[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) Shower Rates



I think Jim raises the very valid point that data-collection and public education are BOTH worthy goals for meteor organizations. There is not any serious doubt in most (non-radio) meteor observers' minds that the IMO and affiliated groups serve the former purpose best with their current organization and techniques. The IMO is an organization whose only focus is on collecting amateur observations, and organizing and analyzing them for real meteor science, and no other organizations can claim this exclusive focus.

However, it really isn't a part of IMO's charter to further public education (beyond the training of a dedicated elite of amateur meteor observers). And you'd have a tough time convincing me that IMO comes even CLOSE to reaching out to the public - even "Sky and Telescope" rarely uses (and then seems like it frequently misquotes) IMO material. So this latter purpose (which in the long run is just as important to meteor science as our observations are), must fall to someone else. The only organization which is currently standing up and INDICATING a willingness to educate the public about meteorics is the A.M.S. Some may argue that they have largely failed to do this in recent years (and in fact I'd agree with you). But then, as Jim Richardson says, the best way to solve that problem is by joining in and taking charge!

(And coincidentally, Jim, there are existing meteor organizations whose charter falls in between these two goals - such as the NAMN. These organizations could benefit from teaming up with A.M.S. for education, but A.M.S. could ALSO <emphasis> benefit from teaming up with them... It really is a two-way street.)

Just my $0.02,
Lew

===============================================================================
Karen Simmons & Lew Gramer lewkaren@tiacdot net http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren
===============================================================================