From: jcastner@isis.cs.du.edu (John Castner)
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Does anybody actually read these?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:30:40 GMT

In article <121988@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.150110.7927@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr7.001540.20151@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jcastner@isis.cs.du.edu (John Castner) writes:
>|> >   I was wondering if anyone else out there saw a need for a new
>|> >newsgroup, devoted to amateur astronomy, and containing primarily
>|> >the many discussions on telescopes and telescope making presently
>|> >found in this group.  I feel that as someone interested in astronomy,
>|> >...
>|> 
>|> Since amateur astronomy is a recreation activity, even when 'real' science is
>|> being done (its still fun) how about:
>|> 
>|> rec.astro

I had thought of this, but I felt that such a severe move might throw
some people off, and not know where to find the group.  I also felt
that such a suggestion might elicit flames from those who would
say that "'real' science" (to quote the above poster) is being done
by amateurs.  But, if this new group was to go under rec.*, I would
suggest rec.amateur.astro, to fit with established hierarchy.

>I don't think that an amateur/pro division of the group, whatever the
>names, would work very well.  Too much of the traffic here does not
>clearly fall into one category or the other.  Consider the "Save
>Palomar Observatory" thread---is this an amateur or a professional
>issue (and who's supposed to write all the letters)?  What about the Nova
>Cygni thread, or announcements of other recent discoveries?  Since
>the professionals presumably hear about such things through other
>channels, couldn't essentially all of the material here be considered
>amateur-based?

Good point.  The exact split that I originally suggested would prob.
require(?) way too much cross-posting to both groups and cost lots
of that money that so many people flame about :-)  .

>On the other hand, the idea of a split is not without merit.  This is the
>biggest single group I currently read.  I just don't think the amateur/pro
>dividing line is clear enough to adequately distinguish between subgroups.
>
>Here are some suggestions for possible subgroups that would not be quite
>so ambiguous.  I'm not pushing for any of these, just tossing them out
>as alternatives.
>
>sci.astro.equipment:  Emphasis on amateur equipment.  This would take
>  all that material on telescopes that Castner does not want to read.
>
>sci.astro.observing:  This would be the group for amateurs who are not
>  equipment freaks.  Could be the appropriate group for posting
>  ephemerides, aurora warnings, observation reports.  I would hope,
>  however, that it would not encourage more of the "Me too!  I saw it
>  too!" type of content-free notes we were deluged with after the big
>  eclipse and, to a lesser extent, just after the nova was announced.

Should these two be combined?  Personally, I see the difference, and
would not subscribe to the first while I would most definitely
watch the second, but I'm wondering if each is worth its own group
right now.  However, if this were a vote, I would vote for this
(I just like playing devil's advocate  :-).

>sci.astro.news:  Similar to sci.space.news, featuring material like the
>  space probe updates, solar wind forecasts, etc.
>
>sci.astro.research:  This would be modelled after such groups as
>  sci.math.research, comp.graphics.research, etc.  These groups are
>  professional and moderated to keep out the riff-raff.  Tom Van
>  Flandern's material on cosmology might go here.  I don't think
>  there's enough real professional correspondence going though
>  sci.astro yet to justify such a group, though.

Barely true, but mightn't such a split change that?  My desire to see
more of these sorts of discussions is what motivated my original
post.  And s.a.news (which should also be moderated, IMHO) could
be joined with it.

>sci.astro.computing:  Discussions of software, pictures, raw data, etc.
>
>sci.astro.planets (sci.astro.solar_system?):  These were brought up a
>  few weeks ago and apparently sank without a trace.

Would either of these have the traffic necessary, after the others were
made?  And considering the current professional groups, hotlines, etc.
for discussing astro. computing?
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|jcastner@nyx.cs.du.edu |Alas, the thirsty freshman/He isn't so anymore       |
|johncr@idsvax.ids.com  |For what he thought was H20/Was H2SO4.               |
|ugpejc0746%mtvms2.dnet@terra.oscs.montana.edu  (home account)                |
Newsgroups: sci.astro