂect a signiﬁcant fraction of the incident stellar radiation that could be detected by either photometric or spectroscopic means. The Canadian microsatellite MOST17 , an optical telescope with a collecting mirror of 15cm, aims at detecting reﬂected light from known giant exoplanets closely orbiting Sun-like stars (Green et al. 2003) using long series of ultra-high-precision photometry (measurement of brightness variations to a level of 1 part per million of stars down to V=6). Suﬃciently high signal-to-noise time resolution spectroscopy of a planet host star may also provide the detection of the planet reﬂected stellar spectrum as an out-of-phase signal with respect the spectrum of the star. This technique has been pushed with encouraging results by Collier-Cameron et al. (1999).

17

Microvariability and Oscillations of Stars.

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

215

3.3. GRAVITATIONAL MICROLENSING

The presence of a planet orbiting a gravitational-lens object may lead to short magniﬁcation peaks, but spectacular ones, during a microlensing event. The technique is suﬃciently powerful to probe the entire mass range of planets from super-Jupiter-mass to Earth-mass orbiting main sequence stars at distances of kpc. Planet candidates have already been detected with this technique (see e.g. Bennet et al. 1999) and multiple microlensing searches (such as MPS18 , PLANET, etc.) are currently conducted implying broadly distributed collaborations among observatories and groups in the world (e.g. Wambsganss 2004). For instance, MPS observes microlensing events alerted by the EROS19 , MACHO20 or OGLE projects searching for planetary companions using the 1.9m telescope at Mount Stromlo Observatory in Australia and the 1.5m telescope at Boyden Observatory in South Africa. Progress in the photometric precision and the large increase in monitoring frequency planned by various groups will make future microlensing survey experiments extremely sensitive to very short timescales, considerably reducing the current mass detection threshold to values which may even reach a few lunar masses. The potential of this technique is clearly apparent in the proposal of the Galactic Exoplanet Survey Telescope (GEST): a space-based microlensing survey for terrestrial extrasolar planets (Bennet et al. 2000) which would detect extrasolar planets with masses as low as that of Mars at all separations >1AU. A diﬀraction-limited, wide-ﬁeld imaging telescope of ∼1.5m aperture equipped with a large array of redoptimized CCD detectors would be able to monitor 200 million stars in 6 square degree ﬁeld of the galactic bulge at intervals 20-30 min. If planetary systems like our own are common, the GEST project may detect 5000 planets over a 2.5 year lifetime and about 100 planets of an Earth mass or smaller. 4. Direct Imaging Exoplanets have not been imaged directly around stars because they are too faint to be seen against the glare of the nearby bright star. The key to unveil the chemical, structural, and evolutionary properties of planets is the direct detection of their radiation. Giant planets around relatively young stars, and white and brown dwarfs, will possibly be imaged from the ground with current 8-10m class telescopes. The use of adaptive-optics 18

Microlensing Planet Search. Exp´erience de Recherche d’Objets Sombres. 20 Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object. 19

216

RAFAEL REBOLO

systems with coronagraphs or diﬀerential imaging systems coupled with polarimetry (CHEOPS21 , Gratton et al. 2004b) or nulling interferometry (see e.g. Bracewell 1978 and Wallace et al. 2000) at VLT (GENIE22 , Gondoin et al. 2003), Keck or LBT will most likely detect such planets during the present decade. A Jupiter-size planet at a temperature of 900◦ K is about 10 000 times dimmer than a solar-type star. Our own Jupiter is about a million times fainter than the Sun in the thermal infrared range and a billion times fainter in the visible and near-infrared ones. Direct detection of a cold Jupiter may require space observations, however, direct detection of a hot Jupiter can be done with the interferometry programmes of the large telescopes. Keck and VLT will have the capability of detecting the radiated light from Jupitersize planets at a separation of 0.15AU from parent stars up to a distance of ∼10pc, through the use of multi-color phase diﬀerence interferometry. In fact, VLT with its adaptive-optics (AO) system NACO23 has possibly achieved the direct detection of a giant planet a few times more massive than Jupiter orbiting a very young brown dwarf in the TW Hydrae association (Chauvin et al. 2004). The higher luminosity of a planet at early stages of evolution and the low contrast with low-luminosity primaries (like brown dwarfs and very low-mass stars) raises the potential of these searches. It is likely that many other cases will appear in the coming years. More than 20 groups actively search for planets with AO (coronagraphic plus diﬀerential imaging) and/or develop interferometric techniques for immediate future planet searches in ground-based observatories. They are mostly located in Europe and the USA (also in Japan), and involve more than 100 fully or partially dedicated scientists and engineers. In the mid-infrared, new facilities like T-ReCS24 at Gemini South or Canaricam at the 10m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) will also open the possibility of direct detection of giant planets (down to a few Jupiter masses) in the 10-20µm. The good behaviour of atmospheric turbulence at these wavelengths allows searches to be conducted at the diﬀraction limit of the telescopes without adaptive-optics systems. Relatively young Jupiters (age <1Gy) will be detected around stars up to distances of 50pc. The NASA infrared satellite Spitzer is able to detect these planets at even larger distances. In spite of the low spatial resolution inherent to the size of the telescope, the extreme sensitivity at mid-infrared wavelengths has 21

Characterizing Extrasolar planets by Opto-infrared Polarimetry and Spectroscopy. Ground-based European Nulling Interferometer Experiment. 23 NAOS-Conica, with NAOS = Nasmyth Adaptive Optics System and CONICA = Near-Infrared Imager and Spectrograph 24 Thermal-Region Camera Spectrograph. 22

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

217

Figure 3. Direct imaging and spectroscopic characterization of Earth-like planets around solar-type stars will be possible at the end of the next decade using interferometric missions in space (Darwin/ESA or TPF/NASA) or extremely large telescopes from ground (OWL/ESO). (images by courtesy of NASA, ESA and ESO)

allowed the ﬁrst detection of mid-infrared photons from planets orbiting nearby stars (HD 209458 and TrES-1). In the ﬁrst part of the next decade, much deeper near- and mid-infrared searches will be conducted with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST, a NASA mission with ESA participation to be launched in 2011) and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT, the AURA/California project for the next

218

RAFAEL REBOLO

extremely-large-diameter ground-based telescope). Suitably equipped with a graded-mask Lyot coronagraph, JWST will be able to image Jupiter-like planets in the mid-infrared around any star within 10pc and to conduct also detailed spectrophotometric studies of these planets. JWST will operate from the second Lagrange point L2 of the Earth-Sun system. The TMT, currently in a design phase, equipped with AO systems and coronagraphs will also detect Jupiter-like planets at much closer separations of nearby stars, it will be particularly powerful to explore the very early evolutionary stages of giant planets in the nearest star forming regions which will not be so easily reached by current 8-10m telescopes. 4.1. EXOEARTHS

The ultimate goal of planet searches is the direct detection and characterisation of Earth-like planets in habitable zones of solar-type stars. This represents a large technical challenge. Not only a telescope with very large collecting area and high-resolution imaging capability is required, but also instruments able to suppress stellar light by a factor 109 , in such a way that the candidate Earth-like planet can be distinguished in the glare of the star. From the ground, these capabilities could be provided by Extremely Large Telescopes (ELTs, with diameter larger than 50 m) equipped with MultiConjugate Adaptive Optics systems and coronagraphs. Alternatively, from space, either a large-diameter telescope with a coronagraph or a multiplespacecraft system able to perform nulling interferometry could lead to the detection of Earth-like planets. 4.1.1. Ground-based projects The European ELT, an ESO-coordinated initiative with participation of non-ESO countries (like Spain) has initiated its design phase incorporating previous European eﬀorts in the design of giant segmented telescopes (OWL25 and Euro-50). The goal is to make operational, by mid-2015, a 50-100m segmented telescope that would push forward the frontiers of astronomy in general. In particular, it should be able to explore the existence of Earth-like planets in habitable zones of stars up to 50pc and spectroscopically characterise their atmospheres in the far-red and near-infrared ranges. Tens of research centers and industries are already collaborating in the design phase. A science case has been developed for this project in the framework of OPTICON incorporating contributions from more than 50 astronomers from all over the world. 25

Overwhelmingly Large (telescope).

219

Number of stars

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

10

8

10

7

10

6

10

5

10

4

10

3

10

2

10

1

10

0

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 Year

2010

2015

2020

2025

Figure 4. Evolution of the approximate number of main sequence stars included in world-wide exoplanet search programmes (only radial velocity, astrometry and transit techniques are considered). During the 1990s, radial-velocity searches monitored about 1000 stars. During the present decade, the number of stars that will be targeted in the transit programmes (including space missions) is at least two orders of magnitude higher. By 2015, the astrometry missions will have explored the presence of giant planets around millions of stars. If new techniques for multiobject spectroscopy are successfully developed for high-precision radial-velocity measurements, millions of stars could also be investigated using mid-size telescopes in ground-based observatories during the next 10-15 years.

220

RAFAEL REBOLO

4.1.2. Space projects There are two major programmes for direct detection of Earth-like planets: – NASA’s Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPC, Beichman et al. 2004) with its two modes: a coronagraphic mission (TPF-C) and a nulling-interferometry mission (TPF-I), and – ESA’s Darwin mission (Fridlund 2004), also based on nulling interferometry. TPF-C consists of a moderate-size visible-light telescope, 4-6m in diameter, to be launched around 2014. A smaller diameter technology demonstration mirror with a 1.8m diameter oﬀ-axis mirror will be manufactured to demonstrate that the requirements of extremely low surface error and reﬂectivity variations can be achieved. TPF-I is a multiple-spacecraft project carrying 3 to 4 meter infrared telescopes ﬂying in precise formation to be launched before 2020. Darwin was initally conceived as a ﬂotilla of six space telescopes at L2, each of which will be at least 1.5m in diameter, although currently the number of telescopes under consideration is smaller. Each will most likely have a larger diameter 3-4m. Both fully dedicated missions, searching for Earth-like planets in habitable zones using nulling interferomety, will also produce a spectroscopic characterisation of the planet atmospheres in the mid-infrared. The goal is to measure biological indicators in the spectra of the detected planets that may hint for signs of life. 5. Final Thoughts Current ground-based programmes on radial-velocity measurements, transits, gravitational microlensing and direct-imaging searches involve more than 200 astronomers world-wide. A similar number of scientists and engineers work actively in the preparation of several space missions which will have a major impact in planet searches during the next decade. Including scientists involved in theoretical work to guide and interpret our planet exploration and in the experimental developments required to solve the large observational challenges, more than 500 researchers may currently be fully engaged in this new observational science: the discovery and characterisation of extrasolar planetary systems. A comparable number of researchers may also work with partial dedication. In total, this is almost 50 times more human resources than were dedicated to this ﬁeld of research only ten years ago. It is likely that the number will still increase in the near future as the current satellite projects start to produce results and new projects are conceived. The average discovery rate (approximately one planet per month) dur-

EXOPLANET SEARCHES

221

ing the past 10 years will also drastically increase as new techniques and strategy searches are developed. By the end of the next decade, the number of known planets will possibly increase by two orders of magnitude and, in 20 years from now, a census of Earth-like planets around nearby stars should be available. So, for the ﬁrst time in mankind’s history, we will know how common are terrestrial planets in the universe. More important, spectroscopic studies will possibly tell us whether biological activity exists out of the solar system. The existence of planets similar to the Earth, able to host life as we know it, brings up the question of our uniqueness and our origins. The answer to this question will certainly impact our perception of mankind and the universe. References 1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Alonso, R., Brown, T.M., Torres, G., Latham, D.W., Sozzetti, A., Mandushev, G., Belmonte, J.A., Charbonneau, D., Deeg, H.J., Dunham, E.W., O’Donovan, F.T. & Stefanik, R.P. 2004, TrES-1: The Transiting Planet of a Bright K0 V Star, Astrophys. J. 613, L153-L156. Baglin, A. 2003, COROT: A Minisat for Pionnier Science, Asteroseismology and Planets Finding, Adv. Sp. Res. 31, 345-349. Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Adrianzyk, G., Knispel, G., Kohler, D., Lacroix, D., Meunier, J.P., Rimbaud, G. & Vin, A. 1996, ELODIE: A Spectrograph for Accurate Radial Velocity Measurements, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 119, 373-390. Beichman, C., G´ omez, G., Lo, M., Masdemont, J. & Romans, L. 2004, Searching for Life with the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Lagrange Point Options for a Formation Flying Interferometer, Adv. Sp. Res. 34, 637-644. Bell, J., Walker, J.M., Wizinowich, P.L., Tsubota, K., Rudeen, A.C., McBride, D., Kinoshita, K.K., Hrynevych, M., Goude, P., Colavita, M.M., Kelley, J.H., van Belle, G.T., Brunswick, R., Little, J.K. & Smith, C.H. 2004, Outrigger Telescopes for Narrow-Angle Astrometry, Proc. SPIE 5489, 962-973. Benedict, G.F., McArthur, B., Nelan, E.P., Jeﬀerys, W.H., Franz, O.G., Wasserman, L.H., Story, D.B., Shelus, P.J., Whipple, A.L., Bradley, A.J., Duncombe, R.L., Wang, Q., Hemenway, P.D., van Altena, W.F. & Fredrick, L.W. 1998, Working with a Space-Based Optical Interferometer: HST Fine Guidance Sensor 3 Small-Field Astrometry, Proc. SPIE on Astronomical Interferometry, Ed. R.D. Reasenberg, 3350, 229-236. Bennett, D.P., Rhie, S.H., Becker, A.C., Butler, N., Dann, J., Kaspi, S., Leibowitz, E.M., Lipkin, Y., Maoz, D., Mendelson, H., Peterson, B.A., Quinn, J., Shemmer, O., Thomson, S. & Turner, S.E. 1999, Discovery of a Planet Orbiting a Binary Star System from Gravitational Microlensing, Nature, 402, 57-59. Bennett, D.P., Clampin, M., Cook, K.H., Drake, A., Gould, A., Horne, K., Horner, S., Jewitt, D., Langston, G., Lauer, T., Lumsdaine, A., Minniti, D., Peale, S., Rhie, S.H., Shao, M., Stevenson, R., Tenerelli, D., Tytler, D. & Woolf, N. 2000, The Galactic Exoplanet Survey Telescope (GEST): A Search for Terrestrial Extra-Solar Planets via Gravitational Microlensing, Bull. Amer. Astron. Society 32, 1417. Boden, A.F., Colavita, M.M., Lane, B.F., Shao, M., van Belle, G.T. & Lawson, P.R. 1999, Diﬀerential Astrometry with the Keck Interferometer, in Working on the Fringe: Optical and IR Interferometry from Ground and Space, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc Conf. Ser. 194, 84. Borucki, W., Koch, D., Dunham, E., Cullers, D., Webster, L., Granados, A., Ford,

222

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

RAFAEL REBOLO C., Reitsema, H., Cochran, W. & Bell, J. 1994, Fresip: A Discovery Mission Concept to Find Earth-Sized Planets around Solar-like Stars, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 26, 1091. Borucki, W.J., Koch, D.G., Dunham, E.W. & Jenkins, J.M. 1997, The Kepler Mission: A Mission to Determine the Frequency of Inner Planets near the Habitable Zone for a Wide Range of Stars, in Planets Beyond the Solar System and the Next Generation of Space Missions, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc Conf. Ser. 119, 153. Bracewell, R.N. 1978, Detecting Non-Solar Planets by Spinning Infrared Interferometer, Nature 274, 780. Butler, R.P. & Marcy, G.W. 1996, A Planet Orbiting 47 Ursae Majoris, Astrophys. J. 464, L153. Butler, R.P., Vogt, S.S., Marcy, G.W., Fischer, D.A., Wright, J.T., Henry, G.W., Laughlin, G. & Lissauer, J.J. 2004, A Neptune-Mass Planet Orbiting the Nearby M Dwarf GJ 436, Astrophys. J. 617, 580-588. Catanzarite, J.H., Unwin, S.C., Shao, M., Loiseau, S., Pourbaix, D. & SIM Science Planning Team 1999, Planet Detection with SIM in Narrow-Angle Mode, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 31, 1440. Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.M., Latham, D.W. & Mayor, M. 2000, Detection of Planetary Transits Across a Sun-like Star, Astrophys. J. 529, L45-L48. Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.L. & Lowrance, P. 2004, A Giant Planet Candidate near a Young Brown Dwarf. Direct VLT/NACO Observations using IR Wavefront Sensing, Astron. Astrophys. 425, L29-L32. Cochran, W.D. & Hatzes, A.P. 1990, The McDonald Observatory Planetary Search, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 22, 1082. Colavita, M.M., Boden, A.F., Crawford, S.L., Meinel, A.B., Shao, M., Swanson, P.N., van Belle, G.T., Vasisht, G., Walker, J.M., Wallace, J.K. & Wizinowich, P.L. 1998, Keck Interferometer, Proc. SPIE on Astronomical Interferometry, Ed. R.D. Reasenberg, 3350, 776-784. Collier Cameron, A., Horne, K., Penny, A. & James, D. 1999, Probable Detection of Starlight Reﬂected from the Giant Planet Orbiting τ Bootis, Nature 402, 751-755. Fridlund, C.V.M. 2004, The Darwin Mission, Adv. Sp. Res. 34, 613-617. Deeg, H.J., Alonso, R., Belmonte, J.A., Alsubai, K., Horne, K. & Doyle, L. 2004, PASS: An All Sky Survey for the Detection of Transiting Extrasolar Planets and for Permanent Variable Star Tracking, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 116, 985-995. Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, Multiplicity Among Solar-Type Stars in the Solar Neighbourhood. I - CORAVEL Radial-Velocity Observations of 291 Stars, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 88, 281-324. Erskine, D.J., Edelstein, J., Feuerstein, W.M. & Welsh, B. 2003, High-Resolution Broadband Spectroscopy Using an Externally Dispersed Interferometer, Astrophys. J. 592, L103-L106. Ge, J., Mahadevan, S., van Eyken, J.C., DeWitt, C., Friedman, J. & Ren, D. 2004, All-Sky Extrasolar Planet Searches with Multi-Object Dispersed Fixed-Delay Interferometer in Optical and Near Infrared, in Proc. SPIE on UV and Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Systems, Ed. G. Hasinger & M.J.L. Turner, 5492, 711-718. Gondoin, P. et al. 2003, Darwin Ground-Based European Nulling Interferometer Experiment (GENIE), in Proc. SPIE on Interferometry for Optical Astronomy II, Ed. W.A. Traub, 4838, 700-711. Gratton, R.G., Carretta, E., Claudi, R.U., Desidera, S., Lucatello, S., Barbieri, M., Bonanno, G., Cosentino, R., Scuderi, S., Endl, M. & Marzariqquad, F. 2004a, The SARG Exoplanets Search, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana 75, 97. Gratton, R., Feldt, M., Schmid, H.M., Brandner, W., Hippler, S., Neuhauser, R., Quirrenbach, A., Desidera, S., Turatto, M. & Stam, D.M. 2004b, The Science Case of the CHEOPS Planet Finder for VLT, in Proc. SPIE on UV and Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Systems, Ed. G. Hasinger & M.J.L. Turner, 5492, 1010-1021.

EXOPLANET SEARCHES 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44.

45.

46. 47.

223

Green, D., Matthews, J., Seager, S. & Kuschnig, R. 2003, Scattered Light from Close-in Extrasolar Planets: Prospects of Detection with the MOST Satellite, Astrophys. J. 597, 590-601. Henry, G.W., Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P. & Vogt, S.S. 2000, A Transiting “51 Peglike” Planet, Astrophys. J. 529, L41-L44. Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S. & Sasselov, D.D. 2003, An Extrasolar Planet that Transits the Disk of its Parent Star, Nature 421, 507-509. K¨ urster, M., Endl, M., Rouesnel, F., Els, S., Kaufer, A., Brillant, S., Hatzes, A.P., Saar, S.H. & Cochran, W.D. 2003, Terrestrial Planets Around M dwarfs via Precise Radial Velocities. VLT+UVES Observations of Barnard’s Star = GJ 699, in Earths: DARWIN/TPF and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets ESA SP-539, 485-489. Lattanzi, M.G., Casertano, S., Sozzetti, A. & Spagna, A. 2002, The GAIA Astrometric Survey of Extra-Solar Planets. EAS Publ. Ser. 2, 207-214. Marcy, G.W. & Butler, R.P. 1992, Precision Radial Velocities with an Iodine Absorption Cell, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 104, 270-277. Marcy, G.W. & Butler, R.P. 1996, A Planetary Companion to 70 Virginis, Astrophys. J. 464, L147. Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, A Jupite-Mass Companion to a Solar-Type Star, Nature 378, 355. Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C. & Burnet, M. 2004, The CORALIE Survey for Southern Extra-Solar Planets. XII. Orbital Solutions for 16 Extra-Solar Planets Discovered with CORALIE, Astron. Astrophys. 415, 391402. McArthur, B.E., Endl, M., Cochran, W.D., Benedict, G.F., Fischer, D.A., Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., Naef, D., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, St. & Harrison, Th.E. 2004, Detection of a Neptune-Mass Planet in the ρ1 Cancri System Using the HobbyEberly Telescope, Astrophys. J. 614, L81-L84. McMillan, R.S., Moore, T.L., Perry, M.L. & Smith, P.H. 1994, Long, Accurate Time Series Measurements of Radial Velocities of Solar-Type Stars, Astrophys Sp. Sc. 212, 271-280. Naef, D., Mayor, M., Beuzit, J.L., Perrier, C., Queloz, D., Sivan, J.P. & Udry, S. 2004, The ELODIE Survey for Northern Extra-Solar Planets. III. Three Planetary Candidates Detected with ELODIE, Astron. Astrophys. 414, 351-359. Paresce, F., Glindemann, A., Kervella, P., Richichi, A., Schoeller, M., Tarenghi, M., Van Boekel, R. & Wittkowski, M. 2003, The VLT Interferometer, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana 74, 295. Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Delabre, B., Kohler, D., Lacroix, D., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Benz, W., Bertaux, J. & Sivan, J. 2000, HARPS: A New High-Resolution Spectrograph for the Search of Extrasolar Planets, in Proc. SPIE on Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, Ed. I. Masanori & A.F. Moorwood, 4008, 582-592. Perryman, M.A.C. 2000, Extra-Solar Planets, Rep. Progr. Phys. 63, 1209-1272. Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Sivan, J.P., Kohler, D., Perrier, C., Mariotti, J.M. & Beuzit, J.L. 1998, The Observatoire de Haute-Provence Search for Extrasolar Planets with ELODIE, in Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc Conf. Ser. 134, 324. Santos, N.C., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Lovis, C., Bazot, M., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.L., Lo Curto, G., Delfosse, X., Mordasini, C., Naef, D., Sivan, J.P. & Vauclair, S. 2004, The HARPS Survey for Southern ExtraSolar Planets. II. A 14 Earth-Masses Exoplanet around µ Arae, Astron. Astrophys. 426, L19-L23. Struve, O. 1952, Proposal for a Project of High-Precision Stellar Radial Velocity Work, Observatory 72, 199-200. van Eyken, J.C., Ge, J.C., Mahadevan, S., DeWitt, C. & Ren, D. 2003, First Planet Conﬁrmation with the Exoplanet Tracker, in Proc. SPIE on Techniques and Instru-

224

48. 49. 50.

RAFAEL REBOLO mentation for Detection of Exoplanets, Ed. D.R. Coulter, 5170, 250-261. Wallace, K., Hardy, G. & Serabyn, E. 2000, Deep and Stable Interferometric Nulling of Broadband Light with Implications for Observing Planets around Nearby Stars, Nature 406, 700-702. Wambsganss, J. 2004, Microlensing Surveys in Search of Extrasolar Planets, in Extrasolar Planets: Today and Tomorrow, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc Conf.Ser. 321, 47. Wolszczan, A. & Frail, D.A. 1992, A Planetary System Around the Millisecond Pulsar PSR1257 + 12, Nature 355, 145-147.

IAU INITIATIVES RELATING TO THE NEAR-EARTH OBJECT IMPACT HAZARD

HANS RICKMAN

Astronomiska Observatoriet Department of Astronomy & Space Physics Box 515 SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden [email protected]

Abstract. A few highlights in the history of Near-Earth Object research are outlined along with early, relevant IAU activities. The development of an IAU policy on this research and its implementation in relation to international organizations like the United Nations is described. Special attention is paid to the rˆ ole of the IAU Minor Planet Center and how the IAU has dealt with related problems. An important issue, often causing controversy, has been the need to communicate ﬁndings on asteroidal motions that may lead to impact on the Earth within the next century. An account is given of the IAU’s involvement in this issue with the aid of several examples of noteworthy cases. Finally, recent activities aiming at a multidisciplinary scientiﬁc assessment of the impact hazard, involving the International Council for Science, is presented.

1. Historical Background By the time the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was founded (1919) only three Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs) had been discovered, and Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) were mostly comets. The orbits of comets and asteroids were among the scientiﬁc concerns of some of the ﬁrst IAU Commissions, long before the impact hazard was an issue. From 1947 a Minor Planet Center (MPC) under the aegis of the IAU made essential contributions to the international coordination of orbital and astrometric work on asteroids and comets. At the end of the 1960’s the number of NEAs had increased to 27, whereof 13 had perihelion distances less than the Earth’s aphelion distance 225 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 225–241. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

226

HANS RICKMAN

and were thus in Earth-crossing orbits. These became known as Apollo asteroids. The rest had perihelia somewhat further out though still within 1.3 AU of the Sun, and it was realized that due to secular planetary perturbations these would from time to time become Earth-crossers too. They are known as Amor asteroids. While it was clear that, in the long run, the Earth and the Moon cannot be immune to impacts by members of this population, and a few impact structures had been identiﬁed on Earth (like Meteor Crater in Arizona pictured in Fig. 1; Shoemaker 1963), the nature of the lunar craters was still debated. It was a major contribution achieved by the lunar sample return missions (Apollo and Luna programs) to establish that the surface of our satellite is covered by a regolith formed by layers of impact ejecta forming characteristic breccias. With these ﬁndings and with the subsequent ﬂurry of geological and geophysical identiﬁcations of terrestrial impact structures, it became clear that impact cratering has been one of the most important phenomena shaping the planets and satellites of the Solar System. A second important marker in the history of the subject occurred about ten years after the lunar exploration. This was the discovery of a worldwide iridium-enriched clay deposit in the Cretacious-Tertiary boundary layer, and the claim that a major impact by an asteroid or comet must have happened at that time, quite likely playing a rˆ ole in the corresponding biological mass extinction (Alvarez et al. 1980). The ensuing debate over the ubiquity of similar correspondences between impacts and mass extinctions, the claims of periodicities and explanations thereof, and even the importance of the Chicxulub impact of 65 Myr ago and the extinction of the dinosaurs, does not overshadow the fact that major impacts are now realized to have the potential to punctuate the evolution of life on Earth. About ten years later, at the end of the 1980’s, it was further realized that impacts pose a threat to human society (a review is given by Chapman 2004). The number of discovered NEAs with absolute magnitudes brighter than 18, and hence estimated diameters larger than 1 km, had risen to about 100. It had also become possible to get a handle on the discovery incompleteness of the surveys thus far conducted, and the total number was estimated at about 2000. The frequency of impacts on the Earth could thus be deduced and was found to be several times per million years. Since model calculations of the climatic and ecological consequences following dust loading of the stratosphere upon such impacts indicated a likely, massive loss of human lives, it was concluded that the NEO impact hazard merits serious consideration. As a result, eﬀorts were spent on evaluating the hazard and the options to mount search programs that could lead to the rapid discovery of most of the remaining km-sized NEAs. Discussions at the XXIst IAU

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

Figure 1.

