[sac-board] Re: Herschel II Proposal

I think the idea of SAC "joining AL" just for the awards program is not 
a good one, IMHO.
There are a number of downsides to the concept, mainly concerning the 
costs (for the entire club to joint), and a very small payback for the 
members.
Unfortunately, most of our members are not interested in attending the 
national conventions put on by AL, and that eliminates most, if not all 
of the benefits of belonging.  Yes, there is a small "national" 
newsletter, which over the years has been minimal for the cost, and of 
very little interest.
(You may not know that that I was an active member of AL back in the 
1960 and 70s, and that I have kept track of their activities....)
This subject has been thoroughly discussed several times in the past, 
but perhaps it is time -- once again -- to have the board drag it out 
and go over the costs and so forth.  My opinion -- as just one member -- 
is that the benefits are simply not there for the majority of our 
members, considering their interests and our club's abilities to 
organize our own activities.  I am sorry to have to say it that way.
We are one of the most active clubs in the known universe that is a 
"hold-out" on this.
I will be happy to share (privately) my own opinions and knowledge about 
this issue with any SAC members who care to listen.
Otherwise, I will leave it to the board to discuss it and then -- if 
felt desirable -- to present it to the membership.

As far as the AL awards programs go -- an >individual< may become an AL 
member-at-large at any time, and participate. I suggest that information 
be provided to anyone who is not familiar with the AL programs.  It is 
not necessary for the entire club to join.

We have our own strong observing awards program(s), begun right after at 
the start of the club (1977) and which have generated a large no. of 
participants. I hope to see that continued.  I believe that if we have 
several members nearing the completion of the Herschel II observing 
program, then we should design an appropriate award.  The issue of what 
objects, etc. is merely a technical one.  The AL is not going to be 
offended if we design our own club program!

For what it is worth.... William Herschel observed over 2,500 objects in 
total in the northern sky, from England.  His son, John, re-examined 
that entire list in the north, then moved their jointly-constructed "20 
ft" reflector (an 18 inch alt-az telescope) to (present-day) South 
Africa and extended his own observations over the entire southern sky.  
(The completed observations constituted the original basis for the 
present NGC.)  He was thus one of the few observers to accomplish such a 
feat!  And with a single telescope. (The "20 ft" OTA and one of the 
three metal speculum mirrors is now presently on display at the 
Smithsonian in Washington, DC.)  In point of fact, there are at least 3 
or 4 separate "sets" of objects constituting a "Herschel 400", depending 
upon what "authority" you wish to consider --  the AL, Rose City 
Astronomers (Portland, OR), the Norwegian list (for those who can't view 
all the most southern objects), a list made up from Norton's Star Atlas, 
and one or two lists of southern objects only.  Oh, and SAC's lists.  
All of these differ slightly in content.

Good luck to all who have the fortitude and persistence to see such a 
program through.

Cheers, and hopefully, dark skies!
Gene Lucas
(17250)
Jack Jones wrote:
> There are a few, myself among them. I'm about halfway there after about 
> oh 8 yrs off and on, and don't know if it will be completed in my 
> lifetime (esp how the weather has been going :-). The Herschel II are 
> faint really obscure objects mostly and anyone trying them good luck and 
> happy observing! I think rather than add a Saguaro Herschel II list, why 
> don't we just join AL? They have added many new lists in the past few years.
>
> It may be better and simpler to just ignore the H II as we do the Beyond 
> The NGC list (H II and any other lists that come along, like Arp, 
> Hickson, etc etc) and cut off the 1000 list with the Herschel 400 as we 
> have it now. What I mean is keep it like it is, a classic, and 1000 
> Beyond means 1000 beyond the Herschel 400. What a pain for you to check 
> 400 more objects to not be on the 1000 list, plus doesn't that make it 
> harder for anyone starting the 1000 list now? Of course, this is only 
> going to affect a few people.
>
> Jack
>
> AJ Crayon wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm not sure if any SAC members are working on the 1000 list.
>>
>> AJ Crayon
>> Phoenix, AZ
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: