Running syndicates for "New" piers moving forward - Australia & Chile etc

Hello Steve,
what's wrong with the current system? I would like to keep it as it is. I see problems with your proposed changes.

Regarding ideas 1 & 2: I don't like the fact that you can only submit one or two jobs per month. This would restrict large mosaics, for example. It could also be that you have to submit several jobs for one object due to bad weather.

With idea 3, I see a problem with the voting system. As I understand it, jobs are only entered into the queue if the majority of all members have voted for them. This could lead to some members not being able to photograph the objects they would like to. For example, if the Pleiades are photographed two months ago. Then a new member joins the syndicate and wants to include the Pleiades. The majority of members will not vote in favor because this object has been photographed before.
This could also reduce the satisfaction of the new members.

CS

Darius

The primary issue that we face by keeping the syndicates to the style we currently have, is that members of the syndicates are not engaging with each other and that leads to members just relying on what other members add to the queue, if they add anything at all.

I have pulled the stats for all syndicate piers from 2022 and 2023 respectively, and it’s quite apparent that some members aren’t taking their time to add anything to the queues to begin with. We won’t be publishing the stats, but needless to say there could be more time spent by all members to interact and discuss possible objects.

Of course, this new system we are looking to implement will only affect the new syndicates going into Chile and Australia, so won’t affect the Spain syndicates at this time – we just need feedback from all of you so that we can decide a way forward.

At the end of the day, no matter what is decided, it is for you the member to decide for yourselves what it is that you actually want to get out of it. So ask yourself this..

Do I want to image the same stuff that everybody else does, multiple times per year?

Do I want to just sit idle and accept any data coming to me because someone else chose it?

Do I want to keep spending time doing huge mosaics?

Or

Would I rather allow the ‘new’ syndicates to be operated semi managed to ensure that I can maximise the data output of it knowing it will have objects from all regions of space that the telescope’s capable of?

--

I myself propose that Roboscopes take a more direct hands-on approach to the running of the syndicates by selecting 20-25 objects per quarter, with a quarterly post on the forum or Discord to let users know what weird and wonderful objects have been input to the pier.

This will mean we can gain the maximum output from the pier as it will be using multiple areas of the sky and also accounting for the moon as we can image away from it. It would also mean that we attain a fair amount of data for each object too

Personally, I would allow each user to then submit 2 of their own objects per month with a maximum duration of 5-10 hours each – this can always be changed to allow more once we have a better idea of what’s capable.

You can still always message your own suggestions in the syndicate discussions that could be looked at being added to the pier by us.

--

From my perspective, if you haven’t put a lot of input into the pier to begin with, then I see no reason for you to be against any idea of us helping to manage the objects to try and maximise the results for you.

Once again, this is about the new syndicates, and not the current ones.

However, I would not be against a trial of this across the current syndicate piers for 3 months if members would like to try it out

Steve,

Very sensible to start talking about things now. Not just your usual can of worms though more like a barrel full.

Thanks Darius for being the first to give some feedback, so I hope you don't mind me pointing out things that may explain some of the choices Steve has put forward so far.

With regard to the restrictions on the number of jobs a member can submit per month and the effect that would have on submitting large mosaics, Steve as you know hates those. Though it's probably fairer to say he discourages them. Such mosaics I suppose might be possible if sufficient members agree, or, perhaps 2 or 3 members agree to each submit part of the mosaic 

I'm assuming that resubmissions for bad data would be allowed and not count as additional jobs from someone's allocation. 

When it comes to suggestions for the year ahead Steve doesn't mention if this would be done only at the start, then annually thereafter. Personally I wouldn't be keen on being asked to make suggestions for a full year at the time a scope is about to go live.

Options instead could be, targets for the first 6 months initially, with the remainder several months later, or, three times during the year (4 month periods). While many people are starting to learn more about what's in the new skies this will give them more time to do so. 

Steve did say that these are suggestions are only for the scopes down under, so apart from the targets within declinations shared by Spain and those sites, there are a multitude of completely new choices. I believe Steve may have suggested that in the situation where a new member joins and they would like to image something already captured, and, it is still visible, the dataset would be made available to them to purchase. Given the likely premium members will be required to pay to utilise these sites, I don't think existing members would be best pleased to have a target repeated within a year.