227

The Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona. (Courtesy D. Roddy, LPI)

General Assembly (GA) in 1991 led to the establishment of an IAU Working Group on NEOs. The search for NEOs intensiﬁed, and the number of astrometric observations of asteroids reported to the MPC exhibited an enormous increase. Nonetheless, from a general IAU perspective, little attention was paid to the impact hazard. The IAU ﬁnancial support for the MPC remained symbolic – even to disappear entirely in 1994. However, the situation changed dramatically with the issuing of IAU Circular 6837 on 11 March 1998, containing the assertion of a possible impact by asteroid 1997 XF11 in 2028, and the ensuing debate over orbit determination, evaluation of impact risks, and the publication of such results. 2. Towards an International NEO Policy In the spring of 1998, preliminary discussions on a suitable IAU policy on NEOs had already been initiated. This made it possible for IAU activities in the NEO ﬁeld to develop quickly and take new directions starting from mid-1998. At the 71st meeting of the IAU Executive Committee (EC) in Paris, on 4 July 1998, on the initiative of General Secretary (GS) Johannes Andersen, a policy statement was issued1 which made clear that the detection and observation of NEOs to determine their orbits “is an international respon1

http://www.iau.org/IAU/Activities/policy/neo policy.html

228

HANS RICKMAN

sibility that requires the eﬀorts of and support for astronomers around the world”. It was also stated that the IAU “coordinates this activity through the NEO Working Group and oﬀers the services of the MPC” for collecting observations and helping to make optimal use of them to secure further observations. This was the ﬁrst time that an IAU NEO policy was established and an oﬃcial statement made by the Executive Committee in support of NEO research, identifying the essential rˆole that the IAU should play in this regard. The matter was thus placed among the major policy items of the IAU – a radical change from previous attitudes, but properly reﬂecting the fact that improving knowledge of the impactor population had caused impact predictions to become a matter of public concern. It should be emphasized that this was not a scientiﬁc judgement. The IAU EC has no right or power to ﬂag one part of astronomical research as scientiﬁcally more important or interesting than another. But the NEO impact hazard is a policy issue related to public safety, and studies of the NEO population aiming to understand this risk have implications beyond those of basic research in general. In addition, the EC decided to reinstate the ﬁnancial support to the MPC at nearly twice the level budgeted up to 1994. The policy statement took note of this move to reaﬃrm the support for the MPC as the international clearinghouse for NEO research, while also acknowledging the essential ﬁnancial support of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the operation of the MPC. All countries of the world were encouraged to contribute to the eﬀort of charting the NEO population within the international forum provided by the IAU. At the same time the NEO research community experienced an urgent need to get together and discuss the issues of planning, coordination, data access and fund raising that are so essential for the realization of the goals. As a result, and on the initiative of the asteroid research group at the Torino Astronomical Observatory led by IAU Commission 152 President Vincenzo Zappal` a, a conference on International Monitoring Programs for Asteroid and Comet Threat (IMPACT) was organized and held in Torino in June 1999. Among the main ﬁnancial and scientiﬁc sponsors were NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the IAU. As a result of the meeting, recommendations were drafted by splinter groups on “Ground-based discovery and follow-up”, “Physical characterization and space-based observations”, “Computations and data processing” and “International cooperation for hazard management”, and discussed in 2

Physical Studies of Comets and Minor Planets.

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

World-wide geographical distribution of impact craters. (Courtesy Richard Grieve)

229

Figure 2.

230

HANS RICKMAN

plenum. The ﬁnal form of these can be found on the web3 . In addition, a statement of the participants was issued that summarized the status of the NEO impact hazard research, including the start towards establishing an international Spaceguard programme, and recommended that governments should − establish national Spaceguard centres to advise on the assessment of the impact hazard and to act as foci for NEO research; − support these centres ﬁnancially to facilitate international collaboration in the international Spaceguard programme. This should be recognized as the primary outcome of the IMPACT workshop, although media attention has been strongly focussed on the impact hazard scale for predicted future events that was presented by Richard Binzel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is intended as a tool to facilitate the communication of such results from the experts to the general public and journalists. Although it actually was a development of earlier ideas presented elsewhere, the suggested name of the Torino scale 4 has become exclusively adopted. The United Nations (UN) space congress UNISPACE III took place in Vienna during the summer of 1999, just after the Torino IMPACT meeting. This event was very relevant and useful for the IAU, since it oﬀered a unique forum to discuss IAU policy items like scientiﬁc education and capacity building as well as the “environmental problems” of light pollution and radio interference mitigation. The IAU enjoys observer status at the UN Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), and GS Johannes Andersen attended UNISPACE III in that capacity. Hence, the opportunity was also taken to push for the issue of the NEO impact hazard. As a result, Resolution 1 of UNISPACE III, the so-called Vienna Declaration on the nucleus of a strategy to address global challenges in the future, mentioned that action should be taken “To improve the international coordination of activities related to near-Earth objects, harmonizing the world-wide eﬀorts directed at identiﬁcation, follow-up observation and orbit prediction, while at the same time giving consideration to developing a common strategy that would include future activities related to near-Earth objects”. This Declaration was later endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Thus, the NEO issue had been raised at the highest international level. In 2001, the UN Oﬃce of Outer Space Aﬀairs asked COPUOS member countries and aﬃliated organizations to contribute to the setting up of action teams to follow up the recommendations of the Vienna Declaration. 3 4

http://www.to.astro.it/Groups/Planeto/IMPACT/impact.html http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/torino scale1.html

231

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

150

Number of discovered NEOs Before 1990

100

NEO

50

NEC

0 1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Year 900

Number of discovered NEOs 800

After 1990 NEO

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

NEC 0 1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Figure 3. These plots show how the number of discovered NEOs has grown with time. The ﬁrst search eﬀorts were started in the 1970’s, and the currently most eﬃcient programs like LINEAR came on line in the mid-1990’s. NEC denotes near-Earth comets, i.e., short-period comets with perihelion distance less than 1.3 AU, and NEO denotes the sum of NEC and those near-Earth asteroids that have absolute magnitudes brighter than 18 – this corresponds roughly to diameters larger than 1 km. Very few of the NEC are expected to have diameters less than 1 km.

232

HANS RICKMAN

The IAU has joined several such action teams, whereamongst, e.g., Nr. 14 on Near Earth Objects, and this work is still ongoing. 3. The Minor Planet Center As emphasized by the 1998 Policy Statement, the Minor Planet Center is a key factor in the IAU involvement in NEO research because of its obvious rˆ ole in coordinating observational and computational eﬀorts around the world. The recommendations by the IMPACT meeting reiterated this fact and identiﬁed the MPC as the international clearinghouse and data disseminator for NEO research. However, this requires certain standards. The MPC must be both efﬁcient and transparent. In particular, its data policy must be open, since this is a fundamental principle of science upheld by the IAU. Observations submitted to the MPC may always be suspected to contain occasional errors, and when NEO searches reach close to the detection limits, this fact becomes obvious. The MPC has a privileged place in order to check data by linkages and identiﬁcations and put the unlinked data into an ‘unveriﬁed’ category that will refer to a mixture of real and false objects. But both linked and unlinked material must be open to analysis by all scientists; otherwise it cannot be taken in charge by the IAU. Since 1999 the IAU policy with respect to the MPC has had a dual goal: ﬁrst, to deﬁne the scientiﬁc rˆole of the IAU MPC, including the principles of quick and unrestricted data dissemination, and second, to promote the idea af an IAU MPC within wider, political and scientiﬁc circles in order to attract further funding for its work. Thus, for the ﬁrst time, formal Terms of Reference (ToR) for the IAU MPC were developed in 2000 as a result of close interactions between the IAU GS and the MPC and SAO Directors. Among other things, these foresaw the creation of a MPC Advisory Committee, composed of an international group of astronomers combining expertise and experience of all aspects of the work of the MPC and charged with advising on the interactions between the MPC and its users as well as its relation to the IAU Executive. The ToR were unanimously approved at the XXIVth General Assembly in Manchester (2000) by IAU Commission 205 as well as by the Executive Committee. The ToR required that the speciﬁcs of the operation of the MPC be deﬁned in a contract signed by the IAU GS and the Director of the MPC host institute, currently the SAO. This contract was signed on 17 April 2001 by IAU GS Hans Rickman and SAO Director Irwin Shapiro. The ToR were formulated quite generally so as to be applicable to any host institute and required that all data received and archived by the MPC 5

Positions and Motions of Minor Planets, Comets and Satellites.

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

233

be made public within a short time unless withdrawn by the originators. The contract with SAO speciﬁed a limit of six months for the archives to become freely accessible, and after which all new data must be promptly disseminated. The way this was implemented was found not acceptable by the IAU, and in 2002 – one year before the XXVth General Assembly in Sydney, July 2003 – the IAU issued a notice of termination of the contract. At the same time it was agreed that the notice would be cancelled, if a number of conditions were fulﬁlled within a short time. These were aimed to demonstrate that the MPC was acting in good faith toward honouring the ToR. After it was found that appropriate actions had been taken, the cancellation was put in eﬀect as agreed. However, before the Sydney GA the IAU EC realized that the situation was not yet satisfactory with respect to open access to MPC data. Revised ToR were drafted, according to which data will be submitted to the MPC once and for all, and the MPC will quickly disseminate all the data thus received. Only a few discovery teams, though some of the most proliﬁc like LINEAR, have indicated unwillingness to work with the MPC under those conditions. The draft ToR were discussed within the EC and with MPC Director Brian Marsden during the Sydney GA. They were approved under the condition that some detailed aspects would be settled by further discussions with the MPC. To this end, and to negotiate the new contract with the SAO, IAU GS Oddbjørn Engvold appointed an ad-hoc committee that has worked with the MPC and the new SAO Director, Charles Alcock. That work is not yet concluded. The location of the MPC after the XXVIth General Assembly in Prague 2006 is thus open. However, even though the imminent coming on line of new major survey facilities like PanSTARRS (PS1) will raise the demands on minor planet data handling enormously, the IAU EC is fully convinced of the continued need for an international clearinghouse under its aegis, and will work with any interested partners to secure the availability of this service. 4. Establishing NEO Orbits Of course, discovering an asteroid or a comet means much more than exposing a photographic plate or CCD frame, where the object leaves an imprint. For any moving object we need to be able to specify its position accurately at any time in order to distinguish it from all other moving objects. With just a couple of observations during a single night there is no hope to achieve this. The daily rate of motion can only be used to estimate the position during a few subsequent nights, and the normal procedure is to reobserve the ﬁelds in question and detect the object anew.

234

HANS RICKMAN

With astrometric observations spanning an interval of several days the object can be regarded as identiﬁed, and it is given an oﬃcial designation. In general, it should be possible to reobserve it during the following lunation, after a period when observations may be too diﬃcult around full moon. However, further follow-up observations are needed in order to establish an orbit of suﬃcient quality either to recognize the object many months or years hence, or to ﬁnd prediscovery images on old archival plates. This procedure, as just described, is generally valid for all moving objects in the inner Solar System, but Near Earth Objects pose special problems. They are often discovered during a relatively close approach to the Earth, when the brightness reaches a temporary peak that brings them above the detection threshold of the survey telescopes. Follow-up may then be possible only with larger telescopes and smaller ﬁelds of view, so it is especially urgent to reobserve the objects quickly and accurately. In many cases there is an additional reason for the urgency. It often happens that the preliminary orbit has one of its nodes (i.e., ecliptic crossings) quite close to the Earth’s orbit, so that very close encounters may occur. If the minimum distance from the object’s orbit to the Earth (the Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance, or the MOID) is less than 0.05 AU, the object (in practice always asteroidal rather than cometary) is called a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid, because due to orbital precession the MOID varies with time and may pass zero during the next century or so. Dissemination of information on newly discovered NEOs, and objects suspected though not conﬁrmed to be NEOs, in need of further observations is regularly provided via the “NEO conﬁrmation page” at the web site of the MPC6 . Since 1999 further support for the astrometric follow-up of NEOs has been available through the Spaceguard Central Node7 . Sometimes the urgency of further observations becomes even more acute, namely, when it turns out that among the set of possible orbital solutions that satisfy the constraints from available observations (each of which is associated with a so-called Virtual Asteroid) there are some that lead to an impact with the Earth in the foreseeable future (so-called Virtual Impactors). The aim is then to narrow down the range of uncertainty, thus excluding most of the Virtual Asteroids, in the hope that this will result in the removal of all the Virtual Impactors (VIs). Regarding the estimation of impact probability, the general scenario looks as follows. In the very beginning, when there are very few observations, the orbit of an asteroid or comet is nearly indeterminate, and practically all of them might thus be future impactors. But the likelihood for this is so ridiculously small that noone bothers. As observations proceed, 6 7

http://cfa-harvard.edu/iau/NEO/ToConfirm.html http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/SSystem/SSystem.html

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

235

and the orbit gets reasonably well known, it practically always turns out that the object poses no imminent impact hazard whatsoever, even if it is a NEO. But in a small minority of cases, it is possible to estimate a non-zero impact proability owing to the presence of Virtual Impactors, and these may linger on for quite some time, until additional observations have eliminated them. 5. Identifying and Announcing Impact Probabilities Since the 1997 XF11 “aﬀair” occurred in 1998, great progress has been made in the theoretical understanding of possible impact prediction. Using somewhat diﬀerent methods, several research groups around the world have developed admirable expertise in charting the uncertainty regions in the target planes of future close encounters with the Earth, identifying ‘key-holes’ where perturbations lead to dangerous, resonant returns, and estimating the measures of the key-holes, i.e., the likelihoods of the respective impact solutions. The major remaining diﬃculty is that of accurately describing the distribution of observational errors and thus the relative weights of different parts of the above-mentioned uncertainty regions. A comprehensive introduction to this ﬁeld has been published by Milani et al. (2002). It was realized early on that the IAU, via its WG on NEOs, is best placed to assess the validity of any claim of a future impact probability. On the one hand, the IAU can draw upon the expertise independently acquired by the above-mentioned groups; on the other hand, it oﬀers an internationally respected authority to provide an impartial view of such claims. This idea was preliminarily discussed, for instance during the IMPACT workshop, and in 1999 formalized into a voluntary technical review procedure. This means that any scientist who predicts that a NEO impact may occur at a certain time with a certain probability is oﬀered the option to transmit all the relevant information to the WGNEO chairperson asking for an IAU technical review, and is indeed recommended to do so. The time for this review is limited to 72 hours, after which the review committee will communicate its results to the WGNEO chairperson and the scientist who asked for the review. The latter has the obvious right to publish his/her result independent of what the reviewers found, but the IAU will post the review results on its web page only if a signiﬁcant impact risk has been veriﬁed. It should be emphasized that use of this review procedure is voluntary, but serious professional researchers are expected to want just this kind of independent refereeing of their work, and the IAU will decline to comment on any claims that have not passed it. The technical review procedure is meant to apply to any prediction that is at level 1 or higher on the Torino scale. This has been called for

236

HANS RICKMAN

several times, and the outcome of those exercises is that, as expected, no case of concern remains, while each case of ruled out Virtual Impactors has contributed to a healthy learning process. Let us mention a few examples. 2000 SG344 was a very small object, but the impact probability in 2030 was large enough to merit a technical review, which conﬁrmed a value that, dependent on the unknown size, might yield a Torino scale level of 0 or 1. While earlier cases had been dismissed on the basis of archival observations, 2000 SG344 was too small for this. However, just when the review results had been posted at the IAU web site8 , it was found that further observations existed during the current apparition, and these were suﬃcient to rule out any impact risk in 2030. Two lessons were learned: − the IAU action must include more than the detailed checking of the computations behind the impact prediction; it is equally important to make the procedure involve the search for further observations, be they archival or current; − one might not need to bother about objects whose impact probabilities in a certain year are large enough to compete with the annual background risk due to unknown objects (as used by the Torino scale) but too small to compete with the integrated background risk from the present until the predicted time of impact. The second point was incorporated into a new scale that was proposed by a team led by Steven Chesley of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the 2001 Palermo meeting on asteroids – the so-called Palermo Technical Scale 9 . The point is that this may be complementary to the Torino scale: while the latter is more apt to supporting communications with the media, the former is more relevant for judging when a technical review should be performed. An update of the guidelines for the technical review10 took all this into account and was found to be very satisfactory. The case of 2001 SN289 may serve as an example of the development that occurred afterwards. This was a big, high-velocity object with a Palermo scale value of −1.5 (i.e., 3% of the integrated background risk), but the uncertainty of the impact probability was large enough to yield a Torino scale level of 0 or 1. No technical review was demanded, but an alert was given for further observations, and these were soon able to rule out the Virtual Impactors. Thus no public concern occurred. In fact, the technical review procedure has not been used since several years, although the number of asteroids with Virtual Impactors has on the contrary increased dramatically. This is due to the fortunate circumstance 8

http://www.iau.org/FAQ/sg344.html http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/doc/palermo.html 10 http://web.mit.edu/rpb/wgneo/TechComm.html 9

237

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD 10

9

Number of asteroids with TS > 0 8

7

6

5

4

3

2004 MN4

2

2004 VD17

1

0 2002

1997 XR2 2002.5

2003

2003.5

2004

2004.5

2005

2005.5

2006

Year Figure 4. This histogram shows the number of diﬀerent asteroids that, during each month since March 2002, have been associated with a Virtual Impactor (VI) leading to a Torino scale value larger than zero, at least for part of that month. The blue boxes indicate those asteroids (designations given to the right) for which such VIs remain until the present time (April 2005). The data was taken from the Sentry web site, and assistance by G.B. Valsecchi is gratefully acknowledged.

that two diﬀerent and largely independent sets of software have been developed that provide automatic monitoring of all available NEO orbits, integrating them over ∼ 100 years into the future and checking for Virtual Impactors within the range of uncertainty. One of them is CLOMON2 at the University of Pisa11 , and the second is Sentry at JPL12 . These are continuously checking each others’ results for agreement on all individual cases, and there have not been any reports of conﬂicting evidence that called for independent check by the IAU. Results are posted all the time on the web pages of these monitors and hence freely available to all users of Internet. Interested journalists scan them for news on possible impact predictions, and the general impression 11 12

http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?riskpage:0;main http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk

238

HANS RICKMAN

is that a healthy ‘saturation’ eﬀect has occurred, so that little attention is nowadays paid to those reports, unless something very special happens. Even the rise of a prediction to a Torino scale above 1 does not necessarily lead to dramatic headlines in the world’s newspapers, contrary to the situation some years ago. A case in point is 2004 MN4 , which will pass at only 30 000 km from the Earth’s surface on 13 April 2029. There was a short time near Christmas 2004 when the uncertainty over this encounter was large enough to encompass a possible collision with Earth, at a probability as high as about 1/40. The Torino scale was then 4, since the diameter of the object was estimated at 400 m. This information was posted, but few people in the general public are actually aware that the episode happened. The impact risk in 2029 went away quickly with the ﬁnding of prediscovery observations, and radar observations at the end of January 2005 then reﬁned the prediction of the remarkably close encounter. Still, at the time of writing in March 2005, there is a Virtual Impactor with collision in 2036, and if this VI survives further radar observations in years to come, the impact probability will stay at a level of one in several thousand. Time will show, if this becomes a case of public concern and how society and decision makers will tackle it. 6. Recent Political and Scientiﬁc Initiatives It is gratifying to see that the general issue of the NEO impact hazard has received more and more attention in national and international fora. This has often occurred with IAU participation or support. An important rˆ ole has been played by the international Spaceguard Foundation (SGF), which was established after discussions within the WGNEO. Along with essential eﬀorts to support NEO research coordination via its central node (created with funding from ESA), the SGF also brought the impact hazard to the agenda of the Council of Europe already in 1996, which led to a recommendation to European countries to support NEO research. It remains a fact that the vast majority of NEO search eﬀorts have been concentrated to the USA, where relevant support has come largely via NASA and the US Air Force. But the SGF and its national counterparts in diﬀerent countries (especially Japan and the UK) have been quite successful in raising the issue elsewhere too. In October 2001, an International Workshop on Collaboration and Coordination among NEO Observers and Orbital Computers was organized by the Japan Spaceguard Association and held in the town of Kurashiki, leading to a rich set of recommendations on the running of this research. The present paper has been built around one that the author presented there (Rickman 2002). Any comprehensive eﬀort to address the NEO issue in all its aspects

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

239

Figure 5. The encounter of asteroid 2004 MN4 with the Earth on 13 Apr 2029, according to calculations from Feb 2005. The white bar near the Earth depicts the range of possible positions of the asteroid at the time of closest approach, while the blue line indicates the trajectory of the central point of the range. The frame is geocentric, and the lunar orbit is drawn to show the scale. Note the appreciable deﬂection of the orbit due to the Earth’s gravity. (Courtesy Paul W. Chodas, NASA Near-Earth Object Program Oﬃce, JPL)

will require the political, organisational, and ﬁnancial support of national governments. It was therefore a particularly important development when a UK Task Force on NEOs was set up by the British Government in January 2000. Its report13 , published in September 2000, was prepared after extensive consultation with NEO scientists from several countries, including the IAU Oﬃcers. It concludes with 14 very relevant recommendations to the UK Government, including one which deals with seeking ways to put the governance and funding of the MPC on a robust international footing. An IAU statement dated 20 September 2000 applauded the Task Force Report and expressed the hope that the UK Government would follow up the recommendations with appropriate political initiatives. The IAU has also been active in supporting other new initiatives on NEO research, notably by the European Science Foundation, the European Space Agency (where the International Relations Committee has decided to take issues of the space environment, including NEOs, as a permanent item 13

http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/neo report.cfm

240

HANS RICKMAN

on its agenda), and the OECD Global Science Forum. The latter, sharing the view that all governments should require a comprehensive, independent, authoritative evaluation of the consequences to human life and society from NEO impacts, and from the uncertainty that may exist around foreseen, close encounters, organized an international workshop on Near Earth Objects: Risks, Policies and Actions that was held in Frascati, Italy, in January 2003. The IAU took part in this event. Conclusions were reached on several diﬀerent aspects of the general problem of risks, policies, and actions relating to the impact hazard. One of them dealt with strengthening risk assessment through research and development, and in particular it was noted that “The scientiﬁc community could provide the information and advice that government oﬃcials require to carry out the national risk assessments. This scientiﬁc work should extend beyond the traditional NEO community (principally astronomers) to include experts in areas related to the consequences of NEO impacts on the Earth, on society, and on the biosphere in general.” ICSU, the International Council for Science, was identiﬁed as an appropriate organizing body for this work. This, in fact, was exactly the aim of a project run by the IAU. Accordingly, the IAU together with several other Unions and Committees of the ICSU family and the USA as a National Member prepared an application for ICSU sponsorship of an international, multidisciplinary, scientiﬁc assessment of a broad range of issues around NEO impacts and human society. Funding was allocated to this project, named Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, within the 2004 ICSU/UNESCO Grant Programme. The activity focussed on bringing together a fairly large but manageable number of world experts on essentially all aspects of the problem to a workshop, whose primary aim was to establish the necessary contacts for a long-term research eﬀort across all academic subject borders, and to produce a ﬁrst, albeit preliminary version of the assessment. The workshop was held at the end of November 2004 in the town of La Laguna, Tenerife. Several topics of general discussion in splinter groups had been identiﬁed, and the results can be brieﬂy summarized as follows. Society’s vulnerability to impacts was found to have increased, both in developed countries that are increasingly dependent on complex information networks and economic linkages, and in developing countries where people often live under marginal conditions and disaster preparedness tends to be poor. Concerning methods for reduction of the consequences of impacts, it was noted that eﬃciency in this respect will greatly beneﬁt from the availability of disaster response organizations in diﬀerent countries, and national NEO policies should be developed. It is wise to extend the inventory of NEOs down to smaller size levels, and to increase the geographic accuracy of impact calcu-

IAU AND IMPACT HAZARD

241

lations. The tools for communicating scientiﬁc assessments of impact risks at future close encounters need to be further improved and generalized to include contributions from other ﬁelds than astronomy, as appropriate. Of great importance is public education about impacts and their consequences, as well as better reporting from scientists via journalists to the citizens. Protocols for the ﬂow of information, including society’s political leaders are also needed. Finally, a better understanding of the consequences of impacts was perceived to be one of the most important goals for the scientiﬁc work. In scientiﬁc terms, the risk posed by NEO impacts can be broken down into a product of the exposure to impacts, the vulnerability expressed by the likelihood of various physical eﬀects of impacts, and the cost in terms of a measure of the negative consequences of those eﬀects, like mortality rates or economic losses. Generally speaking, the current state of knowledge is good when it comes to the exposure factor, while important uncertainties were identiﬁed regarding both the vulnerability and cost factors. A preliminary assessment in the form of a white paper will be issued under the aegis of ICSU, but the eﬀort should be seen as an initial kick-oﬀ into a multidisciplinary research program that will, eventually, lead to the assessment that society needs to tackle the impact hazard. The meeting was the ﬁrst, where experts from such a wide range of disciplines came together, and it was very successful in promoting lively discussion and establishing numerous contacts across the subject borders. There is clearly a need for continued support in the future, in order to monitor the progress of the work and help guiding the activities for maximum eﬃciency. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Alvarez, L.W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F. & Michel, H.V. 1980, Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction, Science 208, 1095-1108. Chapman, C.R. 2004, The Hazard of Near-Earth Asteroid Impacts on Earth, Earth Planet. Sci. Letters 222, 1-15. Milani, A., Chesley, S.R., Chodas, P.W. & Valsecchi, G.B. 2002, Asteroid Close Approaches: Analysis and Potential Impact Detection, in Asteroids III, Eds. W.F. Bottke, Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi & R.P. Binzel, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 55-69. Rickman, H. 2002, NEO Research and the IAU, in Proc. Intern. Worksohp on Collaboration and Coordination Among NEO Observers and Orbital Computers, Eds. S. Isobe & Y. Asakura, Japan Spaceguard Assoc., 97-102. Shoemaker, E.M. 1963, Impact Mechanics at Meteor Crater, Arizona, in The Moon, Meteorites and Comets, Eds. B.M. Middlehurst & G.P. Kuiper, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 301-336.

