Secret Observation Programs

[psychegram]

I recently went up to a major astronomical observatory (I'm not going to say which one) in order to collect data for my thesis project. While I was there I overheard something rather interesting, which may be of interest to the forum.

First, it's necessary to understand how astronomical data is typically collected and released. Very few astronomers these days actually go to the telescopes themselves to collect their data (what we've taken to calling 'visitor mode'). Instead, in the interests of efficient use of telescope time, observations are preprogrammed (coordinates, exposure times, etc.) via the web, and on-site astronomers or telescope operators then execute these 'observation blocks'. Typically, the astronomers have some idea of what it is they're observing. Once the data has been collected, it is released onto a publicly searchable archive; typically there is a proprietary period of a year or two, during which only the Principal Investigator can download the data, however anyone who wishes can see what other astronomers have been observing. This is so astronomers don't get 'scooped' by competitors looking to use data from their observing programs.

However, it turns out that it is not always so straightforward. A colleague related to me how, some time ago, he applied for observing time and was rejected because one of his targets overlapped with those of another group that happened to be on a secret list. This list of targets was so secretive that the service astronomers had no idea what they were observing, when the data was being collected; and furthermore, the data would not appear on the public archive at all.

The target in question? A nearby red dwarf star.

So what kind of observations could require this level of secrecy? It was definitely something that made me go 'hmmmm'.

 

[mkrnhr]

Interresting. From what I observed in a few observatories, they manage to have telescope operators who are so ridiculously focused on the technical aspects (pushing buttons) that they do not understand/do not want to understand what they are observing. The visiting astronomer would tell them to point a certain coordinate, and they push the buttons. That's how one explained his job to me. What is noteworthy is not that they have secret lists, it is mostly that they can refuse you observation times according to your targets.

 

[Eboard10]

That is very telling psychegram.

However, it turns out that it is not always so straightforward. A colleague related to me how, some time ago, he applied for observing time and was rejected because one of his targets overlapped with those of another group that happened to be on a secret list.

When you say that your colleague's target overlapped with that of the other group was he talking about an overlap of coordinates? If so, does that basically mean that a group can restrict access to a whole section of the universe? Not sure if my last question makes sense as I'm not familiar with how astronomical observation works.

This list of targets was so secretive that the service astronomers had no idea what they were observing, when the data was being collected; and furthermore, the data would not appear on the public archive at all.

The target in question? A nearby red dwarf star.

But they still knew they were looking for a red dwarf, or was that only one of several targets?

 

[psychegram]

Interresting. From what I observed in a few observatories, they manage to have telescope operators who are so ridiculously focused on the technical aspects (pushing buttons) that they do not understand/do not want to understand what they are observing. The visiting astronomer would tell them to point a certain coordinate, and they push the buttons. That's how one explained his job to me. What is noteworthy is not that they have secret lists, it is mostly that they can refuse you observation times according to your targets.

Absolutely. I was only there a week, and managed to keep my curiosity turned on throughout. I can easily imagine, however, that if it were a full-time job I would eventually stop caring what I was looking at ... one blob of light on the screen is much like another.

 

[psychegram]

That is very telling psychegram.

However, it turns out that it is not always so straightforward. A colleague related to me how, some time ago, he applied for observing time and was rejected because one of his targets overlapped with those of another group that happened to be on a secret list.

When you say that your colleague's target overlapped with that of the other group was he talking about an overlap of coordinates? If so, does that basically mean that a group can restrict access to a whole section of the universe? Not sure if my last question makes sense as I'm not familiar with how astronomical observation works.

This list of targets was so secretive that the service astronomers had no idea what they were observing, when the data was being collected; and furthermore, the data would not appear on the public archive at all.

The target in question? A nearby red dwarf star.

But they still knew they were looking for a red dwarf, or was that only one of several targets?

The star he wanted to look at was a red dwarf, and the same star appeared on the 'secret list'. He was basically told in confidence that this secretive program was why he couldn't look at the star ... my guess is that not only is no one else allowed to know what they're looking at, but on the off chance they try to look at the same thing, they aren't even allowed to look at it. Obviously, he has no idea what their program's other targets are. Anyhow the whole thing struck me as immensely messed up ... and also, as you say, very telling. While this isn't necessarily the 'Nemesis program', the existence of such secretive projects suggests a Nemesis search could very well be conducted entirely without the larger astronomical community knowing about it.

 

[Voyageur]

What is noteworthy is not that they have secret lists, it is mostly that they can refuse you observation times according to your targets.

Trying to understand this, those wanting to use a site buy/rent telescopic time? So whatever the target reference coordinates are that is conveyed to the operator of the site; i assume they run it down a list, are paid for? Its amazing that they would have such and such coordinates, in a sense, red flagged - how unscientific or secretive.

