The Hubble Amateur Program
- A Participant's Journal -
What would you observe with a telescope that orbits 610 kilometers above the surface of the Earth? American amateur astronomers encountered this question during the late 1980's. The best answers won them research time in an amateur competition for use of the Hubble Space telescope (HST). The finalists completed thirteen different amateur research programs by the time the HST Amateur Program ended in 1997. Although the program was a highpoint for amateur astronomy, the greatest value of amateurs was to serve as NASA Public Relations Ambassadors for a telescope ridiculed by the media.
Dr. Riccardo Giacconi, Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, developed the Amateur HST Program. In the formative days of the HST and the Space Telescope Science Institute, Congress, NASA, and Dr. Giacconi were intent on finding ways in which amateur astronomers could participate in the Space Telescope project, and in the new era of astronomical research that might result.
On August 7, 1986, during the national convention of the Astronomical League (AL) in Baltimore, Giacconi offered amateurs a fraction of his discretionary observing time as a reward for their contributions to astronomy.
He explained that amateur astronomers had helped professional astronomy by finding comets, observing variable stars, and doing other tasks that the professional community had no time for. "I expect," concluded Giacconi, "that amateur astronomers will use the Hubble Space Telescope to ask refreshingly new questions and that their findings will make a real contribution to the advancement of astronomy."
The rules of the competition were simple. Amateur entries had four requirements. These were:
THE RULES
1. To submit a simple, but imaginative, ESSAY outlining how they would use the orbiting telescope. The proposal had to involve something that could not be done with ground-based instruments. Two advantages of the HST were the higher definition over ground-based telescopes, and the HST's ability to observe in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.
2. You had to be a CITIZEN of the United States.
3. You had to have AMATEUR STATUS. This simply meant that you could not have a Master's degree, or higher, in a space-related field.
4. The fourth requirement was that finalists had to attempt to PUBLISH their RESULTS in a scientific journal.
Administration of the selection process was handled by the Amateur Astronomers Working Group (AAWG). This was a committee of seven representatives from leading American amateur organizations. The AAWG gave the program the same type of peer-review process used by professional astronomers. These seven representatives screened the proposals, and sent a small group of recommendations for finalists to the STScI for technical feasibility studies. After that, Dr. Giacconi selected the final list of amateurs.
Finalists flew to the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore to confer with scientists, and to finalize details of their observations. STScI scientists assisted the amateur astronomers with the data analysis following the observing run. Amateur astronomers had exclusive rights to their data for a period of one year, as did professional astronomers.
The first Amateur competition (Cycle One) took place before the launch of the HST. The AAWG notified the finalists in July of 1989 of their selection. Out of 500 amateurs who sent nearly 200 proposals to AAWG, only five became finalists. Cycle One was the first group of amateur astronomers to use the space telescope. Their proposals totaled 17 hours of spacecraft observing time. This accounted for about one percent of the HST time granted to the professional community.
STScI
The CYCLE ONE amateurs were the following:
JAMES J. SECOSKY - a middle school science teacher in upstate New York. Secosky proposed to study the Jovian moon IO for possible frost during post-eclipse brightening. This proposal used the HST's Wide-field Planetary camera (WF/PC) to image the moon as it emerged from behind the disk of Jupiter.
RAYMOND E. STERNER - a mathematician from Woodbine, Maryland. Sterner proposed to study a mysterious luminescent arc with the WF/PC to determine whether it represented a gravitational-lens mirage, or massive stars that formed along the shock wave generated during the collision of two galaxies.
PETER J. KANDEFER - an electrical engineer from Connecticut. Kandefer proposed to study the magnetic field of the star Epsilon Ursae Majoris by using both the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS), and the High Speed Photometer (HSP).
JOHN HEWITT - an electronics technician from Berkeley, California. Hewitt proposed to use the HST's WF/PC to search for Oort-type comets around the outburst of a bright galactic nova.
ANA M. LARSON - a homemaker and student from Seattle, Washington. Larson proposed using the WF/PC to search for proto-planets around star-forming regions in the constellations Taurus and Auriga.
Of the five proposals, Ana Larson was the only finalist unable to complete observations. The launch of the HST revealed a flaw in the telescope optics. Without the required high resolution, Larson was unable to complete her program of study. By the time the optical problem was resolved, she no longer qualified as an amateur. She was well on her way to obtaining a PhD.
Before the finalists of the first cycle had a chance to use the HST, plans were already underway to hold a second competition (Cycle Two). This time, the AAWG replaced the simplified format of the first competition with the standard, detailed proposal forms which all professionals used. Applicants provided information on specific goals of their project, did a literature search on their subject, discussed the technical feasibility of their program, plus gave a detailed explanation of how they proposed to collect data with the HST. The program was becoming too technical for many in the amateur community. This was reflected by the decreasing number who sent in proposals.
With the optical problems of the HST drawing bad publicity, the AAWG decided to open the competition to as many amateurs as possible. These finalists were to return to their home areas, and serve as public relations ambassadors. As a result, the second competition was composed of a number of teams. AAWG selected five additional proposals, but these involved ten amateurs. The CYCLE TWO amateurs were the following:
HARALD SCHENK - civil engineering technician from Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and co-investigator JAMES SECOSKY, who had been a finalist in the first competition. Both amateurs sent in proposals to study asteroids with the FOS for OH emission. The existence of volatiles would reveal possible comet-asteroid relationships.