AFOEV: SERVING VARIABLE-STAR OBSERVERS SINCE 1921 ´ – AN INTERVIEW WITH EMILE SCHWEITZER

´ Abstract. In this interview, Emile Schweitzer1 recalls the history and the ´ current activities of the “Association Fran¸caise des Observateurs d’Etoiles 2 Variables” (AFOEV ) [French Association of Variable-Star Observers] that started in 1921 to collect magnitude estimates from observers in France and abroad. The data, entirely published, are put – free of charge and without prior request – at the disposal of professional astronomers using them and proposing collaborative programs to the members of the association.

Editor (Ed.): Monsieur Schweitzer, we should probably start with a bit of history and recall how the AFOEV was born. ´ Emile Schweitzer (ES): The association was founded in 1921 at Lyons Observatory, but the touch of destiny leading to its creation goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. Ed.: So this interview could be a kind of centenary tribute? ES: Very much so indeed since, in 1901, a young primary-school teacher from the Bourbonnais3 countryside became an enthusiastic amateur astronomer after reading books from Camille Flammarion during his studies ´ at the Ecole Normale [teachers’ school] of Moulins. In the Spring, he could also observe Nova GK Per. This was the beginning of the vocation and the long career of Antoine Brun (1881-1978) as a variabilist. 1

AFOEV, 16 rue de Plobsheim, F-67000 Strasbourg, France ([email protected]). http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/afoev/ 3 Old province of central France, with Moulins as main city. Moulins is today the Pr´efecture of the Allier d´epartement. 2

243 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 243–252. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

244

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

Ed.: He spanned himself almost a full century ... ES: In 1907, he sent his ﬁrst observations – of R And, R UMa and χ Cyg – to Flammarion who forwarded them for assessment to Michel Luizet (18661918) at Lyons Observatory, then the only French professional astronomer interested in variable stars. This was the start of a long correspondence. Brun did not stop observing in the trenches of World War I (1914-1918) where he was wounded. Luck would have it that he was treated at Lyons hospital. He was then able to visit the Observatory during his convalescence. There he met Luizet in person and was introduced to the Observatory Director, Jean Mascart (1872-1935). After Luizet’s death, Brun stayed in touch with Lyons Observatory where the tradition of observing variable stars was continued by Henri Grouiller (1889-1943). Ed.: But when did the association itself took shape? ES: The idea of a French variabilist association was in the air after the foundation of the British (1901) and of the American (1911) ones. It took hape at a meeting organized on 16 April 1921 at Lyons Observatory with AAVSO4 Vice President S.C. Hunter in attendance. The ﬁrst name retained was ´ “Groupement Fran¸cais d’Observateurs d’Etoiles Variables” [French Group of Variable-Star Observers]. The ﬁrst observations were published in May 1921. However the oﬃcial birth, ratiﬁed by the entry in the “Registre des Associations” [Register of Associations], took place only in 1927. Ed.: And how were the ﬁrst years? ES: The AFOEV quickly spread, not only in France and French-speaking areas, but also in numerous foreign countries. In 1930, its observers were belonging to some twenty countries in all continents. But World War II (1939-1945) brutally stopped the activities then in full expansion. AFOEV’s General Secretary Grouiller died prematurely during the war. At the end of the conﬂict, most observers were disbanded or had disappeared. In spite of attempts by a number of devoted oﬃcers, it is only towards the end of the 1960s that the AFOEV resumed expansion under the leadership of Maurice-Victor Duruy (1894-1984) and Patrick de Saevsky. Ed.: When did yourself become involved with the association?

4

American Association of Variable Star Observers.

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

245

´ Figure 1. Emile Schweitzer (b. 1924), preparing for public release sets of observational data on variable stars. (photograph A. Heck)

ES: Well, perhaps should I start by explaining how I got interested into astronomy. I was an amateur photographer and cinematographer and, at the beginning of the 1960s, several converging tracks led me to astronomy. First, back in 1961, that was that terrestrial refracting telescope of my father-in-law. When testing it on a nearby hill and pointing it on Strasbourg Cathedral, I realized it could be used also to observe the sky and in particular those two brights spots shining then over our heads. This was to be my ﬁrst contact with Jupiter and Saturn. There was also that total solar eclipse visible in Southern France on 15 February 1961. My photographic magazine was giving indications for ﬁlming the event and, among other things, it was providing the address of the Soci´et´e Astronomique de France (SAF). I wrote to them, got a couple of complimentary copies of their journal l’Astronomie and there it was: a paper by Brun (1962) on what could do an amateur astronomer in terms of variable-star observing.

246

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

Ed.: And you got hooked ... ES: Of course, consistent with my hobby of the time, I started by observing photographically the variable stars, following advices from Roger Weber who was an amateur astrophotographer with about 250 photographic discoveries of variable stars. My own ﬁrst plate was the ﬁeld of R Leo. Ed.: When did you start observing visually? ES: Only in 1971. And my ﬁrst target was then Z Cyg. The charts used were the old AFOEV ones from Brun that I was visiting annually. Ed.: When did you become an AFOEV oﬃcer? ES: I became Vice President in 1969. According to the old statutes, the President was, ex oﬃcio, the Director of Lyons Observatory who was then Joseph-Henry Bigay (1910-1982, ill from 1973 on). Ed.: And when did you start taking care of the association Bulletin? ES: In 1973, de Saevsky left the association, so I took over the edition, publication, and distribution of the Bulletin. The next step took place in 1986 when the association was re-founded with new statutes relocating the head oﬃce at Strasbourg Observatory and removing the ex oﬃcio presidency from the Director of Lyons Observatory. I became then also AFOEV’s President and held that position until Year 2000. Currently Michel Verdenet has taken over the presidency, as well as the publication of the Bulletin, but I am still in charge of receiving the observations, of sorting them out and checking them, and of putting them on the web site. Ed.: How large is the Bulletin circulation? ES: The circulation of the Bulletin is not very large: some 120 copies. As you can imagine, today our visibility is mainly via the World-Wide Web. And so it goes too for the usage of our data. Ed.: And actually how big is the association? ES: It is not very big: about hundred members, not only from France, but also from quite a few other countries, European ones, but also African and Asiatic ones. Interestingly, we count perhaps only ﬁfteen active observers within the association membership. If all members are welcome since their

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

247

Figure 2. Schweitzer’s azimuthal telescope, one of the many instruments round the world contributing to the wealth of observational data available on variable stars. (courtesy E. Schweitzer)

yearly fees cover the expenses, our strength comes from the fact that we publish all data sent to us, from members and non-members alike. Ed.: And your coverage is really impressive, internationally speaking. ES: Beyond data from individual observers world-wide, we receive indeed the observational data from several foreign associations such as the Bundesdeutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft f¨ ur Ver¨ anderliche Sterne eV (BAV) [German Working Group on Variable Stars], the variable-star section of the Magyar Csillag´ aszati Egyes¨ ulet (MCSE) [Hungarian Astronomical Association], the working group on variable stars from the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Weer- en Sterrenkunde (NVWS) [Dutch Association for Meteorology and Astronomy], the Astronomisk Selskab [Astronomical Society] from Denmark, etc. Quite recently, the Variable Stars Section of the Royal

248 ´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

Figure 3.

Example of ﬁnding charts provided by the AFOEV: the two ﬁrst charts needed to observe R Lac.

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

249

Figure 4. The fainter magnitude and ﬁeld of R Lac are such that two more charts are needed to properly observe the star. More diﬃcult objects require larger sets of charts. (courtesy AFOEV)

250

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

Astronomical Society of New Zealand sent us, for inclusion in our database, some 1 500 000 observations carried out since May 1927 by 717 observers. Our database includes also, with their agreement, observations and photoelectric measurements obtained by professional astronomers, as well as observations extracted from old astronomical periodicals, always with the agreement of the authors or of the current editors of those publications. Ed.: The overall ﬁgures must be huge. ES: I have here statistics performed on 30 September 2004. To that date, there were 2793 observers who contributed to the archives. All observations have been digitized and they sum up to about 5 millions, exactly 4 713 353 on 30 September 2004. Ed.: And what about the publications of the association? ES: The very ﬁrst observations were published, from 1921 to 1930, in the Bulletin de l’Observatoire de Lyon [Lyons Observatory Bulletin]. Then the AFOEV had its own bulletin, abbreviated as BAF5 until WWII. As mentioned earlier, the association was in really poor shape after the conﬂict and observations were occasionally published in the Journal des Observateurs from 1945 to 1969. Then a proper AFOEV Bulletin was resumed when the association was refounded in 1969 and it has been produced ﬂawlessly to this day. Ed.: But you are also producing your own ﬁnding charts, isn’t it? ES: There are hundreds of them. Many were designed by Brun himself, using also AAVSO sequences. Bright stars such as G Her need only one chart, others two charts like R Sct. But fainter objects or diﬃcult ﬁelds require more charts. For instance, ﬁve charts are needed to observe BL Lac. Ed.: When you are getting those observations from all over the world, what are you doing with them? ES: First of all, when they are not delivered under our format, I have to standardize their presentation to the AFOEV format. Then I am checking all of them by comparing them to a lightcurve when available. If one observation deviates too much, then it is discarded. So-called ‘negative’ observations are also eliminated, i.e. if someone says a speciﬁc object is fainter 5

Bulletin de l’Association Fran¸caise [Bulletin of the French Association].

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

251

Figure 5. Lightcurve of SS Cyg, from 15 April to 29 December 1993 (2015 magnitude estimates from 83 observers), displaying two short bursts separated by three mini-bursts and a longer eruption. (courtesy AFOEV)

Figure 6. Lightcurve of χ Cyg from 15 July 1990 to 17 May 1996 (2554 magnitude estimates from 162 observers). (courtesy AFOEV)

than 9 and that someone else has seen the same object at, say, magnitude 14, it is obvious that the ﬁrst observation (fainter than 9) is bringing no useful information. It is then discarded too. Ed.: Then comes the work for public release. ES: Observations are grouped by trimester and then published in the quarterly bulletin. Earlier observations delivered with delay are not anymore included in the Bulletin, but made available via our web site. CCD observations – we have about ﬁve ‘CCD observers’ – are not made available on paper either, but they are available also via the Internet.

´ EMILE SCHWEITZER AND THE AFOEV

252

Ed.: So the web site is really what interested people should visit. ES: Deﬁnitely. It must be said again here that we are the only ones to provide all individual raw data. They are directly accessible, free of charge, and without prior request. Lightcurves are also visible on the web site and links are provided to various resources of the Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center6 . Ed.: One is really impressed by the amount of work all this represents, essentially to the beneﬁt of the professional astronomers. ES: We have had and still have numerous collaborations with professional astronomers that it would be too long to detail here. It is impossible to keep track of all of them, but I have here a list gathering together several hundreds of papers from the professional literature using our data. Yourself and some of your collaborators, when you were operating the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), contacted us several times for objects such as R CrB, RR Tel, V348 Sgr, and others. Once again, I encourage interested people to visit our web site and/or to refer to some papers published on our activities7 . Ed.: Brun observed until the age of 97 and Duruy, until being 90. Frank Bateson from the Variable Star Section of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand had to stop observing only very recently at 95 because his eyesight was failing. It seems variabilists are heading for a long life! ES: Well, at 81, I certainly hope to remain active as long as possible! The 1000+ photographic ﬁelds I took between March 1962 and October 1980 have been recently digitized and I am now looking forward to reduce all of them. References 1.

Brun, A. 1962, Ce que peut faire un amateur dans le domaine des ´etoiles variables, l’Astronomie 76, 92-97. ´ Schweitzer, E. 1986, L’Association Fran¸caise des Observateurs d’Etoiles Variables, Bull. Inform. CDS 30, 85-89. Schweitzer, E. & Proust, D. 1987, L’Association Fran¸caise des Observateurs ´ d’Etoiles Variables (AFOEV), l’Astronomie 101, 303-314. Schweitzer, E. & Vialle, J. 1993, The Database of the French Association of Variable Star Observers (AFOEV), Bull. Inform. CDS 43, 51-53.

2. 3. 4.

6 7

http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/CDS.html See the bibliographical section.

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY: A COMMUNITY OF PLANETARIANS FACING THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

Loch Ness Productions P.O. Box 1159 Groton MA 01450, USA [email protected]

Abstract. This article describes the International Planetarium Society, presents a brief history of the organization, discusses its structure, elucidates some challenges it faces and changes it may undertake over the next few years, and examines those issues in light of the changing nature of planetariums and the astronomy materials they present to their audiences.

1. IPS: A Diverse Organization The International Planetarium Society (IPS) is the largest association of planetarium professionals in the world, uniting an extremely diverse population of more than 700 members across 50 countries. IPS members work at domed theater facilities in museums, public schools, science centers, colleges and universities, and public facilities of all sizes, as well as in associated industries supplying content, consultation services, technology and support. IPS members are educators, lecturers, content producers, equipment manufacturers, writers, artists, musicians, scientists, and others whose work contributes to the astronomy-related mission of today’s facilities. IPS pursues a clear mission: to coordinate, motivate, and improve all aspects of planetarium operations for its individual and institutional members as they seek to provide knowledge of astronomy, space science, astrophysics, and related sciences to the public. To accomplish its aims, IPS takes interest in all aspects of the domed theater experience, from teaching and educational issues to content production, astronomy and space science research, 253 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 253–274. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

254

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

facility design and construction, and emerging technologies that aﬀect a planetarium’s basic mission to creatively present topics in astronomy. A number of technological innovations such as the widespread use of the Internet and World Wide Web, and the rise of aﬀordable digital video technology are aﬀecting the planetarium world. The pending “retirement” of such technologies as slide projectors and tape recorders are challenging planetarians to change and update the way they create astronomy-related programs and lessons in their theaters. Equally importantly, as more facilities are built in areas of the world where they previously didn’t exist, the presence of a world-wide organization that caters to the interests of planetarium personnel is a vital one. In light of the technological and population changes facing the community, and in an eﬀort to refresh its mission to improve operations for all its members, IPS is currently evaluating its eﬀectiveness to planetarians while at the same time recognizing the challenges facing planetarians and facilities brought about by technological changes overtaking the domed theater community. The organization needs to grow its numbers, and institute greater outreach to all members using currently available technologies. Two proposed changes to the group’s structure and outreach (discussed in more detail later) should have the eﬀect of broadening the IPS membership and strengthening international cooperation among members while encouraging the evolution of planetarium theaters and programs. 2. A Brief History of The International Planetarium Society To understand the crossroads at which IPS stands, it’s useful to look at where it started. The society has its roots in the great “US planetarium building rush” of the 1960s. Facilities sprang up in schools and museums in response to the interest in sciences generated by the competition between the US and the former Soviet Union to get to the Moon. The “parent” organizations of IPS were the Middle Atlantic Planetarium Society (MAPS, founded in 1965) and the Great Lakes Great Lakes Planetarium Association (the oldest of the regional US organizations, formed in 1963). These groups served to unite science teachers in schools and universities who were running the newly built facilities across the Eastern Seaboard and Great Lakes regions of the US. In 1970, planetarians from across North America gathered in East Lansing, Michigan. This meeting laid the groundwork for the International Society of Planetarium Educators (ISPE), which was oﬃcially founded in 1971. Seven years later, the group changed its name to the International Planetarium Society, and was chartered as a non-proﬁt corporation with regional aﬃliates in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Europe.

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

255

Figure 1. The 2002 International Planetarium Society meeting in Wichita, Kansas, drew more around 450 planetarium professionals from around the world. It was the largest meeting in the organization’s history. (courtesy IPS)

256

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

There have been 17 presidents of IPS since 1970, and the organization has met in 17 biennial conferences. For the ﬁrst 14 years of its existence, the society’s conferences were held in North America, but in recent years that has changed with meetings in England, Japan, Spain, and Sweden. The most recent conferences were in Wichita, Kansas (Fig. 1) in 2002, and in Valencia, Spain in 2004 (Fig. 2), and the 2006 meeting will be in Melbourne, Australia. The membership of IPS has grown from a few dozen members to the current world-wide population of 721. As the organization has grown, so too have the number of aﬃliate organizations, with new additions coming in from Australasia, China, India, Japan, Russia, and the Ukraine. As the group’s membership and outlook have grown, so have its services. In addition to its quarterly journal, The Planetarian, IPS also publishes its membership brochures in seven languages and actively recruits new members in emerging economies able to support planetarium facilities. In addition, the organization distributes science materials from research organizations and maintains a resource directory, guidelines for building and maintaining planetarium facilities, and runs a jobs bank where professionals can look for new opportunities in the ﬁeld. 3. IPS Structure and Governance International Planetarium Society members come from 22 regional planetarium associations (also referred to as aﬃliates – cf the Appendix). The organization itself is governed by a set of popularly elected oﬃcers and aﬃliate representatives from each of the regional groups. The elected ofﬁcers are President, Past President, President-Elect, Executive Secretary, and Treasurer, and comprise the Executive Council. The oﬃcers and aﬃliate representatives collectively make up the IPS Council. Through regular meetings of the Council, IPS supports and strengthens the activities of existing regional aﬃliates and encourages the organization of regional aﬃliates in the rest of the world. Beyond Council, a set of committees (Table 1), populated by volunteers, takes on many administrative and outreach functions of the organization. The “housekeeping functions” related to ﬁnances, awards, elections, conferences, and publications are administered by eponymously named standing committees. The society has other interests that are administered by a set of ad hoc committees. Most of their functions are self-explanatory, but several need further elucidation in light of their work in expanding planetariums’ missions around the world and at every level. The Armand Spitz Education Fund (administered by the Finance Committee) is set up to further ideas in planetarium education by the late Armand Spitz (inventor of the

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

257

Figure 2. The attendees at the 2004 International Planetarium Society meeting held in Valencia, Spain. (courtesy IPS)

258

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

Spitz planetarium projector). The IPS Language committee explores translations at conferences as well as translations of relevant publications into twelve languages. The Outreach Committee’s charge is to develop and foster contact and communication between IPS and other professional and educational organizations. Currently this committee works with the American Astronomical Society, the Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc, several international space agencies, and the Space Telescope Science Institute to foster ties between those groups and IPS. This committee’s work frequently results in astronomy-related materials for distribution to IPS members. The interests of a growing subset of planetariums – the so-called “portable domes” – are met through the actions of the Portable Planetarium Committee. It maintains a collection of resources for these members, including a specialized set of vendors and manufacturers. The Professional Services Committee seeks to help planetarians and those interested in develop planetariums gain the information they need to manage professional operations. Their work goes hand in hand with the Technology Committee, which monitors existing and emerging technologies that may have impact on planetarium facilities. A third committee, the Planetarium Development Group, works on drawing up recommendations regarding designing and building new facilities and/or renovating old ones. The Script Contest Committee has as its charge to run a script contest, with prize monies paid out through the Eugenides Foundation in Athens, Greece. This contest is being held in 2005, but is also under evaluation to see if the committee can widen its outreach to include more members for eligibility. Currently, winning scripts become the property of the IPS, which has precluded a number of entrants from sending in their work, thus depriving the contest of a viable cross-section of script samples. The main governing rules for IPS are set out in its bylaws, which can be read in full form at the IPS web site1 . The bylaws spell out deﬁnitions of IPS aﬃliates, membership requirements, describe the duties of the oﬃcers and council members, outline the standing and ad hoc committees of the organization, list the publications of the organization, awards given by IPS (and their criteria), and a range of other administrative functions relating to meeting planning and relationships with other professional societies of interest to the membership. 4. Publications The oﬃcial publication of IPS is its quarterly journal, The Planetarian (Fig. 3). It presents a variety of articles and features covering all facets of the planetarium experience of interest to planetarians. The table of contents 1

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

259

Figure 3. The Planetarian is the quarterly journal of the International Planetarium Society. Articles come from all facets of the membership and cover all aspects of professional c 2004) development in the community. (cover image courtesy IPS,

260

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

TABLE 1. IPS Committees (as of December 2004). IPS Standing Committees

IPS Ad Hoc Committees

IPS IPS IPS IPS IPS IPS IPS IPS

Armand Spitz Education Fund (**) IPS Education Committee IPS History Committee IPS Job Information Service Subcommittee IPS Language Committee IPS Outreach Committee IPS Planetarium Development Group IPS Portable Planetarium Committee IPS Professional Services Committee IPS Script Contest Committee IPS Strategic Planning Committee IPS Technology Committee IPS Fulldome Committee

Conference Committee Elections Committee Membership Committee Awards Committee Publications Committee Web Committee Ethics Committee (*) Finance Committee

(*) oﬃcially disbanded in 2005 (**) administered by the Finance Committee

of recent issues highlights the kinds of articles presented: a copyright primer, a description of live harp music in the planetarium theater, an article presenting a planetarium play written about celestial mechanics, a discussion of nomenclature for video dome productions, a memoir about visiting with planetarians in Italy, and a variety of columns discussing such issues as the digital divide that is changing the community, news about members, the latest information from NASA, commentary about mobile planetariums, and reviews of books that planetarians can use as they research and create their content. Most issues of The Planetarian are accompanied by handout materials from a variety of resources, including NASA, the Space Telescope Science Institute, the Planetary Society, and others. IPS also publishes two directories, the IPS Directory of the World’s Planetariums, a listing of more than 2 000 planetarium facilities world wide, and the IPS Resource Directory, a listing of vendors and organizations whose products are of interest to planetarians. Additional special publications are produced periodically. These include educational outreach books and advice on building a domed theater.

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

261

5. IPS Honors and Awards The International Planetarium Society endeavors to recognize members who make a variety of contributions to the organization. It has established a system of rewards for service to the group. These include IPS Fellow (for members who have belonged to the organization for at least ﬁve years and have volunteered their time to the group as an elected oﬃcer, committee member, made signiﬁcant publications and/or conference presentations, worked with other professional societies and groups on IPS’s behalf, or developed new methods for use in the community). The IPS Technology and Innovation Award was instituted in 2002, and is given to an individual, institution, or commercial vendor whose technology or innovations have utilized and replicated by other members. The highest honor to an IPS member is the IPS Service Award (for outstanding service), and is given in recognition of outstanding contributions to the ﬁeld by a member who is a source of inspiration to the profession and its members. 6. Biennial Conferences: A Chance To Meet And Learn IPS conferences are held in even-numbered years at the invitation of a planetarium host facility. They usually bring together several hundred professionals in all aspects of the planetarium ﬁeld, from educators and exhibitors, to vendors and scientists, to share information, discuss the latest trends in programming and education, see and hear the newest products demonstrated, participate in seminars and paper sessions, and compare experiences with others. The conference host works closely with the IPS Conference Committee to plan and prepare for the meeting, often more than two years in advance. The IPS meetings normally occur sometime between mid-June and midAugust of the conference years, and last anywhere from three to ﬁve days. A survey of members indicated that most members ﬁnd the June-August time period (useful for members on academic schedules) and up to a weeklong meeting to be the most convenient, although exceptions can be made for other times if such a meeting might take advantage of an astronomical or science-related event. Hosts generally try to schedule pre- and postconference tours and activities that have some relevance to aspects of astronomy and space science. The two most recent conferences, held in Wichita, Kansas in 2002 and Valencia, Spain in 2004 attracted about 450 and 300 participants, respectively.

262

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

7. Challenges and Solutions for The International Planetarium Society It is important to encapsulate the whole of a unique organization like IPS by going beyond the structural organization to examine the challenges the society faces in the coming years. As the preceding sections have made clear, IPS is a world-wide organization with a great deal of structural integrity, and that framework is allowing the group to evaluate its usefulness and expand its outreach in the face of new cultural and technological challenges. Over the years it has grown and responded to changes in the larger planetarium community, and the evolution of show production techniques, teaching methods, and presentation technologies by concentrating attention on those topics, and by focusing more attention on underserved communities. Such subgroups as the Mobile Planetarium Network and the emerging theater populations in places like the Ukraine, the Asian Paciﬁc Basin, and South America are just the latest eﬀorts. Yet, IPS still faces many challenges, which can be summed up in the following targets for action: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

grow the membership numbers; expand outreach to previously untouched communities; revamp its lines of communication in an increasingly electronic age; assist members in understanding and implementing new technologies; establish a housekeeping function in a ﬁxed location.