Enough waffle. Looking forward to reading more feedback. 

CS and cheers, 

Ray 

Phil, 

Your post arrived while I was in the middle of writing mine, so I only just got to read it. Very good suggestions for people to also think about.

I am one of those people that were not putting in submissions apart from the occasional one or two. Guilty!!! However you ought to see the list of targets I have collected over the past 3 1/2 years!

It felt better to allow others to submit their suggestions, their need being greater than mine. If it was something new then great, if not then an alternative set of data. Also I'd be far less likely to submit something if a pier queue was at bursting point.

Finally, given a large new area of skies and the cost, I don't think you need to worry about people not submitting jobs to those piers. :)  Not from me anyway.

Cheers, 

Ray 

Steve,

Very sensible to start talking about things now. Not just your usual can of worms though more like a barrel full.

Thanks Darius for being the first to give some feedback, so I hope you don't mind me pointing out things that may explain some of the choices Steve has put forward so far.

With regard to the restrictions on the number of jobs a member can submit per month and the effect that would have on submitting large mosaics, Steve as you know hates those. Though it's probably fairer to say he discourages them. Such mosaics I suppose might be possible if sufficient members agree, or, perhaps 2 or 3 members agree to each submit part of the mosaic 

I'm assuming that resubmissions for bad data would be allowed and not count as additional jobs from someone's allocation. 

 

When it comes to suggestions for the year ahead Steve doesn't mention if this would be done only at the start, then annually thereafter. Personally I wouldn't be keen on being asked to make suggestions for a full year at the time a scope is about to go live.

Options instead could be, targets for the first 6 months initially, with the remainder several months later, or, three times during the year (4 month periods). While many people are starting to learn more about what's in the new skies this will give them more time to do so. 

Steve did say that these are suggestions are only for the scopes down under, so apart from the targets within declinations shared by Spain and those sites, there are a multitude of completely new choices. I believe Steve may have suggested that in the situation where a new member joins and they would like to image something already captured, and, it is still visible, the dataset would be made available to them to purchase. Given the likely premium members will be required to pay to utilise these sites, I don't think existing members would be best pleased to have a target repeated within a year.

Enough waffle. Looking forward to reading more feedback. 

CS and cheers, 

Ray 

Hi Ray

I was hoping mosaics would be discussed and yes you have assumed correctly in the fact I was hoping members to collaborate so they discuss and take on a pane each so it becomes a group effort

I was hoping we would put the standard jobs in on a quarterly or 1/2 yearly basis as this is more productive as it catches new objects as they rise

Yes, it's a premium site but we as usual don't want to charge premium prices, we want it although expensive to be affordable to more people, so yes repeating object X 5 times a year as new members join isn't really a viable use of such a location's sky resources. So you are correct in thinking that we will make early datasets available at a very discounted price to new members of the syndicate.

All in all, this is about the team, that's you lot & Roboscopes working together to deliver you a lot more quality data than you are receiving under the current inefficient system. If I have to put the cat amongst the pigeons like this to do so then so be it.

We are bringing a number of new imaging tools on board over the next few months, some that I have not even mentioned either, all will help a lot with data collection and utilizing the pier & skies

Last but not least - retakes are of course excluded and are naturally re-inputed by the team but more about all the minutia if we can hash out the basis of a plan going forward.

I do have another option I could suggest also;

Option 5

• 10 syndicate members
• each member can input 2 jobs a month up to 12 hours each
• Each job has to be run through our SNR calculator in order to calculate imaging time required so if it only needs 9 hours then that's what it gets but likewise if it needs 24 hours then it will tell you (that's then 2 credits)
• use our sub length calculator to get the sub lengths for each filter
• use our filter calculator to determine the filter split
• member use more of the sky to allow for moon avoidance over the month rather than image in just one area
• if we find the pier does have extra headroom, we could add some standard jobs, mosaics or collaborations into the pier

Option 6

• 10 syndicate members
• 20/30 standard base jobs inputted into the system for the year
• each member can input 1 jobs a month up to 12 hours each
• Each job has to be run through our SNR calculator in order to calculate imaging time required so if it only needs 9 hours then that's what it gets but likewise if it needs 24 hours then it will tell you (that's then 2 credits)
• use our sub length calculator to get the sub lengths for each filter
• use our filter calculator to determine the filter split
• member use more of the sky to allow for moon avoidance over the month rather than image in just one area
• if we find the pier does have extra headroom, we could add some standard jobs, mosaics or collaborations into the pier

With all the options suggested so far the fact is that Currently, Spain gets between 180-220 clear nights depending on how the Atlantic westerlies are in any one year, so let's say 200 nights total on average, this includes full moon etc so 10x members putting in multiple 20/30-hour jobs per month the maths does not add up with the amount of clear dark nights available. So we have to manage deliverable expectations that give all members the most out of their membership with us.