BENJAMIN P. WEISS - college student from Amherst, Massachusetts, and co-investigators WINSLOW BURLESON and RUKIMINI SICHITUI. All three had met at an astronomy Summer camp, and wanted to search for possible binary asteroids with the WF/PC.
GEORGE LEWYCKY - computer programmer from Milltown, New York. He proposed using the GHRS to search Titan's atmosphere for formaldehyde.
KARL J. HRICKO - high school physics teacher from Carteret, New Jersey, and co-investigators LEWIS THOMAS and JOSEPH MITTERANDO. Thomas was a college teacher and Mitterando a high school student. They proposed to use the HST's WF/PC to study the nature of an apparent "bridge" between a galaxy and a quasar. Their results would have implications for red-shift studies.
NANCY K. COX - nurse from San Francisco, California. Cox was hoping to find young, hot stars forming in the Lagoon nebula by using the FOS, and later use the WF/PC to search for stellar filaments.
.JPG)
AAWG notified the finalists in the Cycle Two competition of their selection in July of 1992, and flew them to the STScI in Baltimore for an orientation session in October of that year.
It was the last amateur competition for Dr. Giacconi. On June 8th, he announced his resignation, and his plan to leave STScI by the end of 1992. Giacconi accepted a position at the European Southern Observatory in Chili.
The new director of STScI, Robert Williams, faced impending budget cuts. Resulting staff reductions had a tragic impact on the amateur program.
Dr. Giacconi meeting with the Cycle Two amateurs.
Cycle Two amateurs met in Baltimore during October of 1992. Shown in photo are (left to right) James Secosky, Harald Schenk, Nancy Cox, Dana Berry from STScI (in back), Winslow Burleson (seated), Rukmini Sichitiu, Benjamin Weiss, George Lewycky (seated), Karl Hricko, Lewis Thomas, and Ray Villard from STScI. (Missing is Joseph Mitterando)
During the October orientation, the Cycle Two amateurs met with their technical advisors, decided on what instruments and filters to use, calculated exposure times, estimated the best time for the observation to take place, and programmed this information into the master computer. This device evaluated all information, and notified observers on the actual date for the observation to take place.
The Principal Investigator (PI) of each selected proposal was assigned a DATA ANALYST, plus a TECHNICAL ADVISOR to help with the observing program. These people were invaluable in helping the amateurs complete their studies.
During these talks, we learned that the HST had to be used within a short time. The asteroids in question were about to reach inaccessible positions. In the case of the three main-belt asteroids (182 Elsa, 224 Oceana, and 899 Jokaste), the best time to study them was at opposition. This is when they come closest to Earth. It is also a time when the Sun appears in the opposite direction. The HST is not allowed to point near any bright object. This includes the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth. The intense light would damage the detectors on board, and make the expensive telescope useless in orbit.
For the asteroids 944 Hidalgo, and 2201 Oljato, the best time to study them is shortly after they have passed PERIHELION. This is the closest point to the Sun. The heat from our nearest star may have liberated volatiles on the surface of the asteroid.
944 Hidalgo has a highly elliptical orbit with a perihelion near the vicinity of the asteroid belt, and aphelion near the orbit of the planet Saturn. At the time of our orientation, it was already crossing the orbit of Jupiter - and heading outward.
2201 Oljato travels between the orbit of Venus, and the asteroid belt. It was about to reach a point too close to the Sun. It was also near aphelion. The signal to noise ratio would make it a difficult object to observe.
For these reasons, the master computer selected our first observation window for February 24th, 1993. The observing session would include TWO targets back to back. The asteroid 944 Hidalgo would be observed first. It would be followed by 224 Oceana.
On December 13th, 1923, the astronomer J. Comas Sola had observed the asteroid 224 Oceana with a comet-like coma. The asteroid photographed with a faint halo 30 arc-seconds across. The asteroid's magnitude was determined to be 11.6, and at the asteroid's heliocentric distance of 167 million miles, this made the coma about 24,000 miles across. Had the asteroid been struck by some object? Or had some supply of volatiles been uncovered which produced out-gassing? Comas Sola notified the astronomical community. By the time the weather cleared, it had returned to a star-like appearance. Whatever happened on Oceana was a mystery.
By the time I made my first use of the HST, budget cutbacks by Congress had eliminated the night shift at STScI. Both 944 Hidalgo, and 224 Oceana were scheduled to be studied during the early morning hours.
Would the telescope be able to find such a small object based on instructions alone? When I arrived at the doors of STScI in the morning, I was eager to check the results. The main computer had moved the HST within one arc-second of the target.
This was the FIRST ultraviolet spectrum of an asteroid ever made with the HST. The targeting of 224 Oceana also went well. I was pleased. Due to the way data is collected from the space telescope, and transmitted to earth, it usually takes 48 hours to receive the calibrated results. It would take that long before I could analyze it with the special software provided by STScI.