Expanding worldwide membership in IPS is an important goal. Table 2 shows a breakdown of IPS membership by geographic regions around the world (see also Figs. 4 & 5). The society must expand if it is to be truly representative of the world’s planetarium facilities and professionals. Its current membership of 721 is the highest it has ever been, but compared to the total number of planetarium professionals in the world (estimated to be around 3 200 individuals who identify themselves as planetarians), it’s a small fraction. Until relatively recently, the breakdown of IPS membership by geographic region historically tracked with numbers of planetariums in each region. Since there were more such theaters in the United States and Canada than in the rest of the world for a number of years, there were more IPS members in those two countries, and fewer elsewhere. The ﬁrst steps toward more internationalism within IPS began in the mid 1980s, when European council members opened debate on outreach to non-North American facilities. Two obvious results were the formation of the language committee (and its concentration on the translation and publication of the IPS membership brochure in several languages). Another was the expansion of council to include aﬃliate members from regions previously unserved. The balance also started to shift when more planetaria

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

263

Figure 4. Geographical distribution of planetarium facilities by dome size (in meters) in the United States. (courtesy Loch Ness Productions)

264

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

TABLE 2. IPS members in 2004. (courtesy IPS) Africa Asia Europe North America Middle East Oceania South America

3 43 98 534 5 12 6

began to be built around the world, with the rise of mobile facilities in more areas, and as IPS outreach eﬀorts began to bear fruit. IPS membership numbers will adjust to reﬂect the growing population of facilities around the world, and the existence of new and planned projects. Currently the United States has 1 483 domed theaters, and more than 500 US planetarians are members of IPS. There are 1 537 planetarium facilities throughout the rest of the world with just under 200 IPS members working at those theaters. Japan, for example, now has more than 300 such theaters, and there have been increasing numbers springing up in the Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. If IPS expansion eﬀorts are successful, the society should see a rise in members joining from those regions as well and the geographical imbalances in membership numbers should even out. Clearly IPS outreach through regional organizations will be an important factor in “growing the membership” in the coming years. IPS council and committees continue to focus on opening up lines of communication to under-represented groups and developing nations. It is promoting the creation of more regional organizations, IPS aﬃliates, and individual IPS memberships in places where planetariums may exist but the managers and operators don’t yet know about the larger community. To that end, the IPS 2005 council meeting will take place in Beijing, China. IPS oﬃcers have expressed the hope that discussions with Chinese colleagues will give everyone some insight into how such facilities operate in Asia, and also make IPS more visible in the region. It will also help make IPS more sensitive and meaningful to all members of the international planetarium community. In addition, current President Martin George is working personally on opening links to facilities in South America and other parts of Asia to spread the word about the international planetarium community. In the March 2005 issue of The Planetarian, he wrote: “I feel passionate about increasing the number of countries with IPS members; quite apart from the obvious beneﬁts of improved membership numbers,

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

265

Figure 5. World-wide geographical distribution of planetarium facilities by dome size (in meters). (courtesy Loch Ness Productions)

266

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

we as planetarians have a lot to gain from having colleagues in diverse parts of the world as part of our Society.” The ongoing eﬀort to site major meetings around the world is also a direct response to the rise in membership among planetarians from 50 countries, and a move away from the perceived North American domination of the organization’s meetings. The election of Martin George, Curator of the Launceston Planetarium in Tasmania, as president of IPS is another step toward the increasingly international ﬂavor of the group. Another spur to growing an international membership is the newly implemented (in 2005) IPS Star Partners project. This was devised as a way to raise membership funds to aid planetaria in places where membership is expensive and/or problematic. Current members can use a voluntary checkoﬀ on their dues renewal each year to donate funds to the project, which IPS executive council will then direct to be used to buy memberships for disadvantaged planetarians. Another signal of the diversiﬁcation of IPS is the selection of Susan Button as president-elect. She represents a rapidly growing segment of the community: the roughly 1 500 mobile or portable planetariums. This is a signiﬁcant fraction of the approximately 3 017 domed theater facilities in the world today. The “ﬁxed” facilities number about 1 500, with about half being in schools, the rest spread out among college/university facilities and museum/public venues. In the past, members from the stationary community of opto-mechanical theaters (both small and large) dominated the scene. The rapid rise of portable facilities was motivated in the past by the low cost and high quality of such products as the Learning Technologies StarLab. Today, the falling cost of video projectors and computers is opening up a new market for portable planetariums whose operators want to use fulldome videos as one medium of presentation. Susan Button notes that “These planetaria are now looked upon as valuable IPS members who develop and maintain quality hands-on space science education. Their activity supplements the programs of large planetaria by helping to build excitement and a base of understanding at the grass roots level.” The portable planetarium community is not the only segment of the planetarium population feeling the approach of fulldome video. The rise of this projection method (which replaces and/or augments traditional optomechanical star projectors) began in the larger ﬁxed theaters before the turn of the 20th century. Some of the most visible examples of this kind of theater are at the Rose Center for Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the Eugenides Planetarium in Athens, Greece, and the Albert Einstein Planetarium at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. These all utilize multiple video projectors and computerized systems to present shows.

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

267

As prices have dropped and the technology has expanded to include single projectors equipped with ﬁsheye projection, several manufacturers have begun oﬀering fulldome systems to the small and mid-sized planetarium market. Several companies have sold the smaller systems around the world and their numbers are rising. Fulldome systems are changing the landscape of content production, oﬀering the beneﬁts (and complexity) of video production techniques and software-based solutions to present anything from the simplest lecture to the most complex multi-media content. The downside is that show production is more complex, requiring planetarians to learn and use a new set of tools. While astronomy is the main and basic staple of planetarium programming, the new video projection technologies allow theaters to present more varied subject matter on the dome. Biology, physics, and chemistry are all part of an increasing spread to other disciplines depicted in planetarium shows. Domes also are used to show pieces that are pure entertainment spectacles – such as laser shows and concerts – material that is a far cry from the original astronomy-based mission of the planetarium when it was ﬁrst invented. Such changes in show philosophy and design are stirring commentary and debate in planetarium circles, with some wondering what planetarium facilities are evolving toward, and whether or not the community is entering a new phase where all such places will be called “domed theaters” instead of planetariums, in order to reﬂect their expanded content oﬀerings. IPS meetings and publications regularly feature discussions aimed at fostering understanding of the new technologies fostering such changes in technology and attitude, and their eﬀects on what the community members present. At least one IPS committee is looking into possible eﬀects of standardization of such things as video formats and compatibilities so that the highest numbers and types of theaters will be able to take advantage of content being produced for fulldome theaters. Another facet of helping planetarians deal with technological change comes into play when aging facilities face repair, maintenance and upgrades. At least one oﬃcer feels that the society should be more active in helping planetarians address those issues as they arise. In short, technological change is an important challenge to planetarians, and one that IPS will need to help its members face in the years to come. Button encapsulates the changes facing the community when she says, “We will struggle with the age-old challenge of entertaining our clients as well as educating them in planetariums that are becoming, through the digital revolution, “virtual reality chambers.” Beyond the challenges presented by emerging technologies and membership expansion, IPS is evaluating how it communicates with its members. As part of that evaluation and a Strategic

268

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

Planning Initiative outlined at the 2002 meeting, IPS Council approved the hiring of an outside consultant to do an analysis of the group’s organization, operations, and membership services. The consultant team of Ian C. McLennan and Robert J. Ballantyne polled members of IPS and assessed the needs of the membership based on the information they gleaned from the survey. From that data, they presented a series of suggested courses of action to IPS at the 2004 meeting in Valencia, Spain. Among them were the following: 1) to institute some form of online communication service for planetarians (IPS members), such as a dedicated forum (bulletin board-type service); 2) to hire a paid secretariat/parliamentarian to deal with the day-to-day administrative issues and communications of the society. This is a very controversial suggestion that has divided the IPS council in its debates. Such a paid position would almost certainly raise the cost of membership in the organization (individual dues are USD 50.00 per year; institutional members pay USD 200.00 per year). There are fears that higher costs would stiﬂe growth, and so some council members have suggested pursuing other, more ﬂexible ways of paying for a secretariat. Certainly there is a need for someone to take on routine correspondence, mailings, and other tasks associated with administering a large, multinational membership organization such as IPS, and a paid secretariat would solve some basic communications problems. At present several approaches are being studied and will be presented to council in future meetings On the larger stage, IPS has a need for more instantaneous communication with its members. While the group has a strong tradition of volunteerism, evident in the main outreach activities it maintains, there is only so much that such a work force can accomplish. Information from council and the oﬃcers is passed to members through The Planetarian, but its quarterly publication doesn’t allow for the timeliest dissemination. Regional aﬃliate publications and meetings also help disseminate IPS information, but those two occur infrequently throughout the year. The Internet and the World Wide Web present two avenues for more timely communication between IPS and its membership. Currently the organization does have a web site (see Footnote 1), maintained by volunteers. While the site is a good source of some static material, it is not yet a timely means of communication because updates are not automatic. A thorough web site upgrade and update is in the works, but this takes time and eﬀort on the part of people who also hold down challenging and fulﬁlling fulltime jobs. Internet listservers have been explored as one way of uniting members through electronic means. The current state of aﬀairs is somewhat fragmented and not under the control of IPS. The Dome-L listserver is pri-

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

269

vately operated and reaches a subset of IPS members, but it is not a formal outreach arm of IPS, and is not always available. Another subset of planetarians has formed an online site called Fulldome.org (where discussions speciﬁc to fulldome video production are the main fare). Several aﬃliate groups also maintain listservers, and there are a few online bulletin board communities that serve other subgroups. The IPS community lacks one unifying, live, online place where members can go to meet and greet. Thus the suggestion was made by the consultant team to the council that IPS adopt (and pay for) an electronic bulletin board system that would be accessible to all members. The recommendation was met with some interest by the Council, which asked the consultants to form a test board for several council members and selected IPS members (including the author) to try out. The experiment took place in late summer 2004, and early feedback indicated the project was a mixed success. However, most users agreed that such a board would be worth trying for the larger community. As of this writing, recommendations are under the consideration of the IPS council. 8. Conclusion IPS is a professional organization that is and will continue to be responsive to the needs of its members as they use their facilities to communicate science (especially astronomy) to the public. The primary goals IPS can target and the greatest inﬂuences it can wield are: to encourage the sharing of ideas among members through conferences, publications, and networking. By communicating their insights and creative work, IPS members become better planetarians. There is no doubt the society faces challenges as it seeks to increase its membership among the world’s planetarium professionals. The pace of change that all planetarians face requires a responsive and savvy group of colleagues to act as a knowledge base, not just of astronomy and related sciences, but of the needs of the unique theaters where such knowledge is transmitted to the public. Acknowledgements and Sources The author wishes to thank the following individuals for correspondence regarding the history and future of IPS, as well as their eﬀorts at reading and commenting on the manuscript, and supplying data and images: Susan Button (IPS president-elect), John Dickenson (Canadian Association of Science Centers), John Elvert (IPS Past President), Martin George (IPS President), John Hare (IPS Historian), Shawn Laatsch (IPS Treasurer and Membership Chair), John Mosley (Editor, The Planetarian), Mark C. Petersen (Past IPS Treasurer and Membership Chair).

270

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Great Lakes Planetarium Association web site: http://www.glpaweb.org/ George, M.: President’s Message, The Planetarian 34, No. 1, March 2005 Hare, J.L.: private communication on the history of IPS The International Planetarium Society web site: http://www.ips-planetarium.org/ The Planetarian homepage: http://www.GriffithObs.org/IPSPlanetarian.html Laatsch, S. (IPS Membership Chairman): private communication on membership totals Petersen, M.C.: Loch Ness Productions Dome Theater Compendium, 2005, Loch Ness Productions, Groton, Massachusetts (for world-wide populations of dome theaters and planetarians)

Appendix: IPS Aﬃliate Organizations Association of Dutch-Speaking Planetariums Chris Janssen Director, Europlanetarium Planetariumweg 19 B-3600 Genk, Belgium http://www.europlanetarium.com/ Association of French-Speaking Planetariums Agn`es Acker Observatoire de Strasbourg 11 rue de l’Universit´e F-67000 Strasbourg, France [email protected] [email protected] Association of Mexican Planetariums Ignacio Castro Pinal Torres de Mixcoac, A6-702 C.P. 01490, M´exico, DF, Mexico [email protected] Association of Spanish Planetariums (APLE) Javier Armentia Planetario de Pamplona Sancho Ramirez, 2 E-31008 Pamplona, Spain [email protected] [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

Australasian Planetarium Society Glen Moore Planetarium, Science Centre University of Wollongong Northﬁelds Avenue Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia [email protected] http://home.vicnet.net.au/∼apsweb British Association of Planetaria (BAP) Teresa Grafton London Planetarium Marylebone Road London NW1 5LR, United Kingdom [email protected] Canadian Association of Science Centers (CASC) John Dickenson, Consultant H.R. MacMillan Space Centre 1100 Chestnut Street Vancouver, BC V6J 3J9, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Council of German Planetariums (RDP) Andreas Haenel, Director Planetarium of the Museum am Schoelerberg Natur und Umwelt Am Schoelerberg D-49082 Osnabr¨ uck, Germany [email protected] European/Mediterranean Planetarium Association Dennis Simopoulos Eugenides Planetarium Syngrou Avenue-Amﬁthea Athens, Greece [email protected] [email protected] Great Lakes Planetarium Association Chuck Bueter 15893 Ashville Lane Granger, IN 46530, USA [email protected]

271

272

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

http://www.glpaweb.org/ Great Plains Planetarium Association Jack Dunn Mueller Planetarium University of Nebraska State Museum 210 Morrill Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0375, USA [email protected] [email protected] http://www.spacelaser.com/gppa Italian Planetaria’s Friends Association Loris Ramponi National Archive of Planetaria c/o Centro Studi e Ricerche Seraﬁno Zani Via Bosca 24 Casella Postale 104 I-25066 Lumezzane (Brescia), Italy info@seraﬁnozani.it http://www.cityline.it/ Japan Planetarium Society Shoiochi Itoh, Director Suginami Planetarium Suginami Science Education Center 3-3-13 Shimizu, Suginami-ku Tokyo 167-0033, Japan [email protected] [email protected] Middle Atlantic Planetarium Society (MAPS) Paul Krupinski 180 Crandon Boulevard Mobile Dome Planetarium Buﬀalo, NY 14225, USA [email protected] http://www.maps-planetarium.org/ Nordic Planetarium Association Lars Broman Dalarna University SE-791 88 Falun, Sweden [email protected] http://www.planetarium.se/npa

THE INTERNATIONAL PLANETARIUM SOCIETY

Paciﬁc Planetarium Association Gail Chaid Independence Planetarium 1776 Educational Park Drive San Jose, CA 95133, USA [email protected] http://www.ccsn.nevada.edu/planetarium/PPA/ Planetarium Society of India (PSI) S. Gopinath Director-Astronomer Daruna 80 Kathatom Road Amper Muang Ratchaburi-7000, Thailand gopi s [email protected] [email protected] Rocky Mountain Planetarium Association Jim Manning Taylor Planetarium Museum of the Rockies 600 W. Kagy Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59717, USA [email protected] http://www.rmpadomes.org/ Russian Planetariums Association Zinaida P. Sitkova Nizhny Novgorod Planetarium Pokhyalinsky S’Yezd 5-A Nizhny Novgorod, 603 600 Russia [email protected] plan [email protected] [email protected] Southeastern Planetarium Association John Hare Ash Enterprises 3602 23rd Avenue West Bradenton, FL 34205, USA [email protected] http://www.sepadomes.org/ Southwestern Association of Planetariums

273

274

CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN

Tony Butterﬁeld Houston Museum of Natural Science One Hermann Circle Houston, TX 77581, USA Work: 713-639-4637 tbutterﬁ[email protected] Ukranian Planetariums Association Lydmila Rybko Kiev Republican Planetarium 57/3 Velyka Vasyikivska Street 03150 Kiev, Ukraine [email protected]

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

ROGER FERLET

Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris CNRS/UMPC 98bis, boulevard Arago F-75014 Paris, France [email protected] AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER

Space Sciences Laboratory University of California Berkeley CA 94720, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Hands-On Universe (HOU) is a slowly but steadily growing international endeavor that teaches students and teachers modern astronomy through the acquisition, measurement, and analysis of real images from either the International Virtual Observatory or a developing network of small robotic telescopes. This intrinsically global eﬀort shares data, teachers, scientists, students, telescope sites, lesson plans, teacher training strategies, software, collaborative tools, and other resources. Such resources can be spread both ubiquitously and eﬀectively through modern web-based technologies and traditional means. Astronomy has proven to be a superb mechanism to engender and support worldwide collaboration and cooperation; global HOU currently has embraced collaborators from six continents, and is endeavoring to build telescope resources in Antarctica. HOUer’s want to work together and ﬁnd more and more reasons – as the technology becomes congruent – to be optimistic about the future. An underlying raison d’ˆetre of HOU is that students can eﬀectively learn science by actually doing science in “real-world” situations – skills of data analysis, experiment planning, collaboration and cooperation. Such skills are necessary for the future well being of students all over the world.

275 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 275–286. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

276

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER

1. Introduction and Overview 1.1. CONTEXT

Most of the developed countries have currently encountered a clear disaﬀection for scientiﬁc studies at universities. Very worrying for the future, such a complex situation cannot be reversed with a unique answer. However, it seems that renewing the teaching of science could largely contribute to increase the attraction for science. Our society should keep science in its heart, or will regress to more primitive and much less attractive state. This is the overall goal of HOU, of utmost importance for a future with a widely spread sustainable economy. It is very ambitious but also very timely. It can be fulﬁlled through astronomy, as a still well-established source of motivation for science and technology learning in young generations. Even more generally, a major goal of a Global HOU (GHOU) is to give all the children of the world the ability to look at the stars meaningfully, and advance their science education and inspiration at the same time. As noted by Oscar Wilde: “We all are lying in the gutter but some of us look at the stars”. Children of the world want to feel connected to each other, and love and need humanity’s common relationship to the heavens – the revolutionary new ease of working together with telescopes, astronomy data – all make this type of astronomy a viable means of world development and growth. 1.2. A HISTORY OF HOU

HOU began in the United States over a decade ago, and soon spread to other eager nations who were inspired by the ideas and early results. A number of teachers in Sweden were quick to adopt the methods of HOU – in early days of HOU, Sweden had more teachers than any other nation, including the United States. Soon a global HOU collaboration evolved, with strong participation by a number of nations. A recent exciting “unifying” proposal has been funded by the European Union to share resources among eight EU nations. This EU-HOU grant is the most substantial opportunity to formally share the strengths of each nation eﬀectively, and build a truly strong collaboration, working well together. Global HOU still seeks to develop such a well-supported system to coordinate and organize the international system. In the United States, HOU has been supported generously by grants from the US National Science Foundation. These grants have led to the development of a curriculum. The course is to be used in classes where students use image-processing software with real astronomy (.fts format) images. Successive grants led to the development of both face-to-face and

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

277

Figure 1. Students working on a problem related to the Moons of Jupiter. (courtesy Chr. Nilsson)

CD-based teacher training workshops. Approximately 700 US teachers have attended US HOU teacher training workshops. 1.3. MAIN IDEAS

HOU aims at re-awakening the interest for science in the young generations through astronomy and new technologies. It relies on real observations acquired through a worldwide internet-based network of automatic optical and radio telescopes or with didactical tools such as webcam systems. Pupils manipulate images in the classroom environment, using a speciﬁc software within pedagogical resources constructed in close collaboration between researchers and teachers. With Hands-On Universe, teachers and students at all ability levels use high quality astronomical images to explore central concepts in science, math, and technology. By visualizing and analyzing their own real astronomical data with HOU image processing software, similar to the software professional astronomers use, students become more engaged and more excited about math and science. HOU is also developing activities and tools

278

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER

for middle school students and products for informal science education centers. 1.4. THE ASTRONOMY DATA AVALANCHE OPPORTUNITY

The doubling time of the total amount of archived and accessible astronomical data is estimated at present to be about one year, and by 2008, the doubling time should drop to six months. More and deeper participation by a wider audience is clearly available and probably needed. In addition, the doubling time of the number of Robotic Telescopes is of order of two or three years. That is, there appears to be no end in sight to small, automated telescopes connected to the Internet and serving images for a world-wide user community, mostly for free. Hence, we are approaching a period when we will be overwhelmed with real-time data. We must be prepared to use such instruments and data. The world needs Global HOU nations to work together, consolidate our knowledge, and bring new well-trained people into astronomy, and share systems and ideas that work. One can envision that within a decade, we could have thousands of schools using near-real time data. A prime reason for Global HOU is that it is an exemplary system of global education, science, and cooperation and development. Although GHOU clearly cannot be responsible for all of the educational, cultural, and scientiﬁc development of a nation or the world, it holds the potential to be one of the easiest to adapt, the most inspirational, most easily shared program across cultural and political boundaries, and the most eﬀective science education programs ever. 2. Objectives The gap between leading scientiﬁc research and the general public is obviously large and increasing. The educational consequences are twofold. First, it is our duty to ﬁll this gap for the sake of democracy. Second, the gap is more and more diﬃcult to overcome because important scientiﬁc experiments and observations are not easily demonstrated or even simulated in a classroom. Thus, to be hopefully successful, any project should fulﬁll at least the following few basic conditions: − To be based on hands-on activities; pupils should as much as possible directly participate through observing, arguing, sharing, discussing and interpreting real astronomical data, in order to enhance autonomy and reasoning. − It should be possible to begin at low level, as far as pre-required knowledge and ﬁnancial expenses are concerned; complexity can be increased

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

279

Figure 2. M51 photograph taken by pupils using a robotic telescope. (courtesy M. Ford)

subsequently if kids ﬁnd interest. − Cross-curricular approaches are compulsory, by addressing various interests. − Easy access to knowledge and databases as well as a self-sustained system for teacher training. In order to pace towards a re-awakening of the interest for science and the promotion of the scientiﬁc method, we must make pupils and students feel that understanding can be a source of pleasure. We aim at identifying, gathering, organizing and producing pedagogical resources ready to use in classrooms. This initiative can be formatted into several speciﬁc objectives: − Continuous production of new innovative resources as users-friendly software, astronomical data, exercises, multimedia supports.

280

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER

− Pedagogical use of worldwide telescope network operated remotely through the internet. − New innovative observing tools (webcam, radio-antenna ...) to be used directly by pupils. − Creation of a network gathering researchers and school teachers and hence promoting scientiﬁc and technological education. − Speciﬁc web sites oﬀering a free portal, multilingual in Europe. − Dissemination through workshops and teacher training sessions. The expected impact is to answer the demand from teachers willing to introduce in their classrooms a new way to teach science in order to stimulate pupils. The innovative aspects are twofold, technical and educational. Technical aspects: With the availability of numerous astronomical databases, soon to be integrated in virtual observatories, high quality space and ground-based observations are now easy to access, but their huge sizes prevent their direct use in classrooms. Moreover, the use of automatic optical and radio telescopes, and web-cameras have opened the possibility for students to acquire directly data from astronomical instruments and analyze them in a classroom framework. Information and Communication Technology is then required to develop pedagogical and didactical tools. This includes a pupils-friendly software to manipulate and analyze astronomical data, freely distributed in diﬀerent languages. Although astronomical observations are generally performed nightly, the growing network of automatic telescopes around the world enables direct observations during classrooms thanks to the longitude eﬀect. Moreover, radio-observations are almost unaﬀected by poor meteorological conditions. All these facilities can be readily implemented within the current school practical organization. Educational aspects: The production of such pedagogical resources based on real astronomical data requires a good knowledge of the meaning and use of these data, together with an adaptation. It therefore implies a close interaction between researchers and teachers. This important aspect of the project guaranties the scientiﬁc and pedagogical validity of the resources. A media education is thus becoming eﬀective. Pupils can work with diﬀerent types of data (images, spectra, 3D images); they can directly collect (guided by their teachers) their own data by themselves, on the web, through remotely operated telescopes, archives, local telescopes and cameras. Our project should promote science and hopefully arouse scientiﬁc vocations. Relying on real data and the expertise of scientists, G-HOU is devel-

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

Figure 3.

EU-HOU representatives at a Paris meeting in December 2004. (courtesy A.L. Melchior)

281

282

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER

oping trans-disciplinary pedagogical resources to be used in classrooms. In addition, it will further favour worldwide communication between pupils, as they can work on similar exercises. Some resources involve collaborative work through the internet, as for instance, the tracking of a meteor, the measurement of the Earth radius or the Venus transit in front of the Sun. 3. A Brief Summary of Global HOU Systems HOU has grown in a number of nations. Appendix 1 endeavors to be a summary of aspects of the national and regional HOU systems that were present, or represented by others, at the last annual Global HOU workshop, held in St. Petersburg, Russia, in July 2004. By no means complete, the table summarizes some of the current knowledge of the Global HOU Collaboration. 4. Global Shared Resources Success HOU endeavors to share as much as possible to advance all children, educators, and others. Appendix 2 summarizes some of the ways HOU shares resources. 5. Some Challenges Collaboration and cooperation take work and energy – more coordination eﬀort and ﬁnancing is almost certainly necessary to bring Global HOU to its full potential. Funding and support for such collaboration is being sought in international, regional, and national agencies. All in Global HOU need to work together to achieve this level of coordination and collaboration. But in spite of the global coordination occurring on a volunteer basis, good things are happening. The future of Global HOU looks good, but we must be unrelenting in trying to improve Global-HOU in all aspects, supporting our existing teachers and collaborators, and also reaching new teachers. This is the key to form open-minded pupils able to think by themselves. Acknowledgements The ﬁrst author would like to acknowledge the support of ESA, “L’Univers a Port´ee de Main” and Universit´e Pierre et Marie Curie. The second author ` acknowledges the support of the US National Science Foundation, through a number of grants from the Elementary, Secondary and Informal Science Education program of Educational and Human Resources, and also grants from the Astronomy program of the Math and Physical Science Division.

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

283

Figure 4. Pupils presenting HOU software to the visitors of the annual Salon des Jeux et de la Culture Math´ematiques in Paris. (courtesy M. Janvier)

284

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER Appendix 1 Global HOU activities and stages of development

.

LOCATIONS

ACTIVITIES

DEVELOPMENT

Sweden

Trained ~120 teachers, but is waiting for more support before further growth and coherence can occur.

With European Union Funds, should begin to grow again, slowly and thoroughly. New resources – telescopes, pedagogy, software, will help.

Japan

Extremely vigorous and active JA-HOU system – new software (“Makalii”), good scientists, teachers, and other developers highly involved and engaged.

A process is underway to embed HOU in main Japanese curriculum, hence enabling it to reach many more teachers than just the enthusiastic astronomy advocates.

EUHOU

Eight European HOU nations have assembled a grant that was just successfully funded to help spread HOU through these nations!! They include Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and France as coordinator. This grant is expected to greatly accelerate and aid EU-HOU growth in these nations.

Keep working with eager collaborators. Web cam observatory for schools. Robotic radio telescope. Dedicated SalsaJ software. Exercices. European teachers training sessions.

Germany

Substantial growth early on, and DE-HOU has been accepted into curricula of some states, but has slow growth due to lack of software, telescopes, and fit to the curriculum.

Redshift Agreements, MONET telescopes coming on line, etc.

Russia

Workshop was held earlier in Russia, but did not engage in Russian schools. Fixes to this philosophy and plan now underway.

Center at Pulkovo to train and support teachers and students planned.

China

HOU is just coming to China.

HOU Teacher workshop in spring of 2005. Global HOU conference there in August 2005.

France

French have fixed C++ software for PC’s, now have 800 licenses, with exercices. Grenoble workshop held October of 2004. French HOU is an incorporated organization, with good connections with research.

Posed for slow but steady growth. TAROT 25 cm robotic telescope available for images requests. “HOU-Ciel” for primary schools.

European Space Developed ways to share ESO and Hubble Agency, ESO data with G-HOU, Fits exploder, Hubble and Eduspace archives and lesson plans.

Push development of International Virtual Observatory into G-HOU.

THE HANDS-ON UNIVERSE PROJECT

285

. Poland

A number of workshops, good lead teachers, good interactions with Univ. of Warsaw, and good collaboration with museums. Developed and pioneered Web Cam astronomy.

