[TDA_announce] TDA in IAU

[Robert J. Hanisch]

On 4/25/15, 1:29 AM, "Griffin, Elizabeth"
<Elizabeth.Griffin at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:

>Dear Everyone,
>
>It is surely good that we are reaching some sort of consensus, but -
>Please!  Let's wait a little before making the move that Bob Hanisch
>seems already to have cemented (he said "done" in respect of inviting a
>new WG for TDA within the revamped C5).

Perhaps I should have said ³consider it done², at least if those of you in
TDA want it.  I would also run it by the Comm. 5 Organizing Committee, but
I cannot imagine any objections.
>
>While it is good to make some sort of decision to replace the uncertainty
>of the past week, I believe we should reflect more closely on what a WG
>within Data & Documentation means.  Even if we hang it there simply
>because that is a convenient peg, it will be harder to shift it in the
>future because it will have become understood as a matter of data rather
>than a matter of astrophysics/science.   As Virginia says, Div G could be
>equally amenable to having a focus on TDA somewhere within it.
>Education and Outreach might too, since amateurs have been heavily
>involved in TDA observations (e.g., the AAVSO) and interpretations.
>Asteroseismology is at least as much data-centric, and one could argue
>that it is even more so, and that is in Div G.  In fact, I believe just
>about every Commission could set up a valuable WG for TDA.
>
>So maybe this is another option to consider - a network of WGs on TDA,
>one per Division.  The one within Div B would be geared towards
>technologis, purpose-built instrumentation (LSST, FTP, DASCH, etc)  and
>message systems.   Div E (Sun & Heliosphere) would report on things like
>variations in the solar constant, sunspot counts, solar weather,
>ionosphere interactions.  The new Commission on Binary Stars is led by
>Andrej Prsa, who is an asteroseismology expert, and TDA could sit quite
>happily there.  Winds from massive stars, interstellar scintillation,
>extrasolar planets - the list goes on - all depend at their basic level
>on time-series of data.  In every instance, new science has been made
>possible even by just grouping existing data; it is the Science, not the
>Data, which is the attraction, and the goal.  The Commission which we
>hope to apply for in 2018 will then have, at its core, a linking-up of
>the various TDA WGs.

It seems a bit unwieldy to me to create so many WGs, but that¹s really up
to you all.

Bob

>
>The IAU mentality has not progressed beyond the silo approach of the last
>century, when we had radial-velocities here, laboratory astrophysics
>there (as if the two didn't need to interact with anyone or anything
>else!), radio astronomy in a different place as it talks in frequencies,
>not wavelengths.  There were doubts expressed over the plans for IAU S285
>(New Horizons in TDA, 2011) to the effect that it was too ambitious, and
>it would not work to mix such vastly different expertise and interests.
>Those who attended found quite the converse - that being obliged to get
>outside the respective silo and mix was enlightening and enriching.  The
>IAU EC should have attended.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Elizabeth
> the IAU 
>________________________________________
>From: TDA_announce [tda_announce-bounces at timedomainastronomy.net] On
>Behalf Of Virginia Trimble [vtrimble at astro.umd.edu]
>Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 5:11 PM
>To: tda_announce at timedomainastronomy.net
>Subject: [TDA_announce] TDA in IAU
>
>Despite the recent bad luck (poor decisions?) I would favor "staying in"
>with WG  as suggested.  Additional WGs could eventually be put together
>in other divisions (I think G would be amenable) and work-group together.
>Virginia Trimble
>_______________________________________________
>TDA_announce mailing list
>TDA_announce at timedomainastronomy.net
>https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/tda_announce
>_______________________________________________
>TDA_announce mailing list
>TDA_announce at timedomainastronomy.net
>https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/tda_announce