Spectrum of asteroid 224 Oceana
By June 17th, 1993, James Secosky had a chance to use the HST to study asteroid 2201 Oljato. He had become the first amateur to use the HST during his observations of Jupiter's moon IO on April 20, 1992. Now he was about to become the first amateur to use the telescope for two separate programs.
The amateurs of the Cycle Two competition had one constraint that the members of the first did not. All of their observations had to be completed before the first HST repair mission. This was scheduled to take place by the end of 1993. It presented problems for some of the scheduled observations.
Since the AAWG wanted to generate amateur enthusiasm in the program, I decided to invite other amateur astronomers to make ground-based observations of the brightest targets while the HST was used to make space-based studies. The three brightest of the five asteroids were main-belt objects. Their magnitudes range from 11th for Elsa, to 14th for Jokaste. Oceana was in between with 12th.
Invitations for amateur observers appeared in the magazines SKY & TELESCOPE, ASTRONOMY, and in various newsletters. By the time that the last two HST observations took place, 80 ground-based amateurs, located in 22 different countries, and in 20 states of the US had indicated a desire to help. Ground-based observers for asteroids Elsa and Jokaste observed for a possible residual dust coma by using photography, CCD equipment, video cameras, or simply naked-eye observations through telescopes.
By mid-1993, the space telescope was suffering from a number of problems. Gyroscopes were starting to fail, and one of the solar panels had a power loss. STScI asked observers to keep quiet about some of these items. The telescope was under enough criticism. The loss of power had the greatest effect on observations. Scientists at STScI notified observers that the HST would not be able to make observations within 15 degrees of the anti-solar point. The remaining solar panel would not be able to supply enough power in that case. The change meant that the main-belt asteroids could not be observed at opposition - when the Earth is located between the asteroid and the Sun. The observations would have to occur either before, or after, that alignment.
The HST observed the minor planet 899 Jokaste on Saturday, October 23, 1993. Asteroid 182 Elsa was observed on Thursday, November 4th. It was the brightest of the five asteroids, and it marked the end of this observing program. The scientists at STScI were about to prepare for the repair mission.
The word from the new director at STScI was that the amateur program would become an annual affair, with the deadline of proposals in April of each year. Furthermore, the next amateur competition in April of 1994 would be the first time that foreign amateurs could enter the program. They would be required to collaborate with an amateur astronomer who was a US citizen, who would be the Principal Investigator (P.I.). AAWG made one other change to the program. Select professional astronomers were complaining about amateurs taking up valuable time on the HST, and intruding on their research programs. As a result, amateur proposals could not duplicate anything that was currently being done by a professional astronomer. Due to the expected delays from the repair mission, the next competition was called Cycle Four. Cycle Three was skipped altogether.
After the HST repair mission, the space telescope was able to deliver the predicted resolution to scientists. COSTAR involved a set of mirrors that corrected the optical path to the various instruments. As a result, astronomers made stunning images of the heavens. Research with the refurbished HST promised to take scientists to new levels of understanding.
The U.S. Congress felt otherwise. While acknowledging the stunning images being released on a daily basis, members of Congress cut the very budget needed to produce and analyze the HST results. For STScI, this meant further reductions in staff. The people who had given their time to help amateurs prepare and analyze results had either moved to other jobs, or were now too busy to keep up with the workload. This was one of the reasons why the Cycle Four competition resulted in the selection of only two amateur proposals. A second reason was the lack of adequate proposals by the amateur community. Interest in the HST was high, but few amateurs wanted to go through the process of submitting a proposal.
Finalists for CYCLE FOUR were:
WILLIAM R. ALEXANDER - chemist from Huntington, West Virginia. Alexander wanted to use the GHRS to try to measure the abundance of deuterium left over from the Big Bang in the local interstellar medium.
R. DENNIS TYE - computer programmer from San Francisco, California. Tye proposed using the FOS to study a possible link between a galaxy and a quasar. This proposal was similar to one in Cycle Two, but it focused on two different objects and used a different instrument on the HST.
By 1997, AAWG dropped the plan to schedule a competition on a yearly basis. Another repair mission in 1997 eliminated the Cycle Five competition. The final competition was Cycle Six. It resulted in one proposal selection. The finalist for CYCLE SIX was:
JAMES P. FLOOD - chemist in Scott Plains, New Jersey. Flood wanted to use the new Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) to image the core of a galaxy in the constellation Columba. Studies of this Southern Hemisphere object might reveal the nature of unique "hot spots" residing there.
In retrospect, how can we rate the amateur program? The HST Amateur Program was a unique experience for amateur astronomers. Most amateurs did not have the necessary background to perform analysis of the data. In all cases, the staff of STScI had to guide the finalists along each step of the way. But this was also an educational experience.
The opportunity of using the HST carried with it a special responsibility. It was to communicate to students, colleagues and friends, and the public, the meaning, excitement, method, and spirit of this amateur scientific enterprise, and of the HST mission. As a public relations tool, the HST Amateur Program was a resounding success.
For a look at our CYCLE TWO results paper, please click this link: RESULTS
For comments, or questions, please contact the author at: harald.schenk@uwc.edu