Telescope and more resources on the way!

Developing strong collaboration with Faulkes Telescopes and Armagh Planetarium.

Integration of HOU into Northern Ireland science curriculum.

Astronomy becoming part of the Pakistan Curriculum.

Anticipating holding workshops, getting telescopes, reaching many children in Pakistan. Contacts for building the Pakistan Automated Telescope in progress.

Australia

Two Global HOU telescopes here, more on the way.

Start HOU in Queensland. Use Internet 2 to retrain teachers and develop resources. More telescopes!

Morocco

Agreements almost in place with School of Science & Engineering, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane for HOU telescope to be sited there.

Operating telescope by July 2005, teacher workshops underway, and many other good things.

Senegal

Interest by a number of Senegalese students in Paris. Much enthusiasm and hope.

Plans for solar scopes in Senegal, and a small teacher workshop in Dakar.

Viet Nam

Interest and enthusiasm by Unversity of Hue faculty.

Start HOU Clubs throughout Viet Nam associated with Universities.

United Kingdom

Pakistan

286

ROGER FERLET AND CARLTON R. PENNYPACKER Appendix 2 Global Shared Activities and Resources

.

RESOURCE

Makalii Software (Japan)

ESA, ESO and Virtual Observatories

EU-HOU

US SDSS National Virtual Observatory Tools

Collaboratory

HOU Software

Telescope Network

STAGE

FUTURE

Free to all

Can change language for new nations, given some time.

Hubble Archives and ESO data becoming easier and easier to get.

Make such data and tools more and more accessible and well known to Global HOU – practice in Beijing! FHOU is part of the French virtual observatory developments.

Organizational phase. Exercices, web cam system, radio telescope, SalsaJ software etc. under production.

All EU-HOU materials produced will be freely available on a dedicated interactive web server, in English and other languages of EU-HOU.

CD and Cone Search, SQL tools and other powerful data tools becoming available to G-HOU.

More tools, more usefulness, more exploitation.

Journal of Teacher and Student Astrophysical Research and Explorations

Much more international collaboration – sharing of data, resources, scientists, ideas, spirit.

US software available at a cost normalized to teacher's salary of nation compared to teachers' salaries in the United States. Also, curriculum is sold with scaling according to relative teachers' salary. In France, translated and licensed.

More sharing, more developments of new software tools

Robotic telescopes springing up around the world.

Future looks great! Many more springing up and being able to reach classrooms and other venues.

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

Jodrell Bank Observatory Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Manchester Macclesﬁeld SK11 9DL, United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract. The authors describe the various outreach activities at Jodrell Bank Observatory: Visitor Centre (new one being designed), web site, distance learning, school programmes, work with astronomical societies and with other community groups, and ﬁnally, interactions with the national and local media.

1. Introduction The University of Manchester’s Jodrell Bank Observatory is now the only major observatory in the United Kingdom which has its main instrument – the Lovell Telescope – located on site. The Observatory lies in the Cheshire countryside some 20 miles [32km] south of Manchester. The Lovell Telescope has become an ikon not only of British science and technology but also of the north-west of England, appearing every day in the opening sequences of the local television station news bulletins. The observatory has attracted great interest from the general public since the completion of the 76m Lovell Telescope, then called the Mk I, in 1957 when it came to immediate prominence in the public mind as it tracked the ﬁrst orbiting spacecraft, Sputnik I. Since then, the observatory has attempted to meet this public interest in a variety of ways as will be outlined in this chapter. The major thrust of this outreach has, for very many years, been the Visitor Centre located on the Observatory site, so this will be considered 287 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 287–298. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

288

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

ﬁrst. Many other varied eﬀorts are being made to show the public our work, both at the Observatory and elsewhere and these will be described later. 2. The Jodrell Bank Visitor Centre To meet the public interest in the Mk 1 telescope, open days were initiated in the early 1960s and displays of the work being done at the observatory were mounted in marquees erected on the site. The response was overwhelming with queues of cars blocking the minor roads around the Observatory! Sir Bernard Lovell, the Observatory’s founder and Director, thus obtained a loan from the University to build a permanent Visitor Centre adjacent to the telescope control buildings and so allow visitors to come and see the telescope in action whilst learning about the work that it was doing. The new Centre proved very popular and, as the number of visitors rose each year, it was extended to open up new galleries allowing more displays and exhibits to be viewed. Perhaps the main addition made over the years was the construction, in 1976, of a 120 seat Planetarium having a 60ft [18m] dome on which a Spitz projector produced a very realistic night sky. The projector was upgraded to the latest computer controlled system in 1993 and the planetarium experience enhanced with the addition of panoramic and laser disk projectors. Planetarium shows were developed both for the general public and also for the school parties who had become a signiﬁcant proportion of our visitor numbers. On an adjacent part of the observatory site an arboretum was established in the early 1970s and, as the trees mature, this is becoming increasingly attractive. It is home to the national collections of Malus (crabapple) and Sorbus (whitebeam). As time went by, the visitor numbers rose to a peak of 150 000 visitors a year and the Centre became one of the leading tourist attractions in the north-west of England. Typically 45 000 of these were in school parties with two to three school groups booked each day during the school terms. Astronomy became part of the UK’s National Curriculum, so material and planetarium shows which would support the schools in teaching the concepts for this part of the curriculum were produced. As the Centre expanded, relatively less of the exhibition related directly to the work of the Observatory and exhibits relating to general astronomy and physics became more prominent. With some emphasis on “hands on” and interactive exhibits which had become had become very popular by this time, the Visitor Centre became a Science Centre. The buildings, some of which dated back to the mid-1960s, had been constructed at relatively low cost and were, by the mid-1990s, becoming expensive to maintain. The piecemeal additions to the buildings over the

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

Figure 1.

289

The old Visitor Centre. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

Figure 2. Statistics of visitors since the opening of the Visitor Centre. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

years meant that it was diﬃcult to give a uniﬁed feel to the centre and the new British lottery gave a chance to bid for money to replace the buildings from the “Millennium Fund” set up by the UK government out of the lottery

290

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

proceeds. An impressive proposal was prepared in 1998 for a bid combining a major upgrade to the Lovell Telescope (which was also in need of extensive work) together with a new Visitor Centre. The Millennium Commissioners were impressed with our proposals and were happy to support the bid but half the required funding had to come from other sources. Sadly, matching funds could not be obtained so the bid was unsuccessful. Many new attractions were opening in the area and, partly as a result, the visitor numbers declined to around 100 000 per annum putting the ﬁnancial viability of the Centre in doubt. No funding could be obtained to immediately replace the Visitor Centre’s ageing buildings and it was decided that the increasing sums spent on maintenance would be better used to provide matching funds for a bid to replace the Centre with a new “high tech” building. So, at the end of the 2003 season, the buildings, including the Planetarium, were demolished and a small temporary Visitor Centre, caf´e and shop set up in an adjacent building. However, three signiﬁcant new investments have been made to add to the facilities for the public. The ﬁrst is a 3D theatre which, using twin projectors and polarised glasses, provided some excellent animated shows about the Solar System and the Universe using material developed by Swinburne University in Australia. The second, opened at the start of the 2005 season, is a new walkway around to the south side of the Lovell Telescope. The telescope spends much of its time observing towards the south and this meant that from the Visitor Centre on the north-east side of the telescope one could often not see into its bowl and observe the focus box and tower. The new walkway enables this to be done no-matter where the telescope is observing and provides seating and picnic areas right under the telescope structure. Around the path are posters telling the visitor about the work of the observatory in general and the Lovell Telescope in particular. This is proving a signiﬁcant addition to the visitor experience. Located here is a sculpture representing the Sun, as Jodrell Bank is at the heart of a giant model of the solar system in an initiative called “Spaced Out” which aims to give some sense of scale to the solar system. The sculpture representing Pluto is located in Aberdeen – some 279 miles [440km] away! On this, UK-wide scale, the Sun would actually be 100m across, about the overall size of the Lovell Telescope. Finally, a new path has been laid around the Arboretum giving better access, particularly for the disabled. Although the amount of exhibition space is far reduced, the overall visitor experience on a ﬁne day is, if anything, enhanced and the visitor numbers have held up surprisingly well with 65 000 expected over the 2005 season. We cannot cater for school parties in the way that we could, but are providing facilities for senior school groups who are given a talk and tour of the Observatory by one of the observatory staﬀ as part of

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

291

Figure 3. The temporary Visitor Centre. From the patio in front, a walkway leads around the Lovell Telescope. On the grass to the left are a pair of dishes used as a “Whispering Gallery”. Beyond the carpark is the 30 acre [0.12 km2 ] Arboretum. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

Figure 4. The new walkway below the Lovell Telescope. There is a small amphitheatre where “Ask an Astronomer” talks are given during school holidays and, at the centre of the oval a sculpture of the Sun locating the centre of a solar system model stretching across the UK. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

292

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

their visit. During school holidays, one of the Observatory scientiﬁc staﬀ hosts an “Ask an Astronomer” session each afternoon. In good weather, this is held in a specially built mini-amphitheatre beside the new walkway beneath the telescope. As many as 100 visitors attend these sessions and, following a short talk about the work that the Lovell Telescope is doing that day, the visitors, particularly children, ask surprisingly penetrating questions. These sessions often continue for an hour or more and are really appreciated. Again, to compensate for the fact that we have less to oﬀer the visitor in terms of displays, we are organising special events such as “Step into Cheshire” when over 800 visitors were given guided tours of the Observatory, and the “Transit of Venus” in which 350 visitors (including 60 local schoolchildren) attended presentations and used telescopes to observe the transit of the planet Venus across the face of the Sun. Meanwhile, detailed plans for a new visitor centre are being put together ready for submission to appropriate funding bodies. Initial design studies envisage a semi-underground structure 76m across – to echo the size of the Lovell Telescope. The low visual impact structure will retain the superb view of the telescope as one arrives at the Observatory that has become visible since the original buildings were demolished. So that within a few years it is hoped that a new Visitor Centre will be able to host more visitors and give them a real insight into the work carried out at the Observatory. 3. The Jodrell Bank Observatory Web Site In this internet age, our web site1 is now providing a major way in which the public can learn about the work of the Observatory. Areas of the site give details of the history of the Observatory, a guided tour behind the scenes and sections about each of the research topics that are studied by our radio telescopes. In addition there is a “Jodrell Bank Live” page giving details of the operation of all the telescopes along with webcams showing images of the Lovell and two other telescopes and time lapse movies showing their motion across the sky. A “news” area gives access to all of the press releases put out by the Observatory so that it is possible to keep up to date with the latest discoveries – such as that of the “Double Pulsar” in 2004 which is providing the best test currently known for Einstein’s Theory of gravitation, “The General Theory of Relativity”. As part of our eﬀort in encouraging amateur astronomers and others to view the heavens an extensive “Monthly Sky Guide” is provided giving details of how to observe any particularly interesting objects visible during 1

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

293

Figure 5. Top: Panoramic view of the Jodrell Bank Observatory showing the current Visitor Centre to the left of the main Control Building. A new walkway extends round the base of the Lovell Telescope from the Visitor Centre. Bottom: An artist’s impression of one proposal for a new Visitor Centre building at Jodrell Bank. It would be 76m across, reﬂecting the size of the Lovell Telescope, and partially underground so retaining the impressive view of the telescope as visitors arrive. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

294

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

the month – such as a passing comet – as well as where in the sky one can observe the brighter planets. Each month details are given of those constellations that are then best seen with details of the objects such as clusters and galaxies that may be seen within their boundaries. This page receives over 7000 “hits” each month and is one of the most popular on the site. For 2005 an extensive new section has been added – again to encourage observations of the many interesting objects in the heavens. It is called the “Astronomical A-List” and gives observing details of 50 of the very best objects to observe in the heavens with your eyes, binoculars or a small telescope. Detailed star charts are included along with instructions as to how best to locate them in the sky. The observer is told what to expect to see and what it is they are observing. The Observatory gives observing awards for those who submit observing logs of the objects that they see and these are particularly aimed at young people. Occasionally special web pages are put on the site associated with a speciﬁc event; such as the transit of Venus when we posted a live webcam image of Venus passing across the face of the Sun and when we were searching for the Beagle spacecraft on the surface of Mars over the Christmas period in 2003. On that occasion the site had over 250 000 hits in one day! A facility provided by our site allows the users to submit questions about any aspects of astronomy. These questions are answered by an appropriate member of staﬀ who responds by e-mail. Staﬀ members also receive and respond to phone calls from members of the public – often about strange objects seen in the sky. These can be very useful as, for example, when we received three reports of a meteor falling into the ground and were able to triangulate their sightings to ﬁnd the approximate location of impact. We have no staﬀ speciﬁcally employed to maintain the web site and this work is done by a number of scientiﬁc and computing staﬀ on a regular basis with many others contributing to speciﬁc areas on the site. The fact that, in total, the web site attracts between 4000 and 7000 “hits” a day is testimony to their work. 4. Distance Learning Another major branch of our outreach work is the astronomy distance learning programme. We oﬀer a range of part-time courses in astronomy ranging from “Life in the Universe and SETI” to “Frontiers of Modern Astronomy”. The ﬁrst, at an introductory level, provides an astronomical perspective on our cosmic origins from the big bang to the development of intelligent life and SETI – the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence – whilst the second

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

Figure 6.

295

The 76m Lovell Telescope. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

provides an in-depth look at some of the current research interests of astronomers at Jodrell Bank; a course which covers several topics in detail – stellar explosions, pulsars, gravitational lenses and the cosmic microwave background at a somewhat higher level. Two of these courses “Introduction to Radio Astronomy” and “Exploring the Radio Universe” give students the opportunity to make their own observations with our telescopes either during a weekend stay at Jodrell Bank or by remote control over the internet. All these courses are accredited at undergraduate level and taught over the internet with forums for each course where the students can discuss their work and contact the staﬀ tutors here at Jodrell Bank. In the 5 years since the programme began over 700 students have studied on these courses and new courses are in development to allow these students to progress in their learning. 5. Schools’ Outreach Programme Due to the fact that it is no longer possible for as many primary and junior school groups to come to our Visitor Centre the Observatory has instituted a programme to go out into the schools to help teach the astronomy parts of the national curriculum. This is also pertinent as schools have less money to spend on trips and were ﬁnding it diﬃcult to fund visits to the Observatory. At the heart of the schools outreach programme is an inﬂatable planetarium which is taken out into primary schools to provide shows covering

296

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

the Key Stage 2 curriculum for junior pupils. The planetarium shows are supported with illustrated talks and question and answer sessions. These visits are run by one of our members of staﬀ with support from some of the postgraduate students. To indicate the success of this programme, during the period May 2004 to January 2005 the schools outreach team presented 243 shows to over 7,000 children from 70 schools. A special event as part of this project was The “Secrets of Space”, a 3-week long exhibition in January 2005, organised by Bexton School in Knutsford and Jodrell Bank astronomers, providing schoolchildren with a unique astronomical experience. The event, which was visited by 1942 children from 38 schools across Cheshire, incorporated shows in the inﬂatable planetarium, an opportunity to use the Faulkes Telescope in Hawaii live over the internet, and a variety of other activities including making rockets, 3D glasses and a planisphere. The show even included a chance to see real Moon rocks brought back from space by NASA’s Apollo astronauts. This event was a major success but required a signiﬁcant commitment of resources from Jodrell Bank. Jodrell Bank is also a regional centre for the Faulkes Telescope project. These are large, 2 m, optical telescopes sited in Hawaii and Australia and controlled live over the world-wide web. This means schools in the UK can use them during schooltime to make observations of astronomical objects of their choice. Jodrell Bank acts as a host for teacher training events and has written educational materials for teachers wishing to use the telescopes in research projects. 6. Work with Astronomical Societies across UK Astronomers from the Observatory give talks about its work at astronomical societies the length and breadth of Britain, typically two per month in total. In addition one of the staﬀ, who has a keen interest in observing, helped found the Macclesﬁeld Astronomical Society which meets at Jodrell Bank and whose patron is an ex-director of the Observatory. He also helps run observing weekends for the Society for Popular Astronomy, the UK’s largest astronomical society with over 3000 members, has served as its President and Vice President and continues as a Council Member and optical instrument adviser. We also provide special “behind the scenes” afternoons at weekends and evenings when groups of around 20 from astronomical societies are given tours of the telescope control and observing rooms and illustrated talks about the work of the Observatory. Such tours are also provided for Amateur Radio Societies and for groups from the Institute of Physics and other professional bodies.

OUTREACH FROM THE JODRELL BANK OBSERVATORY

297

Figure 7. PhD students talking to a junior school group prior to them having a planetarium show in the inﬂatable dome behind. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

Figure 8. The 13m radio telescopes used for monitoring pulsars in particular the Crab Pulsar at the heart of the Crab Nebula in Taurus. The Lovell Telescope is visible in the background. (courtesy Jodrell Bank Obs.)

7. Work with Other Community Groups Several Jodrell Bank astronomers regularly give talks to members of the general public including community groups such as Rotary and Probus

298

IAN MORISON AND TIM O’BRIEN

Clubs and the Women’s Institute. We also run day schools and evening classes in astronomy for the University’s Centre for Continuing Education and a number of other private bodies such Wilmslow Guild and the Workers Educational Association. Two staﬀ members also jointly give residential weekend astronomical courses at Burton Manor College, an adult education centre associated with the City of Liverpool. 8. The National and Local Media As the only major observatory in the north-west of England, the local radio and television stations naturally turn to us to provide insight into astronomical events such as the passage of a bright comet, an eclipse of the Moon or an exciting discovery. Two of our staﬀ regularly appear on the media to help explain such events and give guidance as to how members of the public may observe them if practical. We also provide brieﬁngs to the local press; one of which, our local “Knutsford Guardian”, has Jodrell derived stories nearly every week! When Jodrell Bank is part of a story that has national signiﬁcance, as in the case of the Phoenix SETI programme or the tracking of spacecraft such as Beagle 2, staﬀ members will also appear on national television news programmes and contribute to BBC Radio’s channels 2, 4 and 5 and the BBC world service. Staﬀ are also involved in the making of many radio documentary programmes; for example about the role of the MK I telescope in the space race and explaining the relation of our work in testing the theories of Albert Einstein as part of a series in “Einstein Year” on BBC Radio 4. 9. Summary As one of the UK’s leading observatories, it is right that Jodrell Bank Observatory should play a signiﬁcant role in providing information to the public not only about the research work that we carry out but also about astronomy in general. It is, of course, the public who indirectly fund our work through their taxes. The Observatory receives no direct funding for this work which, in total, amounts to between one and two full time staﬀ appointments. However the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council does encourage research institutes to spend a part of their total grant income on this work and this funds part of the cost of one of the staﬀ involved. The observatory as a whole feels that this work is very worthwhile and actively supports the eﬀorts of those who carry it out.

ASTRONOMY MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND

ALAIN CIROU

Ciel et Espace 17, rue Emile Deutsch de la Meurthe F-75014 Paris, France [email protected]

Abstract. This chapter recalls the history of the ﬁrst European astronomy magazine in French, Ciel & Espace1 . The way it is currently produced is described, as well as the problematics of information sources. An account ´ of the Nuit des Etoiles [Star Nights] is also given.

1. The Story of ‘Ciel et Espace’ 1 010 200 copies! Yes, I repeat, one million ten thousand and two hundred copies: this is the very number of Ciel et Espace magazines produced by our printing house in 2004. Destination: newsstands in France, Switzerland and Belgium; distributors in some forty countries, as well as the mailboxes of about twenty thousand subscribers. For an “association bulletin” as some still see us – but no prophet is accepted in his own country – the achievement is not so bad. Ciel et Espace has a long story, that of its owner, an association of the type “Law 1901”2 , created in 1947 and declared of public beneﬁt at the beginning of ... 2005. Back in 1947, just after World War II, the times were then towards liberating minds and habits. The great movements of popular education were then taking shape. Leisure time and holidays were good opportunities to practice social living and to discover the nature. Children’s holiday camps 1

http://www.cieletespace.fr/ In France, non-proﬁt-making associations are commonly characterized by a law regulating them and dating back to 1901. (Ed.) 2

299 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 299–310. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

300

ALAIN CIROU

multiplied and, during the evenings not far from ﬁre camps, people were trying to get some bearings in the sky through the constellations. France has an old relationship with astronomy and the learned societies play an important rˆ ole in the country. They mix together educated amateurs and professionals in the same approach: contributing to the progress of knowledge. But this is not what wanted those new generations in the second half of the 20th century. They wanted to enjoy themselves, to share knowledge, techniques and resources, but without teachers, without masters, without necessarily being “useful” to science. The Association Fran¸caise ´ d’Astronomie Educative [French Association for Educational Astronomy] was exactly born from that idea: the pleasure of observing celestial phenomena and its translation, into popular education, as scientiﬁc leisure activity, in clear and neat parting from the learned societies. The emcees were all benevolent and the association bulletin, written by the most motivated ones among them, was their link. It was successively called Le Ciel Normand [The Norman Sky] according to the birth area of its founders, then Le Ciel [The Sky] and was produced every fourth month as a 16-pages outlet made of annoucements and ephemerides. Then it became Ciel et Fus´ees [Sky and Rockets] at the beginning of the 1960s and ﬁnally Ciel et Espace in 1971. It was ﬁrst printed at the rate of 4 000 copies, later brought up to 15 000 copies when made available through the newsstands for the ﬁrst time on 1 January 1972. The cover (Fig. 1) was then featuring Scott, Irwin, Woden racontent ... [Scott, Irwin, Woden are telling us ...], in other words the Apollo odyssey. Thirty-three years later, the heroic and artisanal initial times are well behind. Ciel et Espace is today the ﬁrst European astronomy magazine in French and is holding a reference position in the scientiﬁc press. Its editorial team, made of scientiﬁc journalists, is free and independent. Within the editorial board, a scientist working for a large research organization is employed as consultant. He is no decision-taker and does not participate to the writing of the synopses which are under the responsibility of the Editorial Director and of the Editor in Chief. All in all, about ﬁfteen people put actively a single issue together. The stake is of some importance! 2. ‘Ciel et Espace’ Today Ciel et Espace is before all a magazine of current events. It is directed to a broad audience, mostly masculine, whose centers of interest are very varied and sometimes diverging. The most challenging task is probably to address, in the same issue, people discovering and learning astronomy as well as professionals of the discipline and very educated amateurs – a permanent splitting. My own position is that it is useless to attempt to popularize

MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND 301

Figure 1. The cover of the ﬁrst issue of Ciel et Espace available on the newwstands c AFA) (January 1972). (

302

ALAIN CIROU

everything all the time. Material has to be provided for beginners (and it is a real job to explain concepts correctly) as well as for better informed readers. The former ones will realize there is still plenty of room for progress; the latter ones will appreciate that they are addressed directly. If I had to retain an image to describe Ciel et Espace’s architecture, it would be that of a house, with the classical rooms (the entrance, the living area, the kitchen), stairs, nooks and crannies; with stories where each visitor, regular or occasional, would quickly become familiar with the place; with a continuity in the arrangement of spaces that allows everybody to quickly ﬁnd the information searched and to wander freely through the other pages. Thus a classical “railway” (the synopsis) starts with information, the latest news, and the current events in the ﬁeld. The formats vary according to the importance given to the subject, but they remain sorted out in columns and papers, long or short ones. There is always this care for bearings. Then follows the cover story, the most important part in terms of pages within a single issue, itself preceeding the magazine section (reports, stories, meetings, interviews, portraits, ...), practical information (instrumentation, photographs, books and CDs, meetings, ...), observational data (ephemerides, cometary events, ...), and ﬁnally the pages devoted to beginners – in short: information, development, analysis, and service. It is not by chance if the pages with the small ads are always the most read ones. A magazine is both a good house, where one has habits and mania, but also a permanent revolution, both in shape and in substance. Speaking of the shape ﬁrst, Ciel et Espace changes its appearance every ﬁfth year. But adjustments, small modiﬁcations take place every month. The position of Art Director is thus a fundamental one, valorizing images and texts, but also facilitating reading and attracting new readers through aesthetical incentives. The cover is specially elaborated. It is the only vector to attract attention from potential readers in the competitive universe of the newsstand where are exhibited every month some 2000 titles. In a few seconds, we must be identiﬁed with a clear and explicit title to trigger the purchasing step. We are not without competitors: all magazines devoting a cover to the Big Bang, to the black holes, to the exoplanets, and so on, are like us appealing to the occasional readers. We do not know what would be purchased for certain or what would allow us to attract occasional readers, but we have identiﬁed matters that are in majority rejected by the public. Of course, such pieces of information are conﬁdential for each magazine, but here is one as an example: a rocket or an astronaut on the cover would deﬁnitely result as a 30% decrease of the sales. Astronautics is now part of our everyday life. It is no more, with

MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND 303

Figure 2. c AFA) (

The latest cover of Ciel et Espace at the time of writing (March 2005).