Australia gets 220/250 I am led to believe, whilst Chile gets significantly more. This I believe will allow us more headroom for members but I believe we should start cautiously and don't make promises we cannot fufill.

However, if we find the southern piers can take more abuse then we allow more, it's simple

Steve

BTW Ray, I love mosaics on the right object but 10/16 pane mosaics don't half take-up a lot of imaging time on a single project that depending upon weather may leave you unfinished panes at the end of the season not to mention it leaves the pier little else for other members if they are not particular bothered about mosaics in the first place - I was just adding common sense by limiting them to 2 panes in Spain :)

But if all the members said this is the project we want to do then who am I to argue but as Phil stated, that would mean members "talking" to one another and making a group decision, which up to now has been somewhat sporadic with more of an "all for one and not bothered too much about the all..." kinda approach :)

In the meantime, everyone please keep your ideas and objections coming, we need them!

Steve

In response to the comment above about some people not submitting requests, I have only recently joined the P3 syndicate and have refrained from adding too much due to the large queue and a specific request from Roboscopes to limit the numbers. Additionally, I am quite happy to image different things - and others may have a better idea than me. Having said that, I do have a lot of part images.

Personally, I would be happy to be given a list of potential targets to vote on. Although, I do research in what is available, it is easy to miss good opportunities. (I am waiting for the summer as I am too far north to image for 4 months of the year).

Out of the options above, I like idea 3 (or something similar). Having a plan for the year would help me plan my home imaging and prevent my sessions duplicating the Roboscopes data (I also have the opportunity to add to it from home if I want).

I should add that I am pretty easy regarding targets - I like nebulae, galaxies - even stars! My main concern is duplication. I think the idea of online 'discussion' is OK in theory, but I think in practice more difficult. For example, if I was to make a proposal for a large mosaic, how do I know how may 'votes' are required for a consensus when I do not know the numbers within a syndicate?

Regards,

Ian

In response to the comment above about some people not submitting requests, I have only recently joined the P3 syndicate and have refrained from adding too much due to the large queue and a specific request from Roboscopes to limit the numbers. Additionally, I am quite happy to image different things - and others may have a better idea than me. Having said that, I do have a lot of part images.

Personally, I would be happy to be given a list of potential targets to vote on. Although, I do research in what is available, it is easy to miss good opportunities. (I am waiting for the summer as I am too far north to image for 4 months of the year).

Out of the options above, I like idea 3 (or something similar). Having a plan for the year would help me plan my home imaging and prevent my sessions duplicating the Roboscopes data (I also have the opportunity to add to it from home if I want).

I should add that I am pretty easy regarding targets - I like nebulae, galaxies - even stars! My main concern is duplication. I think the idea of online 'discussion' is OK in theory, but I think in practice more difficult. For example, if I was to make a proposal for a large mosaic, how do I know how may 'votes' are required for a consensus when I do not know the numbers within a syndicate?

Regards,

 

Ian

Thanks Ian for the feedback, some interesting points :)

Thanks for the two new suggestions Steve, of all the ideas I like idea 6 the most.

CS

Darius

Thanks for the two new suggestions Steve, of all the ideas I like idea 6 the most.

CS

Darius

Thanks Darius :)

Of all the suggestions so far, is 6 your preference overall ?

Steve

Hello all

I actually like the idea of making some changes. I know it's not the Spain pier's we're talking about here, but I wouldn't be upset if some changes made their way to those sooner rather than later. Actually I am quite excited about the prospect as I think it's going to get the piers absolutely singing.

I like options 5 and 6, but I think an option 5.5 might be optimal.

• I think a credit should be a 6 hour slot, not 12.
• I think the number of credits should be doubled

This allows for more, brighter objects to be imaged without "wasting" credits on uneeded data. Multiple credits can be used for dimmer or deeper jobs.