I've often thought that many of the great discoveries were made by so called "backyard" observations, as opposed to dedicated sites, although the optics dictate the later as being most advantageous; distance wise.

 

[Archaea]

This discussion reminded me of this snippet which I thought I'd add just for reference. From Session 13 Feb 2011

(Ark) Okay, so let me ask a further question: Why thousands of astronomers, professionals and amateurs, are not seeing the planetary orbits changing?

A: These changes are miniscule but significant nonetheless. The instruments that are capable of measuring are tightly controlled.

 

[mkrnhr]

In order to better understand how the telescope time may be used to filter inquiry, a good summary is given here: _http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf starting at page 16 (subtitle "Telescope time").

 

[Voyageur]

In order to better understand how the telescope time may be used to filter inquiry, a good summary is given here: _http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf starting at page 16 (subtitle "Telescope time").

From what i've just scanned from the pdf, I see what you are getting at and how observational telescopic time can be refused (a lot of reasons and controls) - Thanks.

 

[Eboard10]

In order to better understand how the telescope time may be used to filter inquiry, a good summary is given here: _http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf starting at page 16 (subtitle "Telescope time").

From what i've just scanned from the pdf, I see what you are getting at and how observational telescopic time can be refused (a lot of reasons and controls) - Thanks.

Yes thank you mkrnhr for the link. The author of the paper does a good job in outlining how observational time is awarded based on reputation and the number of times one has already used the telescope, i.e. the more you have, the more you get. It's also frustrating to read that telescope time is very often denied to those who seek data for new ideas and for predicting alternative theories, and then there's always the financing factor (money talks).

Here are a couple of excerpts I thought I would add:

_http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf

The system has a set of modern patched theories, like those of Aristotle-Ptolomeus, and it is afraid of the loss of its privileged status. Galileo had to fight hard against the mainstream in his time, and the passage of history has, in many respects, changed little. In fact, it seems that nothing changes. It is pitiful that nowadays propaganda sells us the idea of freedom that is so far away from the circumstances of four or five centuries ago, yet we really live with the same dogs, although in different collars.

The system really invites being left alone. I am actually convinced that if somebody wants to make something important—here, again, I remark that this is not only applicable to the sciences but, in general, to any human Mafia with the name of ‘culture’—it must be done away from officialdom, and perhaps in free time and laborious study by oneself. The problem for the sciences with this position is thence the precarious or even nullified possibilities available to thus observe or make experiments, not to mention the bad reputation associated with free-thinking occurring away from the official institutions. Since the expenses for the necessary materials are very high, the possibility of doing high-level empirical research from the periphery, in any field, is practically nought. The only possibility is pure theory/speculation, or perhaps feeding of empirical data produced by other scientists which is, in fact, quite frequent.

 

[psychegram]

In order to better understand how the telescope time may be used to filter inquiry, a good summary is given here: _http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf starting at page 16 (subtitle "Telescope time").

Thank you for sharing that, mkrnhr. It took me some time to get through it, given the length of the document, but I must Dr. Corredoira's criticisms of the current state of astrophysics certainly resonate with my own experience and observations. All part of the corruption of science.

I've discussed these kinds of things informally with many of my friends and colleagues in the profession. Interestingly, very few of them are as cynical as Dr. Corredoira or me. While generally all too aware of the virtually total corruption of the life sciences, their attitude is that, well, there's money in those sciences, so of course they are compromised, but no one does astronomy out of a desire to get rich, so with no money to be made beyond whatever modest salary one might command as a professor or a permanent staff member at a research institute, there is no motive for corruption. Thus, they think, we are safe, and doing good science. And anyhow, even if we do on occasion produce somewhat shoddy work, the worst that can happen is some minor embarrassment for the researchers involved.

There is certainly some truth to this point of view, but it leaves out a great deal. For instance, while perhaps we are not in danger of being corrupted by money, it is all too easy to become intoxicated by one's reputation or prestige, and the power it commands ... not just or even primarily within the profession, either: introducing oneself as an astronomer elicits a reaction from most people that can really go to one's head. Then there is the subtle, society-wide corrupting influence that creeps in when our cosmology does not match reality ... we run the danger of unwittingly reinforcing our culture's worst tendencies by reifying certain notions as fundamental properties of the universe (for instance, is the Big Bang and the endless and accelerating expansion of the universe not suspiciously similar to our notions of progress, economic growth, etc.?) And finally, there is the very real, very present danger to all humanity when we continually downplay the frequency and severity of cometary bombardment throughout the history of our world.