304

ALAIN CIROU

a few rare exceptions, a matter for achievement and is now perceived as d´ej` a vu ! News of the moment, good ideas for covers, exceptional events can double the sales on the newsstands! Such a tendency increases from year to year, explaining the extreme care devoted by the editorial boards to the cover titles and the resulting drifts as to the substance. On this latter issue, magazine readers when surveyed (and they are surveyed more and more frequently) request that nothing changes and, at the same time, ... more novelties. Such a schizophrenia disturb the editorial teams who did not identify properly their targets. And because of the economic pressure, strong driftings could also be noticed in that respect. Ciel et Espace is regularly accused to be the Paris-Match 3 of astronomy, in other words to emphasize more pictures rather than text, appearance rather than substance, sensationalistic news rather than less appealing information. I confess to be pretty proud of that, in particular proud that our readers approve us and trust us, proud that they have no diﬃculty to distinguish the commercial motivation for a press product and the substance of the same magazine. The former ﬂatters the eyes, the imagination and the curiosity; the latter makes reference through the quality of its presentation and of its contents. 3. Information Sources Since a few years, the information sources for the editorial teams multiply, be it only because of the explosion of transmission tools (computers, networks), but also because communication has become of strategical importance. In the ﬁeld of space sciences, NASA4 and its laboratories, the American Astronomical Association (AAS), as well as the big North American Universities, are ﬂooding the scientiﬁc reporters with press releases. Journals such as Science and Nature, relayed by the press agencies, complement that “generalistic” information from which are written most of the news published in the scientiﬁc magazines for the grand public. The national information is of a much lower level, in quantity and in number of sources, compare to the North American one. Results of a French team or researcher are frequently discovered in an anglo-saxon publication without any information being available beforehand on the national territory. Paris Observatory is however distant of less than two kilometers from our own house ... 3 4

Glossy weekly French magazine. (Ed.) US National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND 305

In Europe, the situation is much worse. ESO5 , ESA6 and CERN7 are the three main organizations communicating regularly with the press – with much quality and inequalities. No national laboratory or institution of any of the member countries is addressing information to the press outside its own country. AlphaGalileo and EurekAlert! are attempting to invert that tendency, but show little eﬃciency outside the main countries of the European Union. Language barriers, inertia of communication services, lack of properly identiﬁed correspondents, and so on, are amongst the multiple reasons. They lead to prefer de facto information sources from outside the Old Continent and to underexpose the national and European activities. The situation is so dreadful that we have no correspondent in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, nor in Spain, and even less in Romania or in Poland. In those countries, all amateur astronomers are reading Sky & Telescope and we never receive from there any news report proposal. In terms of images and of publishable iconographic documents, the gap is even bigger between the USA and Europe because of very diﬀerent policies and means. We had to write it for our readers: “No, the Hubble Space Telescope is not the whole world astronomy”. There are other space and ground-based telescopes, but much less willingness and means to ensure spreading of news on results. This did not brought us only friends ... But facts are stubborn. For one weekly image from Mars Express, deliberately degraded, there are everyday tens of views from Spirit and Opportunity available on the web. For one press conference valorizing the results from XMM or Integral, there are tens of them about the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). I could caricature us by writing we are putting together a magazine in French essentially with sources of information from across the Atlantic Ocean, the national part of Ciel et Espace being centered on services and on assistance to observing ... It would not be wrong. But it would not be correct either. Since a long time, and because of our cultural diﬀerences, we are not taking for gospel truth the information delivered to our doorstep. The machinery to engineer press releases and spectacular results is too predictable to be accepted as such, except for the audiovisual media on which I shall come back. Thus we exert, of course, our critical analysis and we take advantage of the prepared announcements to enquire and to ask questions on the matters proposed by such mandatory news reports. Our added value is that journalistic work, sorting out and commenting the material, without 5

European Southern Observatory. European Space Agency. 7 Centre Europ´een pour la Recherche Nucl´eaire. 6

306

ALAIN CIROU

which we would do nothing but merely echoing the most powerful voice. And, once more, our total independence is the best insurance of our freedom of speech. 4. The ‘Stars Nights’ It is not feasible to produce a magazine such as Ciel et Espace without becoming oneself an interface with the other medias. This results from our specialization, our knowledge of men and matters, the source of original and reliable information that we represent, as well as from the comments and opinions that are spicing up our viewpoints. There is also the need, for an Editorial Director, to promote his publication, to install and to maintain it in the public opinion as an unavoidable reference. Thus the television, the radio, as well as the “generalistic” newspapers, have quite naturally approached us regularly. And, with time, I became a “multimedia man”. I was oﬀering, so it seemed, the qualiﬁcations for that rare species. With a touch of humor and of self-derision, I would deﬁne those properties as follows: a multimedia scientiﬁc journalist is a person who must express himself easily and passionately, ﬁnd simple images to illustrate complex ideas, oﬀer short answers, understand what is on-air time, never quote precisely his sources (except NASA and ESA because they are well known), renounce to demonstrate anything, take upon himself total responsibility for his commentaries and ... ﬁnd some pleasure in doing all this! In twenty years of audiovisual practice, covering ﬁrst of all astronomy and space, then the Earth sciences, physics, and ﬁnally biology, I found the multimedia experience very edifying. ´ The Nuit des Etoiles [Stars Night] is an excellent example on the way information is operated, medium per medium. Since more than a decade in France, on the initiative of a group of associations and individual researchers, the mid-August vacationists have been invited by the astronomy clubs to come and to observe the sky free of charge. This was often scheduled at the same time as the Perseid meteor shower. More than 600 sites were involved, welcoming the public for one to three nights in a row. That event was also, for many years, prepared with the public television channel France 2, with a news-only radio channel and with several newspapers. As far as television was concerned, there was no broadcast possible without images, something that, by nature, excluded any theme linked to cosmology. The Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the planets were king matters for that only reason. The stars were problematic: the amateur astronomers see them in the telescopes; they can even be seen with the unassisted eyes, but they are totally unimpressive on a television screen! Therefore, animation had to be be built up from HST images, which was

MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND 307

Figure 3. Gathering of observers organized by a local astronomy club in the Gers ´ c AFA) d´epartement on the occasion of the 1998 Nuit des Etoiles. (

limiting the presentation of such a theme. For the radio, the problem was opposite. Without images, astrophysics and cosmology could be matters for lively debates. They got people to “dream”, an essential quality for a scientiﬁc theme to be accepted on air. Planetary subjects, on the contrary, became sterile very quickly. As to the partner newspapers, they could speak of the theme of the broadcasts, but also of the animators and of the astronomers invited by the television and radio channels. They published the sky maps for the nights of the event. Millions of readers were thus targeted. Beyond the presence – or absence – of images, the second qualifying criterion for taking part in a broadcast was the quality of speech: the facility of the guests to express themselves. The “good-fellow” scientist, generally well-known by the public, was routinely invited whatever be his ﬁeld of expertise. There have been no foreign guests, except astronauts who walked on the Moon ... Anything harboring a potential risk was recorded, mounted, illustrated. Public television channels, even if they denied it, had an eye on the audience meters. They were afraid that inciting television watchers to join the observing sites and the public gathering areas would weaken the audience rates. It has been every time a miracle to succeed in convincing the peo-

308

ALAIN CIROU

ple in charge of the public television channel to work together with other partners than the audiovisual ones. Today the pact has been broken, but the venture is going ahead. The associations became independent and are now inviting directly the public to ´ discover the sky during an operation called Les Nuits des Etoiles [The Stars Nights (plural)]. The number of sites involved is continuously increasing, including many “junior” ones in the vacation and leisure centers. The Stars Nights have got institutionalized. As to the public television channel, it has now entrusted to production companies a thematic broadcast very distant from the quality of the initial ones. Astronomy is mixed with news items and technico-scientiﬁc anecdotes while the announcers, self-promoted geniuses, present, on the same level, the latest discoveries and their own wanderings through bad science ﬁction – and this without any sanction ... Was the Stars Night experience a failure? No, certainly not. It lasted more than a decade and, even if it could not evolve from its initial format, it was a ﬁrst introduction to the sky for a vast public, like no other event ever achieved it earlier in this country. It also allowed me to understand the logics of each partner in this exceptional undertaking: the clear and neat divide between information and entertainment (so-called “programs”); the absence of scientiﬁc culture in the highest hierarchy of the media, Editors in Chief, Editorial Directors; the importance of authoritative arguments (“Monsieur le Professeur ...”); the alchemy of human relationships, complex and continually modiﬁed by emotional links woven between individuals, but without which nothing big is possible. The television is a formidable magnifying mirror overexposing all those managing to be at the focal point. And everybody wants to be at that center, for the resulting visibility, for getting ideas through, for selling products – all diverging interests that are compelled to be associated for reaching the critical mass for the broadcast: the audience. There also, as for the printed press, the European distribution is almost inexistent, and for the same reasons: language barriers, costs of rights and total ignorance of the networks that should be used as vectors. The Association Fran¸caise d’Astronomie succeeded in associating to that Summer event grand-public sites in Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Italy, as well as in Northern Africa with Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. There is only one requirement to get into that network: participation to the events must be free of charge. No foreign journalist, European or from another continent, got interested into the experience. No television channel, other than the public one, showed any interest. No sponsor, no patron has ﬁnanced, even partially,

MULTIMEDIA PUBLIC OUTREACH IN FRANCE AND BEYOND 309

the operation. It has been for us the most instructive and the most diﬃcult ediﬁcation. And for me it has been a great professional and human venture. 5. Conclusions The conclusion of that subjective presentation of astronomy-related multimedia activities in France and beyond is necessarily a personal one. There is no comparison between the current situation with what it was twentyﬁve years ago. We were then discovering the Big Bang; we were then told the history of the universe for the ﬁrst time by astrophysicists like Hubert Reeves; all planets were not known yet; the Hubble Space Telescope was then only a virtual observatory and the Very Large Telescope was just coming out of the drawing boards. Out of a very rich soil, pregnant with rich potential for spreading astronomical information, we were then going to know a true revolution, with a real public craze and a total fascination for that new vision of the world. Those times are over. That revolution is integrated, taught and illustrated by multitudinous images from the large telescopes. Like space exploration, modern astronomy is now part of knowledge and of history. Most certainly, nothing is deﬁnitively solved as to the fundamental questions, but that theme is no more fashionable within the public nor outside the specialized media. Quite the opposite, leisure observing is fashionable thanks to the democratization of individual telescopes, for an educated public, curious and oddly ... masculine. “En France, la r´eelle chance de l’astronomie, c’est de ne pas ˆetre enseign´ee `a l’´ecole” [In France, the real chance of astronomy comes from the fact it is not taught in the schools], was recently explaining a researcher in regular contact with teachers. He was meaning that, not being a selection criterion, astronomy remains an attractive science for inquiring minds. As this is even more so since it is open to history, that of men and of ideas, to philosophy, to life sciences as well as to ecology. It is giving to see and to medidate. It is able to get people closer together across languages and cultures. It is by essence a carrier of universality. And this is indeed the new challenge that we have now to face. How, through daily news dotted with discoveries, observations and theories, all promoted by the same communication techniques and information “marketing”, how can we extract an overall vision accessible to human understanding? How can we put Man back into that vast history, share with him the results of that millenary quest and instill into him the desire to continue it or, at least, to support it? No human being is the wheel of a machinery: the scientist, the journalist and the layman are all one and the same individual. Science is certainly a matter for specialists, but it is nothing

310

ALAIN CIROU

without sharing, doubts as well as certainties. With that proper to Mankind, science remains destined to a bright future. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to the Editor for translating this contribution into English.

ASTRONOMERS AND THE MEDIA: WHAT REPORTERS EXPECT

TOM SIEGFRIED

4305 Hidden Creek Drive Arlington TX 76106, USA [email protected] AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

Nature 968 National Press Building 529 14th Street NW Washington DC 20045-1938, USA [email protected]

Abstract. Journalists writing about astronomy bring varying levels of knowledge to the task. Most rely on astronomers for help. To be most helpful, astronomers should familiarize themselves with the practices and needs of journalists and learn eﬀective methods for presenting astronomy via news releases, interviews and news conferences. In all aspects of communicating with the media, the ability to express technical ﬁndings in plain language is essential.

1. Introduction If a science journalist had to sum up brieﬂy what reporters expect from astronomers, it would take merely one word: Help. Most reporters, even those specializing in science, have had little or no formal training in astronomy. There are exceptions, of course, as you’ll occasionally encounter an astronomer-turned-journalist. And the best science writers will have learned quite a bit of astronomy on the job. But you should always remember that the reporter’s job is diﬃcult, and the help you provide makes eﬀorts to communicate astronomy to the public much more likely to be successful. 311 A. Heck (ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, 311–320. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

312

TOM SIEGFRIED AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

This chapter, then, will outline some of the ways that astronomers can be helpful to journalists, enumerating some common expectations and how to best meet them. These are generalities, of course, and precise needs and practices diﬀer from publication to publication and medium to medium (and for that matter, from journalist to journalist). But there is much common ground on which most journalists would agree. 2. News Releases Above all else, journalists expect to receive accurate and timely information about new astronomical ﬁndings. In the United States, this task is expertly fulﬁlled by an e-mail service provided by the American Astronomical Society1 . Astronomers, their universities or other institutions can send news releases to a central address from which they are forwarded to a comprehensive list of journalists desiring astronomy news. Almost every working day, several such releases are delivered to the media, although only a small fraction of these story ideas are chosen to appear in print or on the air. (More will show up on various sites online.) If a news release on your work is not used, you should not conclude that the eﬀort invested in preparing the release was not worthwhile. There are many reasons why a release might not be used by the media – it may not be of suﬃcient general interest, there may be other more compelling astronomy news that day, there may be more important news of other sorts. Most of the time, reporters will still appreciate receiving the release. It may spark an idea for a story to be done at a later time; it may let reporters know that you are working in a given specialty that will become important in the future. Viewing all the releases that come in gives a reporter a better perspective on how to write the astronomy news that does make it into the media. That said, there are ways to improve the prospects that a release will lead to a story. First of all, a news release really should be in some way newsworthy. For the general media, that means that it should be about a development of signiﬁcant interest outside the astronomical community. The three key questions to ask are: Is this development new? Is it interesting? And is it important? There are many ways in which a ﬁnding can be considered new. It might, for instance, be the ﬁrst observation (of anything) with some new type of technology or a new instrument. Or it might be the ﬁrst observation of some previously unknown celestial object with any instrument. It might 1 See, e.g., “Astronomy and the News Media” by S.P. Maran, L.R. Cominsky & L.A. Marshall in Information Handling in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht (2000) pp. 13-24.

WHAT REPORTERS EXPECT

313

Figure 1. Paper on the ﬁnal days of the Hubble Space Telescope in The Dallas Morning News (17 May 2004).

314

TOM SIEGFRIED AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

be the ﬁrst time anyone has witnessed some amazing phenomenon. Or it might be some new data, or new analysis of old data, that sheds light on some important question or issue. There is another aspect of newness that you should also keep in mind, and that is timeliness. If your release is reporting the publication of a paper in a journal, the news release should be sent out, at a minimum, several days before the journal’s publication date. Similarly, if the release describes a report delivered at a conference, the reporter will want the release before the conference. There are issues involved in this process related to the embargo system (see below), but the general rule is always to let the media know about a report in advance, not after the fact. But new is not enough. There must be an element of interest in it to people who have an interest in astronomy but are not themselves expert astronomers. Is it the sort of thing that would intrigue your non-astronomer friends? Is it in some way humorous or surprising? Sometimes the interest can be generated by showing how your ﬁnding is important. Does it resolve some longstanding question? Does it illuminate an astronomical controversy? Does it bear on cosmic questions, such as the origin of the universe, or of life? Keep in mind that in order to write a story, a reporter usually has to be able to tell an editor, in one succinct phrase, why this discovery matters. If you can help the reporter do that, the chances for a story will dramatically improve. 3. Interviews If a reporter is intrigued enough to write a story about your ﬁndings, he or she will want to talk to you (or one of your collaborators) directly. For good journalists, a news release does not substitute for direct questioning of the scientists involved in the work. The best science journalists will also want to read the technical paper on which the release is based. When sending out releases, you should encourage the public information oﬃcer you work with to provide access to the full scientiﬁc paper. (Or you should have a copy of the paper available for any inquiring reporter, in PDF format for easy e-mailing.) When reporters call, you should be prepared to talk right away. Deadlines are inﬂexible for most journalists, particularly those working for daily news outlets such as newspapers. A reporter may have literally less than an hour to conduct the interview and then write the story. Fortunately, it’s usually not quite that frantic, but most daily stories are researched and written during the course of a day. So you need to be able to reply to a reporter’s inquiry as quickly as possible. During a telephone interview, it’s important to remember that the re-

WHAT REPORTERS EXPECT

315

porter needs to record some of what you say verbatim, for the purpose of including direct quotations in the story. You need to speak slowly and distinctly, pausing often to allow the reporter to take it all in. And keep in mind, even when dealing with a knowledgeable reporter you are really speaking to the public at large. The reporter wants you to help articulate the nature of your ﬁndings and their signiﬁcance for a broader audience. In other words, you need to speak in plain language, without jargon, and use colorful and vivid illustrations of the points you are making whenever you can. Describe your results as though you were gossiping at a cocktail party, not presenting them to a graduate seminar. If, for instance, a reporter asks what your latest paper is about, you should not recite the title – such as “A Comparison of Stellar and Gaseous Kinematics in the Nuclei of Active Galaxies” – but would say it’s about “comparing the motion of stars and gases near centers of active galaxies.” Rather than “the orbital statistics of stellar inspiral and relaxation near a massive black hole: characterizing gravitational wave sources,” you could say “how stars falling into black holes make gravity waves.” Of course, you should make sure what you say is accurate. Deeper into the interview, a reporter may indeed ask more technical questions that call for more sophisticated answers, and you should reply at the level of depth necessary to answer the question. Still, to whatever extent possible, you should build your message from ordinary words. Here’s an example of an actual abstract from a paper posted on astro-ph, followed by a plain language version. Climatic and Biogeochemical Eﬀects of a Galactic Gamma-Ray Burst It is likely that one or more gamma-ray bursts within our galaxy have strongly irradiated the Earth with X-ray and gamma-ray photons in the last Gy. This produces signiﬁcant atmospheric constituent ionization and dissociation, resulting in ozone depletion and DNA-damaging ultraviolet solar ﬂux reaching the surface for up to a decade. Here we show the ﬁrst detailed computation of two other signiﬁcant eﬀects. Visible opacity of NO2 is suﬃcient to reduce solar energy at the surface up to a few percent, with the greatest eﬀect at the poles. This may be a suﬃcient climate perturbation to initiate glaciation. Rainout of dilute nitric acid is a primary atmospheric removal mechanism for odd nitrogen compounds, which can temporarily boost fertility in terrestrial and shallow water ecosystems. These results support the hypothesis that the late Ordovician mass extinction may have been initiated by a gammaray burst, in that it was accompanied by glaciation . . . and followed by signiﬁcantly expanded terrestrial ﬂora.

316

TOM SIEGFRIED AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

Eﬀects of a nearby gamma-ray burst on the Earth’s climate and life Within the past billion years, there’s a good chance that an explosive event within the Milky Way galaxy drenched the Earth in a bath of X-rays and gamma rays. Such a strong burst of radiation would have disrupted molecules in the atmosphere, depleting the protective ozone shield. That would allow hazardous ultraviolet rays from the sun to reach the Earth’s surface and damage the DNA of living things for as long as a decade. We have calculated that there would be other eﬀects as well. The radiation would have generated forms of nitrogen-containing molecules that would have blocked some sunlight, especially over the Earth’s poles. That reduced sunlight may have triggered the advance of glaciers. Also, acidic nitrogen molecules would have been washed out of the air by rainfall, with the eﬀect of fertilizing the land and shallow water below. These results support the idea that a mass extinction in the late Ordovician period may have been triggered by a gamma-ray burst, since that extinction coincided with growth of glaciers and was followed by a boost in the fertility of plant life. 4. News Conferences If you are presenting your results at a conference, you may be invited to participate in a news conference attended by several reporters. News conferences can be very useful to reporters who are unable to sit through the entire technical session (though some will). But you must not assume that the reporters at the news conference will also be attending the conference sessions. Typically, a presenter at a news conference takes 5 to 10 minutes to outline the new results and then ﬁelds questions. A good initial presentation is essential for success. When you start out – and this is the most important point – tell the reporters immediately what your result is. In other words, put the news ﬁrst! And then explain why that result is important. Only then should you discuss the background behind your research, giving it context, and only after that should you describe the methods and techniques you used in your investigations. Then you should again sum up the nature of the result and its importance. Visual aids are helpful at news conferences. But they must be simple and designed to illustrate one point at a time. It is ﬁne to use a technical slide that shows actual data points (with error bars) to establish the technical veracity of your comments. But to explain the results and why they are important, it’s usually more eﬀective to design a slide or two speciﬁcally for use at the news conference.

WHAT REPORTERS EXPECT

Figure 2.

317

Paper on the cosmic dawn in The Dallas Morning News (6 Sep 2004).

318

TOM SIEGFRIED AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

5. Other Ways to Help Whenever contacted by reporters, or presenting to them at a meeting, it is a good idea to oﬀer them additional helpful information, beyond that contained in your paper or talk and news release. If you have a web page with further details on your work, provide reporters with the address. You may suggest other astronomers who are familiar with their work and are willing to discuss it. (Good reporters will always seek comment on new ﬁndings from astronomers not associated with the speciﬁc research project.) You may recommend other papers, such as review articles that provide context and background. And you may even want to warn reporters of inaccurate information you have seen on the topic (perhaps in other newspapers!) so that they will not repeat previous mistakes. For some publications, visuals (photos, graphics, artist’s conceptions) are very important, and you should oﬀer to make such visual aids available if possible. 6. The Variety of Media Always remember that the media are not a monolith. Reporters interested in covering your story might come from traditional newspapers, specialty magazines, radio programs, television shows, or even blogs. Each reporter will have his or her own speciﬁc needs to ask you to address. Advance preparation, as always, is esential. Print may be the most straightforward medium. You talk to the reporter at length, then he or she goes away and then writes the story. Dealing with broadcast outlets may seem more intimidating simply because there is a microphone or television camera in your face. In this case, it’s more important than ever to speak in short, comprehensible “sound bites.” Don’t be surprised if, after a news conference, a string of broadcast journalists asks you the same questions you just answered; in many cases, they need a fresh sound bite for their audiences. If you are on television, remember to look directly into the camera at all times. If you are working with a radio reporter, be prepared to ﬁeld requests for background sounds to accompany the piece – an audio ﬁle of the sound of a black hole, for instance, or access to your observatory to record the ambiance of the dome. 7. A Note on the Embargo System In all of the above discussion, the underlying assumption has been that reporters and astronomers are observing the rules of releasing news known as the “embargo system.” This is a set of expectations imposed by certain

WHAT REPORTERS EXPECT

319

journals on the authors of submitted papers, forbidding them to speak to reporters until the journal is about to publish the paper. For the most part, these restrictions are applied only by “media” journals such as Science and Nature. If you publish in a physics journal, for instance, you are unlikely to encounter embargo restrictions. In addition, it is common in astronomy and astrophysics (especially astrophysics) to post preprints of papers online well in advance of publication. Embargoes do not apply in this case, as the paper has eﬀectively been “published” already and is available for all the world to see. (A journal may try to insist that the embargo is still in eﬀect, but that is wishful thinking.) If you are publishing in a journal that enforces embargoes, you should realize that not all reporters have signed agreements to abide by the journal’s embargo rules. If you are concerned about breaking the embargo, you should ask whether you are speaking under the terms of the embargo – that is, whether the reporter is agreeing to publish the story only after the journal’s oﬃcial release time. If, however, you have not yet submitted a paper for publication, and a journalist inquires about your work, you should use your own judgment about what to say. Some scientists would prefer for their work to pass through peer review before commenting on it to the press, but others feel a responsibility to the public to discuss their work freely when a reporter inquires. Of course, if you have posted your paper on a preprint server, there is no longer any justiﬁcation in remaining silent. 8. Final Thoughts If all this seems like too much trouble to bother with, remember that communicating astronomy to the public is a worthwhile thing to do. More than likely your funding came from a public agency, meaning that the money came directly from the taxpayers on the other side of the camera lens. It’s part of your responsibility to explain back to them what you did with their money. Conversely, the reporter’s job is to report the news of science, not to educate the public. Be available to answer questions about the context of your ﬁndings, but don’t try to dictate the way that a reporter covers the story. Contrary to popular belief, most reporters are interested in getting the news right as well as getting it ﬁrst; they have as much invested as you do in making sure the story turns out accurately. Many of the misunderstandings between scientists and journalists come about because of unrealistic expectations on either side. Go into the process with a clear understanding, and you will often ﬁnd it a worthwhile experience.

320

TOM SIEGFRIED AND ALEXANDRA WITZE

Further reading Montgomery, Scott L., The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Chapter 15, “Dealing with the Press,” is an excellent survey of the issues that scientists encounter when dealing with journalists. Funsten, Herbert O. “You and the Media: A Researcher’s Guide for Dealing Successfully with the News Media.” Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, 2004. A detailed resource for researchers needing guidance on communicating to the media. Available online at http://www.agu.org/sci soc/MediaGuide.pdf.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

Introduction The following lists gather together publications (from 1980 onwards) on socio-astronomy and on the interactions of the astronomy community with the society at large. A few related contributions have also been included, as well as the decennial reports from the US National Research Council. The ﬁrst part is chronological and the second one, purely alphabetical on the authors names. It is of course impossible such a list be complete and we apologize to authors whose related publications could have been omitted. For inclusion in future releases of this compilation and of its web version1 , please send an e-mail2 with the full bibliographical references (including title). The Editor gratefully acknowledges the assistance of all persons who contributed to the substance of the following list. Chronological list 1980 1. Abt, H.A. 1980, The Cost-Eﬀectiveness in Terms of Publications and Citations of Various Telescopes at the Kitt Peak National Observatory, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 92, 249-254 2. Stebbins, R.A. 1980, Avocational Science: The Avocational Routine in Archaeology and Astronomy, Int. J. Comp. Sociology 21, 34-48 1981 3. Abt, H.A. 1981, Long-Term Citation Histories of Astronomical Papers, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 93, 207-210 1 2

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/∼heck/osabib.htm [email protected]

321

322

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

4. Abt, H.A. 1981, Some Trends in American Astronomical Publications, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 93, 269-272 5. Gieryn, T.F. 1981, The Aging of a Science and its Exploitation of Innovation: Lessons from X-ray and Radio Astronomy, Scientometrics 3, 325-334 6. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1981, International Directory of Amateur Astronomical Societies 1981, ed. Heck-Manfroid, iv + 300 pp. 7. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1981, International Directory of Amateur Astronomical Societies 1982, ed. Heck-Manfroid, iv + 304 pp. 8. Stebbins, R.A. 1981, Looking Downwards: Sociological Images of the Vocation and Avocation of Astronomy, J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada 75, 2-14 9. Stebbins, R.A. 1981, Science Amators? Rewards and Costs in Amateur Astronomy and Archaeology, J. Leisure Res. 13, 289-304 1982 10. Abt, H.A. 1982, Statistical Publication Histories of American Astronomers, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 94, 213-220 11. Field, G.B. et al. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980’s [‘Field Report’], National Acad. Press, xx + 190 pp. (ISBN 0-30903249-0) 12. Stebbins, R.A. 1982, Amateur and Professional Astronomers, Urban Life 10, 433-454 1983 13. Abt, H.A. 1983, At What Ages did Outstanding American Astronomers Publish their Most-Cited Papers?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 95, 113116 14. Gieryn, T.F. & Hirsh, R.F. 1983, Marginality and Innovation in Science, Social Studies Sc. 13, 87-106 15. Martin, B.R. & Irvine, J. 1983, Assessing Basic Research – Some Partial Indicators of Scientiﬁc Progress in Radio Astronomy, Research Policy 12, 61-90 1984 16. Abt, H.A. 1984, Citations to Federally-Funded and Unfunded Research, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 96, 563-565 17. Abt, H.A. 1984, Citations to Single and Multiauthored Papers, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 96, 746-749 18. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1984, International Directory of Amateur Astronomical Societies 1984, ed. Heck-Manfroid, iv + 278 pp.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

323

19. Trimble, V. 1984, Postwar Grown in the Length of Astronomical and Other Scientiﬁc Papers, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 96, 1007-1016 20. Trimble, V. 1984, How Science Ought to be Done, New Scientist (29 Nov 1984) 41 1985 21. Abt, H.A. 1985, An Assessment of Research Done at the National Optical Observatories, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 97, 1050-1052 22. Arunachalam, S. & Hirannaiah, S. 1985, Has Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy a Future?, Scientometrics 8, 3-11 23. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1985, International Directory of Astronomical Associations and Societies 1986, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 8, iv + 266 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-06-5) 24. Trimble, V. 1985, Some Notes on Patterns in Citation of Papers by American Astronomers, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 26, 40-50 1986 25. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1986, International Directory of Professional Astronomical Institutions 1987, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 9, iv + 276 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-07-3) 26. Herrmann, D.B. 1986, Astronomy in the Twentieth Century, Scientometrics 9, 187-191 27. Pinch, T. (Ed.) 1986, Confronting Nature – The Sociology of SolarNeutrino Detection, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, viii + 268 pp. (ISBN 90-277-2224-2) 28. Trimble, V. 1986, A Note on Self-Citation Rates in Astronomy, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 98, 1347-1348 29. Trimble, V. 1986, Death Comes as the End: Eﬀects of Cessation of Personal Inﬂuence on Citation Rates of Astronomical Papers, Czechosl. J. Phys. 36B, 175 1987 30. Abt, H.A. 1987, Are Papers by Well-Known Astronomers Accepted for Publication More Readily than Other Papers?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 99, 439-441 31. Abt, H.A. 1987, Reference Frequencies in Astronomy and Related Sciences, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 99, 1329-1332 32. Davoust, E. & Schmadel, L.D. 1987, A Study of the Publishing Activity of Astronomers since 1969, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 99, 700-710 33. Heck, A. & Manfroid, J. 1987, International Directory of Astronomical Associations and Societies 1988, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 10, vi + 516 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-08-1)

324

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

34. McCrea, W.H. 1987, Clustering of Astronomers, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 25, 1-22 35. Peterson, C.J. 1987, The Evaluation of Scientiﬁc Research: A Brief Study of Citations to Research Papers from the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada 81, 30-35 36. Stebbins, R.A. 1987, Amateurs and their Place in Professional Science, in New Generation Small Telescopes, Eds. D.S. Hayes, D.R. Genet & R.M. Genet, Fairborn Press, Mesa, 217-225 1988 37. Abt, H.A. 1988, What Happens to Rejected Astronomical Papers?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 100, 506-508 38. Abt, H.A. 1988, Growth Rates in Various Fields of Astronomy, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 100, 1567-1571 39. Heck, A. 1988, International Directory of Professional Astronomical Institutions 1989, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 12, vi + 492 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-10-3) 40. Herrmann, D.B. 1988, How Old were the Authors of Signiﬁcant Research in 20th Century Astronomy at the Time of their GreatestAchievements?, Scientometrics 13, 135-137 41. Makino, J. 1988, Productivity of Research Groups. Relation between Citation Analysis and Reputation within Research Communities, Scientometrics 43, 87-93 42. Peterson, C.J. 1988, Citation Analysis of Astronomical Literature: Comments on Citation Half-Lives, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 100, 106115 43. Trimble, V. 1988, Some Characteristics of Young versus Established American Astronomers, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 100, 646-650 1989 44. Abt, H.A. & Liu, J. 1989, Journal Referencing, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 101, 555-559 45. Heck, A. 1989, International Directory of Astronomical Associations and Societies together with Related Items of Interest – R´epertoire International d’Associations et Soci´et´es Astronomiques ainsi que d’Autres Entr´ees d’Int´erˆet G´en´eral – IDAAS 1990, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 13, vi + 716 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-11-1) 46. Heck, A. 1989, International Directory of Professional Astronomical Institutions together with Related Items of Interest – R´epertoire International des Institutions Astronomiques Professionnelles ainsi que d’Autres Entr´ees d’Int´erˆet G´en´eral – IDPAI 1990, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 14, vi + 658 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-12-x)

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

325

1990 47. Abt, H.A. 1990, Trends towards Internationalization in Astronomical Literature, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 102, 368-372 48. Abt, H.A. 1990, Publication Characteristics of Members of the American Astronomical Society, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 102, 1161-1166 49. Abt, H.A. 1990, The Use of Publication Studies to Aﬀect Policies and Attitudes in Astronomy, Curent Contents 33/39, 7 1991 50. Abt, H.A. 1991, Science, Citation, and Funding, Science 251, 14081409 51. Bahcall, J.N. 1991, Prioritizing Scientiﬁc Initiatives, Science 251, 14121413 52. Bahcall, J.N. et al. 1991, The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics [‘Bahcall Report’], National Acad. Press, xvi + 182 pp. (ISBN 0-309-04381-6) 53. Davoust, E. & Schmadel, L.D. 1991, A Study of the Publishing Activity of Astronomers since 1969, Scientometrics 22, 9-39 54. Heck, A. 1991, Astronomical Directories, in Databases and Online Data in Astronomy, Eds. M.A. Albrecht & D. Egret, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 211-224 55. Heck, A. 1991, Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World – ASpScROW 1991, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 16, x + 1182 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-14-6) (two volumes) 56. Jaschek, C. 1991, The Size of the Astronomical Community, Scientometrics 22, 265-282 57. Thronson Jr., H.A. 1991, The Production of Astronomers: A Model for Future Surpluses, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 103, 90-94 58. Trimble, V. 1991, Long-Term Careers of Astronomers with Doctoral Degrees from Prestigious versus Non-Prestigious Universities, Scientometrics 20, 71-77 59. Trimble, V. & Elson, R. 1991, Astronomy as a National Asset, Sky & Tel. 82, 485 1992 60. Abt, H.A. 1992, What Fraction of Literature References are Incorrect?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 104, 235-236 61. Abt, H.A. 1992, Publication Practices in Various Sciences, Scientometrics 24, 441-447 62. Davoust, E. & Schmadel, L.D. 1992, A Study of the Publishing Activity of Astronomers since 1969, Scientometrics 22, 9-39

326

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

63. Jaschek, C. 1992, The ‘Visibility’ of West European Astronomical Research, Scientometrics 23, 377-393 64. White II, J.C. 1992, Publication Rates and Trends in International Collaborations for Astronomers in Developing Countries, Eastern European Countries, and the Former Soviet Union, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 104, 472-476 1993 65. Abt, H.A. 1993, The Growth of Multiwavelength Astrophysics, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 105, 437-439 66. Abt, H.A. 1993, Institutional Productivities, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 105, 794-798 67. Davoust, E. 1993, L’Astronomie, Cartographie d’une Discipline, Cahiers ADEST, n-ro sp´ecial, 44-49 ` Quoi Sert la Scien68. Davoust, E., Bergecol, H. & Callon, M. 1993, A tom´etrie?, J. Astron. Fran¸cais 44, 13-19 69. Heck, A. 1993, StarGuides 1993 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 20, x + 1174 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-14-6) (two volumes) 70. Trimble, V. 1993, Patterns in Citations of Papers by American Astronomers, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 34, 235-250 71. Trimble, V. 1993, Patterns in Citations of Papers by British Astronomers, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 34, 301-314 1994 72. Abt, H.A. 1994, Institutional Productivities, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 106, 107 73. Abt, H.A. 1994, The Current Burst in Astronomical Publications, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 106, 1015-1017 74. Heck, A. 1994, StarGuides 1994 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 23, viii + 880 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-21-9) 75. Saurer, W. & Weinberger, R. 1994, Planetary Nebulae: Some Statistics on a Continuously Growing Field and its Contributors, Scientometrics 31, 85-95 76. van der Kruit, P.C. 1994, The Astronomical Community in the Netherlands, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 35, 409-423 77. van der Kruit, P.C. 1994, A Comparison of Astronomy in Fifteen Member Countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Scientometrics 31, 155-172

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

327

1995 78. Abt, H.A. 1995, Changing Sources of Published Information, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 107, 401-403 79. Abt, H.A. 1995, Some Statistical Highlights of the Astrophysical Journal, Astrophys. J. 455, 407-411 80. Heck, A. 1995, StarGuides 1995 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 25, viii + 814 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-23-5) 81. Liu, J. & Shu, Z. 1995, Statistical Analysis of Astronomical Papers in China during 1986-1990, Scientometrics 32, 237-245 82. Trimble, V. 1995, Papers and Citations Resulting from Data Collected at Large American Optical Telescopes, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 107, 977-980 83. Van Raan, A.F.J. & van Leeuwen, Th.N. 1995, A Decade of Astronomy Research in the Netherlands – Performance Assessment of Departments, Research Fields and Instrumental Facilities by Advanced Bibliometric Methods, Centrum voor Wetenschaps- en Technologiestudies CWTS-95-01, Univ. Leiden, 148 pp. 1996 84. Abt, H.A. 1996, How Long are Astronomical Papers Remembered?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 108, 1059-1061 85. Abt, H.A. & Zhou, H. 1996, What Fraction of Astronomers Become Relatively Inactive in Research after Receiving Tenure?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 108, 375-377 86. Heck, A. 1996, StarGuides 1996 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 27, viii + 916 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-25-1) 87. Leverington, D. 1996, The Cost-Eﬀectiveness of Observational Astronomical Facilities since 1958 – Part I: Eﬀectiveness, Q.J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 37, 643-662 88. Nature (Editorial) 1996, Support Small Private Telescopes, Nature 383, 651 89. Reichhardt, T., Abbott, A. & Swinbanks, D. 1996, Will Space-Based Astronomy Give Value for Money?, Nature 381, 461-466 90. Spruit, H.C. 1996, A ‘Curve of Growth’ for Astronomers on the Citation Index, Q.J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 37, 1-9 91. Trimble, V. 1996, Productivity and Impact of Large Optical Telescopes, Scientometrics 36, 237-246 ¨ 92. Uzun, A. & Ozel, M.E. 1996, Publication Patterns of Turkish Astronomers, Scientometrics 37, 159-169

328

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

1997 93. Girard, R. & Davoust, E. 1997, The Role of References in the Astronomical Discourse, Astron. Astrophys. 323, A1-A6 94. Heck, A. 1997, StarGuides 1997 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 29, viii + 956 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-27-8) 95. Lankford, J. 1997, American Astronomy, Univ. Chicago Press, xxvi + 448 pp. (ISBN 0-226-46886-0) 96. Leverington, D. 1997, Optical Telescopes – Biggest is Best?, Nature 385, 196 97. Leverington, D. 1997, Star-Gazing Funds Should Come Down to Earth, Nature 387, 12 98. Pasachoﬀ, J.M. 1997, Hubble ‘Worth the Price’, Nature 387, 754 99. Schulman, E., French, J.C., Powell, A.L., Eichhorn, G., Kurtz, M.J. & Murray, S.S. 1997, Trends in Astronomical Publication between 1975 and 1996, Astron. J. 109, 1278-1284 100. Schulman, E., French, J.C., Powell, A.L., Murray, S.S., Eichhorn, G. & Kurtz, M.J. 1997, The Sociology of Astronomical Publication Using ADS and ADAMS, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, Eds. G. Hunt & H.E. Payne, ASP Conf. Series 125, 361-364 1998 101. Abt, H.A. 1998, Why Some Papers have Long Citation Lifetimes, Nature 395, 756-757 102. Abt, H.A. 1998, Is the Astronomical Literature Still Expanding Exponentially?, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 110, 210-213 103. Fern´ andez, J.A. 1998, The Transition from an Individual Science to a Collective One, Scientometrics 42, 61 104. Gopal-Krishna & Barve, S. 1998, Discovery Potential of Small/MediumSize Optical Telescopes: A Study of Publication Patterns in Nature (1993-95), Bull. Astron. Soc. India 26, 417-424 105. Heck, A. 1998, StarGuides 1998 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 30, viii + 1022 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-28-6) 106. Heck, A. 1998, Geographical Distribution of Observational Activities for Astronomy, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 130, 403-406 107. Heck, A. 1998, Astronomy-Related Organizations over the World, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 132, 65-81 108. Heck, A. 1998, Electronic Publishing in its Context and in a Professional Perspective, Rev. Modern Astron. 11, 337-347 109. Iglesias de Ussel, J., Trinidad, A., Ru´ız, D., Battaner, E., Delgado, A.J., Rodr´ıguez-Espinosa, J.M., Salvador-Sol´e, E. & Torrelles, J.M.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

329

1998, Sociological Proﬁle of Astronomers in Spain, Astrophys. Sp. Sc. 257, 237-248 110. Makino, J. 1998, Productivity of Research Groups – Relation between Citation Analysis and Reputation within Research Communities, Scientometrics 43, 87-93 111. Meadows, A.J. 1998, Communicating Research, Academic Press, London, x + 266 pp. (ISBN 0-12-487415-0) 1999 112. Bahcall, J.N. 1999, Prioritizing Science: A Story of the Decade Survey for the 1990s, in The American Astronomical Society’s First Century, Ed. D.H. DeVorkin, Amer. Astron. Soc., Washington, 289-300 113. Bergeron, J. & Grothkopf, U. 1999, Publications in Refereed Journals Based on Telescope Observations, ESO Messenger 96, 28-29 114. Gibson, B.K., Buxton, M., Vassiliadis, E., Sevenster, M.N., Jones, D.H. & Thornberry, R.K. 1999, On the Importance of the PhD Institute in Establishing a Long-Term Research Career in Astronomy, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 31, 1000 115. Heck, A. 1999, StarGuides 1999 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 31, viii + 1022 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-29-4) 116. Heck, A. 1999, The Age of Astronomy-Related Organizations, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 135, 467-475 + 136, 615 117. Heck, A. 1999, Characteristics of Astronomy-Related Organizations, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 31, 1002 118. Maran, S.P. 1999, The American Astronomical Society and the News Media, in The American Astronomical Society’s First Century, Ed. D.H. DeVorkin, Amer. Astron. Soc., Washington, 213-220 119. Pottasch, S.R. 1999, The History of the Creation of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astron. Astrophys. 352, 349-353 120. Schaefer, B.E., Hurley, K., Nemiroﬀ, R.J., Branch, D., Perlmutter, S., Schaefer, M.W., Consolmagno, McSween, H. & Strom, R. 1999, Accuracy of Press Reports in Astronomy, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 31, 1521 2000 121. Abt, H.A. 2000, Do Important Papers Produce High Citation Counts?, Scientometrics 48, 65-70 122. Abt, H.A. 2000, Astronomical Publication in the Near Future, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 112, 1417-1420 123. Abt, H.A. 2000, The Reference-Frequency Relation in the Physical Sciences, Scientometrics 49, 443-451

330

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

124. Abt, H.A. 2000, The Most Frequently Cited Astronomical Papers Published during the Last Decade, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 32, 937-941 125. Abt, H.A. 2000, What can we Learn from Publication Studies?, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 77-89 126. Andersen, J. 2000, Information in Astronomy: The Role of the IAU, in Information Handling in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-12 127. Bohlin, J.D. 2000, NASA Program Solicitations, Proposal Evaluations, and Selection of Science Investigations, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 123-143 128. Burstein, D. 2000, Astronomy and the Science Citation Index, 19811997, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 32, 917-936 129. Esterle, L. & Zitt, M. 2000, Observation of Scientiﬁc Publications in Astronomy/Astrophysics, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 91-109 130. Heck, A. 2000, StarGuides 2000 – A Directory of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Related Organizations of the World, Publ. Sp´ec. CDS 32, viii + 1140 pp. (ISSN 0764-9614 – ISBN 2-908064-30-8) 131. Heck, A. 2000, Where the Astronomers Are: A Stagnant Century, Sky & Tel. 99, 32-35 132. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2000, Information Handling in Astronomy, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 242 pp. (ISBN 0-7923-6494-5) 133. Heck, A. 2000, StarGuides 2001 – A World-Wide Directory of Organizations in Astronomy, Related Space Sciences and Other Related Fields, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, xiv + 1224 pp. (ISBN 0-79236509-7) 134. Heck, A. 2000, Characteristics of Astronomy-Related Organizations, Astrophys. Sp. Sc. 274, 733-783 135. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2000, Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 222 pp. (ISBN 0-7923-6671-9) 136. Heck, A. 2000, Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-5 137. Heck, A. 2000, Communicating in Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 165-184 138. Heck, A. 2000, Perceptions of Science, European Ass. Study Sc. & Technol. Review 19/4, 8-9 139. Hellemans, A. 2000, Does Size Matter?, Nature 408, 12-15 140. Houziaux, L. 2000, Foreword, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, i-iv 141. Madsen, C. & West, R.M. 2000, Public Outreach in Astronomy: The

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148. 149.

150.

151.

331

ESO Experience, in Information Handling in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 25-43 Mahoney, T.J. 2000, The Problems of English as a Foreign Language in Professional Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 185-192 Maran, S.P., Cominsky, L.R. & Marschall, L.A. 2000, Astronomy and the news media, in Information Handling in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 13-24 Massey, Ph., Guerrieri, M. & Joyce, R.R. 2000, The Number of Publications Used as a Metric of the NOAO WIYN Queue Experiment, New Astron. 5, 25-33 Meadows, J. 2000, Astronomy and the General Public: A Historical Perspective, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 193-202 Pfau, W. 2000, The Astronomische Gesellschaft: Pieces from its History, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 65-75 Pottasch, S.R. 2000, The Refereeing System in Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 111-121 Tadhunter, C. 2000, Activities and Demographic Trends in UK Astronomy, Astron. & Geophys. 41, 2.19-2.22 Trimble, V. 2000, Some Characteristics of Young versus Established American Astronomers: Entering the New Century, Scientometrics 48, 403-411 Volonte, S. 2000, Planning and Implementation of ESA’s Space Science Programme, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 145-164 White, R.E. 2000, The Conferences on ‘The Inspiration of Astronomical Phenomena’: Excursions into ‘Cross-Overs’ between Sciences and the Arts and Literature, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-209 2001

152. Abt, H.A. 2001, Comments on Refereeing, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 197-205 153. Abt, H.A. 2001, Electronic Access to Journals, in Astronomy for Developing Countries, Ed. A.H. Batten, Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc, San Francisco, 354 154. Benn, C.R. & S´ anchez, S.F. 2001, Scientiﬁc Impact of Large Telescopes, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 113, 385-396

332

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

155. Blaauw, A. 2001, Foreword, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, i-iii 156. Breysacher, J. & Waelkens, Chr. 2001, The ESO Observing Programmes Committee, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 149-162 157. Crabtree, D.R. & Bryson, E.P. 2001, The Eﬀectiveness of the CanadaFrance-Hawaii Telescope, J. Royal Astron. Soc. Canada 95, 259-266 158. Cramer, N. 2001, Editing a Multilingual Astronomy Magazine, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 229-238 159. Gilmore, G. 2001, OPTICON: EC Optical Infrared Coordination Network for Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 83-102 160. Golay, M. 2001, Strategies for Bringing a 19th-Century Observatory up to the Standards of 21st-Century Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 9-28 161. Grothkopf, U. & Cummins, M. 2001, Communicating and Networking in Astronomy Libraries, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 207-219 162. Haubold, H.J. 2001, Background and Achievements of UN/ESA Workshops on Basic Space Science 1991-2001, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 47-64 163. Heck, A. 2001, Survey of Non-Professional Astronomy Magazines in Professional Astronomy Libraries, Astrolib, 26 Feb 2001 164. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2001, Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 280 pp. (ISBN 0-7023-7172-0) 165. Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-8 166. Heck, A. 2001, Creativity in Arts and Sciences: A Survey, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 257-268 167. Lahav, O. 2001, Large Surveys in Cosmology: The Changing Sociology, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 139-147 168. Mayer, A.E.S. 2001, Organising and Funding Research at a European Level, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 65-82 169. McKee, Ch.F. & Taylor Jr., J.H. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millenium, Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, xxiv + 246 pp. (ISBN 0-309-07312-x)

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

333

170. Mitton, J. 2001, Working with the Media: The Royal Astronomical Society Experience, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 239-256 171. Murdin, P. 2001, Editing the Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 221-228 172. Narlikar, J.V. 2001, IUCAA: A New Experiment for Indian Universities, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 29-45 173. Peterson, K.A., Perriello, B., Stanley, P., Bonnell, J., Smith, E., Evans, N.R., Hilton, P. & Roberts, B. 2001, Coordinating Multiple Observatory Campaigns, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 103-120 174. Robson, I. 2001, New Strategies in Ground-Based Observing, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 121-137 175. Schubert, A. 2001, Scientometrics: The Research Field and its Journal, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 179-195 176. Shortridge, K. 2001, Astronomical Software Strategies, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 163-178 2002 177. Abt, H.A. 2002, How to Write a Good Astronomical Paper, Progress in Astronomy 20, 299-301 178. Abt, H.A. 2002, The Production and Distribution Times for Conference Proceedings, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 34, 1354-1355 179. Abt, H.A. & Garﬁeld, E. 2002, Is the Relation between Numbers of References and Paper Lengths the Same for all Sciences?, J. Amer. Soc. Information Sc. Technol. 53, 106 180. Benn, C.R. 2002, Scientiﬁc Impact of Large Telescopes, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 85-94 181. Benvenuti, P. 2002, Some Thoughts about the Virtual Observatory Concept, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 107-119 182. Brandt, P.N. & Mattig, W. 2002, The History of the Joint Organisation for Solar Observations (JOSO) 1969-2000, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 135-152

334

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

183. Cayrel, R. 2002, Foreword, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, vii-ix 184. Claros, V. & Ponz, D. 2002, The Role of Ground Stations in Space Observatories, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 95-105 185. Enard, D. 2002, Organizational Issues in Large Scientiﬁc Projects, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 121-134 186. Feast, M. 2002, Optical Astronomy and South Africa. Part I. To 1994, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 153-161 187. Finley, D.G. 2002, Public Relations for a National Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 21-34 188. Friel, E.D. 2002, NSF Evaluation Processes in the Astronomical Sciences, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 71-84 189. Heck, A. 2002, The Impact of New Media on 20th-Century Astronomy, Astron. Nahr. 323, 542-547 190. Heck, A. 2002, Now is Already Yesterday, HAD News 61-62, 5-6 191. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2002, Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 234 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-0812-0) 192. Heck, A. 2002, Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-10 193. Nicollier, C. 2002, Close Encounters of the Third Kind with the Hubble Space Telescope, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 11-19 194. Osterbrock, D.E. 2002, The View from the Observatory: History is Too Important to be Left to the Historians, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 201215 ˇ 195. Palouˇs, J., Vondr´ ak, J. & Solc, M. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the Czech Republic, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 163-179 196. Rickman, H. 2002, NEO Research and the IAU, in Proc. Intern. Worksohp on Collaboration and Coordination Among NEO Observers and Orbital Computers, Eds. S. Isobe & Y. Asakura, Japan Spaceguard Assoc., 97-102 197. Robinson, L.J. 2002, Popularizing Astronomy: Four Decades as a Galley Slave, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 35-45 198. Ruˇsin, V., Svoreˇ n, J. & Zverko, J. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

335

in the Slovak Republic, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 181-190 199. Stein, J.B. 2002, Historians and Astronomers: Same Pursuits?, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 191-199 200. Tr¨ umper, J. 2002, The International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS) for Astrophysics at Garching-Munich, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy III, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 47-61 2003 201. Abt, H.A. 2003, Changes in Astronomical Publications during the 20th Century, in Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 127-137 202. Abt, H.A. 2003, Foreword, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, vii-ix 203. Abt, H.A. 2003, Scientiﬁc Impact of Small Telescopes, in The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, I. Perceptions, Productivities, and Policies, Ed. T.D. Oswalt, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 55-64 204. Abt, H.A. 2003, What Factors Determine Astronomical Productivity?, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 35, 869-870 205. Abt, H.A. 2003, The Institute for Scientiﬁc Information and the Science Citation Index, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 197-204 206. Abt, H.A. & Boonyarak, Ch. 2003, The Scientiﬁc Output of the International Ultraviolet Explorer during Its Lifetime, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 35, 1446-1447 207. Alexander, D.T. 2003, Organizing and Managing American Astronomical Society Meetings – From Preparation and Plans to Science Presentations, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 221-238 208. Benn, C.R. & S´ anchez, S.F. 2003, The Productivity of Ground-Based Optical Telescopes of Various Apertures, in The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, I. Perceptions, Productivities, and Policies, Ed. T.D. Oswalt, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 49-53 209. Boily, C.M. 2003, Use and Misuse of Web Downloads – A Personal View, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 157-170 210. Bonnet, R.M. 2003, The ESA Experience, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 13-25

336

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

211. Butcher, H. 2003, Organization and Goals of the European Astronomical Society, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 239-243 212. Carty, A.J. 2003, A Canadian Vision of International Astronomy and Astrophysics, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 285-303 213. Castellani, V. 2003, The Changing Landscape of Italian Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 265-283 214. Christensen, L.L. 2003, Practical Popular Communication of Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 105-142 215. Cohen, R.J. 2003, Strategies for Protecting Radio Astronomy, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 59-74 216. Corbin, B.G. 2003, The Evolution and Role of the Astronomical Library and Librarian, in Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 139-155 217. Ferlet, R. 2003, The Soci´et´e Astronomique de France in the Astronomical Landscape: Evolution and Prospects, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 143-155 218. Fraknoi, A. 2003, 115 Years of Communicating Astronomy: Education and Outreach at the Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 121-138 219. Griﬃn, I. 2003, The Hubble Space Telescope Education and Outreach Program, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 139-156 220. Heck, A. 2003, From Early Directories to Current Yellow-Page Services, in Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 183-205 221. Heck, A. 2003, Astronomy Professional Communication, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-220 222. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2003, Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, xii + 326 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-1526-7) 223. Heck, A. 2003, Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-12 224. Heck, A. 2003, Wrong Impact!, European Astron. Soc. Newsl. 26, 4-5 225. Heck, A. & Madsen, C. (Eds.) 2003, Astronomy Communication, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, x + 226 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-1345-0)

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

337

226. Henbest, N. 2003, Astronomy on Television, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 55-66 227. Isbell, D. & Fedele, R. 2003, Outreach at Kitt Peak Visitor Center: Techniques for Engaging the Public at a Major Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 93-104 228. Isobe, S. 2003, Activities in Astronomy Education of the International Astronomical Union, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 189-196 229. Leibundgut, B., Grothkopf, U. & Treumann, A. 2003, Metrics to Measure ESO’s Scientiﬁc Success, ESO Messenger 114, 46-49 230. Jones, D.H.P. 2003, Was the Carte du Ciel an Obstrction to the Development of Astrophysics in Europe?, in Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 267-273 231. Madsen, C. 2003, Astronomy and Space Science in the European Print Media, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 67-120 232. Madsen, C. & West, R.M. 2003, Public Communication of Astronomy, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 3-18 233. Mamon, G.A. 2003, The Selection of Tenured Astronomers in France, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 245-263 234. Maran, S.P., Cominsky, L.R. & Marschall, L.A. 2003, Communicating Astronomy to the Media, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 19-29 235. McDonald, G.D. & Storrie-Lombardi, M.C. 2003, The Astronomer’s Pocket Guide to Astrobiology, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 27-36 236. McNally, D. 2003, Foreword, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, vii-xii 237. Oswalt, T.D. 2003, Charting the Future of Small Telescopes – New Strategies for a New Decade, in The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, Vol. I – Perceptions, Productivities, and Policies, Ed. T.D. Oswalt, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 287-300 238. Rijsdijk, C. 2003, Doing it Without Electrons: Innovative Resources for Promoting Astronomy and Science in a Developing Country, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 157-176 239. Ringwald, F.A., Culver, J.M., Lovell, R.L., Kays, S.A. & Torres, Y.V.

338

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

2003, The Research Productivity of Small Telescopes and Space Telescopes, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 35, 1063-1074 Roller, J.P. & Klein, M.J. 2003, The GAVRT Partnership: Bringing the Universe to K-12 Classrooms, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 171-187 Sage, L. 2003, Writing a Clear and Engaging Paper for All Astronomers, in Astronomy Communication, Ed. A. Heck & C. Madsen, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 221-226 Sage, L. 2003, A Brief History of the Controversy Surrounding the Mount Graham International Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 75-91 Schwarz, H.E. 2003, Light Pollution Control: World-Wide Eﬀects of and Eﬀorts to Reduce Light Pollution, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 37-57 Stickland, D.J. 2003, The Observatory Magazine: Linking Three Centuries, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 4, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 205-220 Vavilova, I.B. & Yatskiv, Y.S. 2003 Astronomy Education in Ukraine: Status, Perspectives, and Activity of the Ukrainian Astronomical Association, Teaching of Astronomy in Asian-Paciﬁc Region Bull. 19, 47-48 Yatskiv, Y.S. & Vavilova, I.B. 2003, Astronomy in Ukraine: Overview of the Situation and Strategic Planning for 2004-2011, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies 19, 569-574 2004

247. Abt, H.A. 2004, Some Incorrect Journal Impact Factors, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 36, 576-577 248. Burton, M.G. 2004, Astronomy in Antarctica, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 11-37 249. Christian, C.A. 2004, The Public Impact of the Hubble Space Telescope: A Case Study, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 203-216 250. Comer´on, F. 2004, Observing in Service Mode: The Experience at the European Southern Observatory, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 141-158

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

339

251. Coyne, G.V. 2004, Ruminations on the Evolving Universe and a Creator God, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 273-286 252. Cramer, N. 2004, Ludek Pesek’s Role as Space Artist, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 259-272 + CD 253. D´ebarbat, S. 2004, Statistics on Women in the IAU Membership, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 189-195 254. de Jager, C. & Drummen, M. 2004, Popularization of Astronomy in the Netherlands, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 233-258 255. Dick, W.R. & Richter, B. 2004, The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 159-168 256. Green, P.J. & Yukita, M. 2004, Publication Metrics for Chandra Science, Chandra Nsl. 11, 19-20 257. Grice, N.A. 2004, Astronomy for Blind and Visually-Impaired People, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 217-231 258. Heck, A. 2004, StarGuides Plus – A World-Wide Directory of Organizations in Astronomy and Related Space Sciences, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, viii + 1142 pp. (ISBN 0-4020-1296-2) 259. Heck, A. (Ed.) 2004, Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, xii + 310 pp. (ISBN 1-4020-1926-2) 260. Heck, A. 2004, Editorial, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1-9 261. Heck, A. 2004, Switzerland towards ESA and ESO: Diversity, Perseverance, and Diplomacy – An Interview with Marcel Golay, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 123-140 262. Meurs, E.J.A. 2004, Astronomy in Ireland, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 103-122 263. Meylan, G., Madrid, J.P. & Macchetto, D. 2004, Hubble Space Telescope Science Metrics, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 116, 790-796 264. Pearce, F.R. 2004, Citation Measures and Impact Within Astronomy, Astron. & Geophys. 45/2, 15-17 265. Rutten, R. & M´endez, J. 2004, The Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes from a Historic Perspective, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 83-102

340

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

266. S´ anchez, F. 2004, The Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias (IAC): Its Role in Leading the Development of Spanish Astrophysics, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 61-82 267. S´ anchez, S.F. & Benn, C.R. 2004, Impact of Astronomical Research from Diﬀerent Countries, Astron. Nahr. 235, 445-450 268. Sandqvist, Aa. 2004, The A&A Experience with Impact Factors, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 197-201 269. Schwarz, G.J. & Kennicutt, R.C., Jr. 2004, Demographic and Citation Trends in Astrophysical Journal Papers and Preprints, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 36, 1654-1663 270. Tr¨ umper, J. 2004, Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology in the Max Planck Society, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 169-187 271. Whitelock, P.A. 2004, Optical Astronomy in Post-Apartheid South Africa: 1994 to 2004, in Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy – Vol. 5, Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 39-60 272. Yatskiv, Y.S. 2004, Scientiﬁc and Technological Sphere of Ukraine: Overall Performance. Scientiﬁc World 5, 8-13 2005 273. Grothkopf, U., Leibundgut, B., Macchetto, D., Madrid, J.P. & Leitherer, Cl. 2005, Comparison of Science Metrics among Observatories, ESO Messenger 119, 45-49 274. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Demleitner, M. & Murray, S.S. 2005, Worlwide Use and Impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System Digital Library, J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sc. Technol. 56, 36-45 275. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Demleitner, M., Murray, S.S., Martimbeau, N. & Elwell, B. 2005, The Bibliometric Properties of Article Readership Information, J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sc. Technol. 56, 111-128 276. Trimble, V., Zaich, P. & Bosler, T. 2005, Productivity and Impact of Optical Telescopes, Publ. Astron. Soc. Paciﬁc 117, 111-118 Alphabetical list of authors The numbers refer to the chronological list.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

– Abbott, A.: 89, – Abt, H.A.: 1, 3, 4, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, 30, 31, 37, 38, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 60, 61, 65, 66, 72, 73, 78, 79, 84, 85, 101, 102, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 152, 153, 177, 178, 179, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 247, – Accomazzi, A.: 274, 275, – Alexander, D.T.: 207, – Andersen, J.: 126, – Arunachalam, S.: 22, – Bahcall, J.N.: 51, 52, 112, – Barve, S.: 104, – Battaner, E.: 109, – Benn, C.R.: 154, 180, 208, 267, – Benvenuti, P.: 181, – Bergecol, H.: 68, – Bergeron, J.: 113, – Blaauw, A.: 155, – Bohlin, J.D.: 127, – Boily, C.M.: 209, – Bonnell, J.: 173, – Bonnet, R.M.: 210, – Boonyarak, Ch.: 206, – Bosler, T.: 276, – Branch, D.: 120, – Brandt, P.N.: 182, – Breysacher, J.: 156, – Bryson, E.P.: 157, – Burstein, D.: 128, – Burton, M.G.: 248, – Butcher, H.: 211, – Buxton, M.: 114, – Callon, M.: 68, – Carty, A.J.: 212,

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

341

Castellani, V.: 213, Cayrel, R.: 183, Christensen, L.L.: 214, Christian, C.A.: 249, Claros, V.: 184, Cohen, R.J.: 215, Comer´on, F.: 250, Cominsky, L.R.: 143, 234, Consolmagno, G.J.: 120, Corbin, B.G.: 216, Coyne, G.V.: 251, Crabtree, D.R.: 157, Cramer, N.: 158, 252, Culver, J.M.: 239, Elwell,B.: 275, Cummins, M.: 161, Davoust, E.: 32, 53, 62, 67, 68, 93, D´ebarbat, S.: 253, de Jager, C.: 254, Delgado, A.J.: 109, Demleitner, M.: 274, 275, Dick, W.R.: 255, Drummen, M.: 254, Eichhorn, G.: 99, 100, 274, 275, Elson, R.: 59, Enard, D.: 185, Esterle, L.: 129, Evans, N.R.: 173, Feast, M.: 186, Fedele, R.: 227, Ferlet, R.: 217, Fern´andez, J.A.: 103, Field, G.B.: 11, Finley, D.G.: 187,

342 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – –

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

Fraknoi, A.: 218, French, J.C.: 99, 100, Friel, E.D.: 188, Garﬁeld, E.: 179, Gibson, B.K.: 114, Gieryn, T.F.: 5, 14, Gilmore, G.: 159, Girard, R.: 93, Golay, M.: 160, 261, Gopal-Krishna: 104, Grant, C.S.: 274, 275, Green, P.J.: 256, Grice, N.A.: 257, Griﬃn, I.: 219, Grothkopf, U.: 113, 161, 229, 273, Guerrieri, M.: 144, Haubold, H.J.: 162, Heck, A.: 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 33, 39, 45, 46, 54, 55, 69, 74, 80, 86, 94, 105, 106, 107, 108, 115, 116, 117, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 163, 165, 164, 166, 189, 190, 191, 192, 220, 225, 221, 222, 223, 224, 258, 259, 260, 261, Hellemans, A.: 139, Henbest, N.: 226, Herrmann, D.B.: 26, 40, Hilton, P.: 173, Hirannaiah, S.: 22, Hirsh, R.F.: 14, Houziaux, L.: 140, Hurley, K.: 120, Iglesias de Ussel J.: 109, Irvine, J.: 15, Isbell, D.: 227, Isobe, S.: 228,

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jaschek. C.: 56, 63, Jones, D.H.: 114, Jones, D.H.P.: 230, Joyce, R.R.: 144, Kays, S.A.: 239, Kennicutt, R.C.: 269, Klein, M.J.: 240, Kurtz, M.J.: 99, 100, 274, 275, Lahav, O.: 167, Lankford, J.: 95, Leibundgut, B.: 229, 273, Leitherer, Cl.: 273, Leverington, D.: 87, 96, 97, Liu, J.: 44, 81, Lovell, R.L.: 239, Macchetto, D.: 263, 273, Madrid, J.P.: 263, 273, Madsen, C.: 141, 225, 232, 231, Mahoney, T.J.: 142, Makino, J.: 41, 110, Mamon, G.A.: 233, Manfroid, J.: 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 33, Maran, S.P.: 118, 143, 234, Marschall, L.A.: 143, 234, Martimbeau, N.: 275, Martin, B.R.: 15, Massey, Ph.: 144, Mattig, W.: 182, Mayer, A.E.S.: 168, McCrea, W.H.: 34, McDonald, G.D.: 235, McKee, Ch.F.: 169, McNally, D.: 236, McSween, H.: 120, Meadows, A.J.: 111, 145,

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

M´endez, J.: 265, Meurs, E.J.A.: 262, Meylan, G.: 263, Mitton, J.: 170, Murdin, P.: 171, Murray, S.S.: 99, 100, 274, 275, Narlikar, J.V.: 172, Nature: 88, Nemiroﬀ, R.J.: 120, Nicollier, C.: 193, Osterbrock, D.E.: 194, Oswalt, T.D.: 237 ¨ Ozel, M.E.: 92, Palouˇs, J.: 195, Pasachoﬀ, J.M.: 98, Pearce, F.R.: 264, Perlmutter, S.: 120, Perriello, B.: 173, Peterson, C.J.: 35, 42, Peterson, K.A.: 173, Pfau, W.: 146, Pinch, T.: 27, Ponz, D.: 184, Pottasch, S.R.: 119, 147, Powell, A.L.: 99, 100, Reichhardt, T.: 89, Richter, B.: 255, Rickman, H.: 196, Rijsdijk, C.: 238, Ringwald, F.A.: 239, Roberts, B.: 173, Robson, I.: 174, Rodr´ıguez-Espinosa, J.M.: 109, Roller, J.P.: 240, Ru´ız, D.: 109,

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

343

Ruˇsin, V.: 198, Rutten, R.: 265, Sage, L.: 241, 242, Salvador-Sol´e, E.: 109, S´ anchez, F.: 154, 208, 266, 267, Sandqvist, Aa.: 268, Saurer, W.: 75, Schaefer, B.E.: 120, Schaefer, M.W.: 120, Schmadel, L.D.: 32, 53, 62, Schubert, A.: 175, Schulman, E.: 99, 100, Schwarz, G.J.: 269, Schwarz, H.: 243, Sevenster, M.N.: 114, Shortridge, K.: 176, Shu, Z.: 81, Smith, E.: 173, ˇ Solc, M.: 195, Spruit, H.C.: 90, Stanley, O.: 173, Stebbins, R.A.: 2, 8, 9, 12, 36, Stein, J.B.: 199, Stickland, D.J.: 244, Storrie-Lombardi, M.C.: 235, Strom, R.: 120, Svoreˇ n, J.: 198, Swinbanks, D.: 89, Tadhunter, C.: 148, Taylor Jr., J.H.: 169, Thornberry, R.K.: 114, Thronson Jr., H.A.: 57, Torrelles, J.M.: 109, Torres, Y.V.: 239, Treumann, A.: 229,

344

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIO-ASTRONOMY

– Trimble, V.: 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 43, 58, 59, 70, 71, 82, 91, 149, 276, – Trinidad, A.: 109, – Tr¨ umper, J.: 200, 270, – Uzun, A.: 92, – van der Kruit, P.C.: 76, 77, – van Leeuwen, Th.N.: 83, – Van Raan, A.F.J.: 83, – Vassiliadis, E.: 114, – Vavilova, I.B.: 245, 246, – Volonte, S.: 150, – Vondr´ ak, J.: 195, – Waelkens, Chr.: 156, – Weinberger, R.: 75, – West, R.M.: 141, 232, – White II, J.C.: 64, – White, R.E.: 151, – Whitelock, P.A.: 271, – Yukita, M.: 256, – Zaich, P.: 276, – Zhou, H.: 85, – Zitt, M.: 129, – Zverko, J.: 198, – Yatskiv, Y.S.: 245, 246, 272.

Astrophysics and Space Science Library Volume 335: Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6, edited by A. Heck. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-4055-5, November 2005 Volume 334: The New Astronomy: Opening the Electromagnetic Window and Expanding our View of Planet Earth, edited by W. Orchiston. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3723-6, October 2005 Volume 333: Planet Mercury, by P. Clark and S. McKenna-Lawlor. Hardbound ISBN 0-387-26358-6, November 2005

Probes,, edited by E.M. Volume 332: White Dwarfs: Cosmological and Galactic Probes Sion, S. Vennes, H.L. Shipman. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3693-0, September 2005 Volume 331: Ultraviolet Radiation in the Solar System, by M. Vázquez and A. Hanslmeier. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3726-0, November 2005 Volume 330: The Multinational History of Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory, edited by A. Heck. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3643-4, June 2005

Starbursts Volume 329: Starburs ts – From 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, edited by R. de Grijs, R.M. González Delgado. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3538-1, May 2005 Volume 328: Comets, by J.A. Fernández. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3490-3, July 2005 Volume 327: The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, edited by E. Corbelli, F. Palla, H. Zinnecker. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3406-7, June 2005 Volume 325: Kristian Birkeland – The First Space Scientist, by A. Egeland, W.J. Burke. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3293-5, April 2005

Star Volume 324: Cores to Clusters – S tar Formation with next Generation Telescopes, edited by M.S. Nanda Kumar, M. Tafalla, P. Caselli. Hardbound ISBN 0-387-26322-5, October 2005 Volume 323: Recollections of Tucson Operations, by M.A. Gordon. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3235-8, December 2004 Volume 322: Light Pollution Handbook, by K. Narisada, D. Schreuder Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2665-X, November 2004

Volume 321: No Nonequilibrium nequilibrium Phenomena in Plasmas, edited by A.S. Shrama, P.K. Kaw. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3108-4, December 2004 Volume 320: Solar Magnetic Magnetic Phenomena, edited by A. Hanslmeier, A. Veronig, M. Messerotti. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2961-6, December 2004 Volume 319: Penetrating Bars through Masks of Cosmic Dust, edited by D.L. Block, I. Puerari, K.C. Freeman, R. Groess, E.K. Block. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2861-X, December 2004 Volume 318: Transfer of Polarized light in Planetary Atmospheres, by J.W. Hovenier, J.W. Domke, C. van der Mee. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2855-5. Softcover ISBN 1-4020-2889-X, November 2004 Volume 317: The Sun and the Heliosphere Heliosphere as an Integrated System, edited by G. Poletto, S.T. Suess. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2830-X, November 2004 Volume 316: Civic Astronomy - Albany's Dudley Observatory, 1852 1852--2002, by G. Wise Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2677-3, October 2004 Volume 315: How does tthe he Galaxy Work - A Galactic Tertulia with Don Cox and Ron Reynolds, Reynolds, edited by E. J. Alfaro, E. Pérez, J. Franco Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2619-6, September 2004 Volume 314: Solar and Space Weather Radiophysics Radiophysics-- Current Status and Future Developments, edited by D.E. Gary and C.U. Keller Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2813-X, August 2004 Volume 313: Adventures in Order and Chaos, by G. Contopoulos. Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-3039-8, January 2005 Volume 312: High High--Velocity Clouds, edited by H. van Woerden, U. Schwarz, B. Wakker Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2813-X, September 2004 Volume 311: The New ROSETTA Targets Targets-- Observations, Simulations and Instrument Performances, edited by L. Colangeli, E. Mazzotta Epifani, P. Palumbo Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2572-6, September 2004

Volume 310: Organi Organizations zations and Strategies in Astronomy 5, edited by A. Heck Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2570-X, September 2004 Volume 309: Soft X X--ray Emission from Clusters of Galaxies and Related Phenomena, edited by R. Lieu and J. Mittaz Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2563-7, September 2004 Volume 308: Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe, edited by A.J. Barger Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2470-3, August 2004 Volume 307: Polarization in Spectral Lines, by E. Landi Degl’Innocenti and M. Landolfi Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2414-2, August 2004 Volume 306: Polytropes – Applications in Astrophysics and Related Fields, by G.P. Horedt Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2350-2, September 2004 Volume 305: Astrobiology: Future Perspectives, edited by P. Ehrenfreund, W.M. Irvine, T. Owen, L. Becker, J. Blank, J.R. Brucato, L. Colangeli, S. Derenne, A. Dutrey, D. Despois, A. Lazcano, F. Robert Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2304-9, July 2004 Paperback ISBN 1-4020-2587-4, July 2004 Volume 304: Cosmic Gammy Gammy--ray Sources, edited by K.S. Cheng and G.E. Romero Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2255-7, September 2004 Volume 303: Cosmic rays in the Earth’s Atmosphere and Underground, by L.I, Dorman Hardbound ISBN 1-4020-2071-6, August 2004 Volume 302:Stellar Collapse, Collapse, edited by Chris L. Fryer Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1992-0, April 2004 Volume 301: Multiwavelength Cosmology, edited by Manolis Plionis Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1971-8, March 2004 Volume 300:Scientific Detectors for Astronomy Astronomy, edited by Paola Amico, James W. Beletic, Jenna E. Beletic Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1788-X, February 2004

Volume 299: Open Issues in Local Star Fomation Fomation,, edited by Jacques Lépine, Jane Gregorio-Hetem Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1755-3, December 2003 Volume 298: Stellar Astrophysics - A Tribute to Helmut A. Abt Abt, edited by K.S. Cheng, Kam Ching Leung, T.P. Li Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1683-2, November 2003 Volume 297: Radiation Hazard in Space Space, by Leonty I. Miroshnichenko Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1538-0, September 2003 Volume 296: Organizat Organizations 4, edited by ions and Strategies in Astronomy, volume 4 André Heck Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1526-7, October 2003 Volume 295: Integrable Problems of Celestial Mechanics in Spaces of Constant Curvature, by T.G. Vozmischeva Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1521-6, October 2003 Volume 294: An Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Magnetohydrodynamics, by Marcel Goossens Magnetohydrodynamics Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1429-5, August 2003 Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-1433-3, August 2003 Volume 293: Physics of the Solar System, System by Bruno Bertotti, Paolo Farinella, David Vokrouhlický Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1428-7, August 2003 Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-1509-7, August 2003 Volume 292: Whatever Shines Should Be Obs Observed erved, by Susan M.P. McKennaerved Lawlor Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1424-4, September 2003 Volume 291: Dynamical Systems and Cosmology, by Alan Coley Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1403-1, November 2003 Volume 290: As Astronomy Communication, edited by André Heck, Claus tronomy Communication Madsen Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1345-0, July 2003 Volume 287/8/9: The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, Millennium edited by Terry D. Oswalt Hardbound Set only of 3 volumes, ISBN 1-4020-0951-8, July 2003

Volume 286: Searching the Heavens and the Earth: The History of Jesuit Observatories, Observatories by Agustín Udías Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1189-X, October 2003 Volume 285: Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, Vistas edited by André Heck Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1178-4, March 2003 Volume 284: Light Pollution: The Global View View, edited by Hugo E. Schwarz Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1174-1, April 2003 Volume 283: Mass Mass--Losing Pulsating Stars and Their Circumstellar Matter Matter, edited by Y. Nakada, M. Honma, M. Seki Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1162-8, March 2003 Volume 282: Radio Recombination Lines, Lines by M.A. Gordon, R.L. Sorochenko Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1016-8, November 2002 Volume 281: The IGM/Galaxy Connection Connection, edited by Jessica L. Rosenberg, Mary E. Putman Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-1289-6, April 2003 Volume 280: Organizations and Strategies iin n Astronomy III, III edited by André Heck Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0812-0, September 2002 Volume 279: Plasma Astrophysics , Second Edition Edition, by Arnold O. Benz Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0695-0, July 2002 Volume 278: Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora Aurora, by Syun-Ichi Akasofu Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0685-3, August 2002 Volume 277: The Sun and Space Weather Weather, by Arnold Hanslmeier Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0684-5, July 2002 Volume 276: Modern Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, Cosmology edited by Manolis Plionis, Spiros Cotsakis Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0808-2, September 2002 Volume 275: History of Oriental Astronomy, Astronomy edited by S.M. Razaullah Ansari Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0657-8, December 2002

Volume 274: New Quests in Stellar Astrophysics: The Link Between Stars Cosmology, edited by Miguel Chávez, Alessandro Bressan, Alberto and Cosmology Buzzoni,Divakara Mayya Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0644-6, June 2002 Volume 273: Lunar Gravimetry Gravimetry, by Rune Floberghagen Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0544-X, May 2002 Volume 272:Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters Clusters, edited by L. Feretti, I.M. Gioia, G. Giovannini Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0531-8, May 2002 Volume 271: Astronomy Astronomy--inspired Atomic and Molecular Physics, Physics by A.R.P. Rau Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0467-2, March 2002 Volume 270: Dayside and Polar Cap Aurora Aurora, by Per Even Sandholt, Herbert C. Carlson, Alv Egeland Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0447-8, July 2002 Volume 269: Mechanics of Turbulence of Multicomponent Gases, Gases by Mikhail Ya. Marov, Aleksander V. Kolesnichenko Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0103-7, December 2001 Volume 268: Multielement System Design in Astronomy and Radio Science Science, by Lazarus E. Kopilovich, Leonid G. Sodin Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0069-3, November 2001 Volume 267: The Nature of Unidentified Galactic High High--Energy Gamma Gamma--Ray Sources,, edited by Alberto Carramiñana, Olaf Reimer, David J. Thompson Sources Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0010-3, October 2001 Volume 266: Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy II II, edited by André Heck Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-7172-0, October 2001 Volume 265: Post Post--AGB Objects as a Phase of Stellar Evolution Evolution, edited by R. Szczerba, S.K. Górny Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-7145-3, July 2001 Volume 264: The Influence of Binaries on Stellar Stellar Population Studies, Studies edited by Dany Vanbeveren Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-7104-6, July 2001

Volume 262: Whistler Phenomena - Short Impulse Propagation Propagation, by Csaba Ferencz, Orsolya E. Ferencz, Dániel Hamar, János Lichtenberger Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-6995-5, June 2001 Volume 261: Collisional Processes in the Solar System, System edited by Mikhail Ya. Marov, Hans Rickman Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-6946-7, May 2001 Volume 260: Solar Cosmic Rays, Rays by Leonty I. Miroshnichenko Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-6928-9, May 2001

For further information about this book series we refer you to the following web site: www.springeronline.com To contact the Publishing Editor for new book proposals: Dr. Harry (J.J.) Blom: [email protected] Sonja japenga: [email protected]

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6 (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy

Asteroseismology (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Multiwavelength Cosmology (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Sirius Matters (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Sun and Space Weather (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

High Time Resolution Astrophysics (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Sun from Space, Second Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology: A Primer (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics

Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics

Water in the Universe (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Polarization in Spectral Lines (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Nonequilibrium Phenomena in Plasmas (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Polarization in Spectral Lines (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Interstellar Medium (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Dayside and Polar Cap Aurora (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Solar Neutrons and Related Phenomena (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astronomy and Astrophysics)

Astronomy and Astrophysics)

U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics

Astrophysics: A New Approach (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astrophysics: A New Approach, Second Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Tools of Radio Astronomy, Fifth Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Astronomy-inspired Atomic and Molecular Physics (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astrobiology: Future Perspectives (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Solar System Astrophysics: Background Science and the Inner Solar System (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy 6 (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy

Asteroseismology (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Multiwavelength Cosmology (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Sirius Matters (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Sun and Space Weather (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

High Time Resolution Astrophysics (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Sun from Space, Second Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology: A Primer (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics

Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics

Water in the Universe (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Polarization in Spectral Lines (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Nonequilibrium Phenomena in Plasmas (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Polarization in Spectral Lines (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

The Interstellar Medium (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Dayside and Polar Cap Aurora (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Solar Neutrons and Related Phenomena (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astronomy and Astrophysics)

Astronomy and Astrophysics)

U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics

Astrophysics: A New Approach (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astrophysics: A New Approach, Second Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Tools of Radio Astronomy, Fifth Edition (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Astronomy-inspired Atomic and Molecular Physics (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Astrobiology: Future Perspectives (Astrophysics and Space Science Library)

Solar System Astrophysics: Background Science and the Inner Solar System (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)

Recommend Documents