I'd also like the ability to share credits when working with other users for bigger jobs. I think that will be as simple as, for example, I input the SII & RGB stars and they input the OIII & Ha.

I like that Roboscopes will add some favourite jobs to the pier, can I suggest that this data is available on the server for the whole year to be downloaded by syndicate members whenever they want - not removed within 30 days? I think this alone is a good value-proposition.

Regarding compulsory use of the SNR system to generate exposure times and subs - I am all for it, with caveats which I'll get to in a minute.

I'd also discuss a limit to what jobs can be put in - one of the big "clogs" can be the pier trying to image targets that are way past meridan and setting in the west. I think Roboscopes eastern skies are best, right?

Is there any way on job input to only allow targets that are yet to rise, rising or at/just past meridian being added? Whether this is needed with all the other jobs I do not know.

My caveat to these restrctions on what can be input and the limitations imposed by credits is that I think it might be necessary for Roboscopes to check the quality of the data via blink and resubmit as necessary. If the blue is crap, for example, make the Red and Green available for download and resubmit the blue.

By the way, will you still be adding Steve specials if this all goes ahead?

Hello all

I actually like the idea of making some changes. I know it's not the Spain pier's we're talking about here, but I wouldn't be upset if some changes made their way to those sooner rather than later. Actually I am quite excited about the prospect as I think it's going to get the piers absolutely singing.

I like options 5 and 6, but I think an option 5.5 might be optimal.

• I think a credit should be a 6 hour slot, not 12.
• I think the number of credits should be doubled

This allows for more, brighter objects to be imaged without "wasting" credits on uneeded data. Multiple credits can be used for dimmer or deeper jobs.

I'd also like the ability to share credits when working with other users for bigger jobs. I think that will be as simple as, for example, I input the SII & RGB stars and they input the OIII & Ha.

I like that Roboscopes will add some favourite jobs to the pier, can I suggest that this data is available on the server for the whole year to be downloaded by syndicate members whenever they want - not removed within 30 days? I think this alone is a good value-proposition.

Regarding compulsory use of the SNR system to generate exposure times and subs - I am all for it, with caveats which I'll get to in a minute.

I'd also discuss a limit to what jobs can be put in - one of the big "clogs" can be the pier trying to image targets that are way past meridan and setting in the west. I think Roboscopes eastern skies are best, right?

Is there any way on job input to only allow targets that are yet to rise, rising or at/just past meridian being added? Whether this is needed with all the other jobs I do not know.

My caveat to these restrctions on what can be input and the limitations imposed by credits is that I think it might be necessary for Roboscopes to check the quality of the data via blink and resubmit as necessary. If the blue is crap, for example, make the Red and Green available for download and resubmit the blue.

By the way, will you still be adding Steve specials if this all goes ahead?

Some great ideas there Pete, A Londoner having a good idea. I think I need a sit down!

Seriously now...

Let me start by saying "Steve specials" are never going away, I really enjoy picking them and I hope some of the members enjoy processing them :)

1 - I think the 6-hour credit options is a fantastic idea as it's more flexible

2 - 5.5 could be a good option

3 - Adding some features to the Spain syndicates would need to be discussed with the current syndicate members and them being fully onboard with it

4 - Our system has an East preference anyway and all members have been told this a million times already in the past LOL. So putting it in as part of how to use the pier sounds like a good idea to me

5 - Is there any way on job input to only allow targets that are yet to rise, rising or at/just past meridian being added? Whether this is needed with all the other jobs, I do not know. Not sure I would need to speak to Phil/Manuel to see if it can be coded

6- Roboscopes checking the datasets sounds fine to me as we can re-input any jobs affected by haze etc

Steve

Dear All,

I haven't had time to read all of the comments, so forgive me for duplication - think of it as support.

One obvious thing is that syndicate members are happy to communicate when there is a topic of interest. This also works at the syndicate level; last year we had a long discussion on how to try to complete a huge mosaic of M31 on Pier 3. I see comments from other participants in that.

It immediately raises mosaics. the obvious advantage of these is that you can have better resolution on a large target but it really isn't clear that two 10 hour panels are preferable to one 20 hour panel taken with a wider field scope. Commonly mosaics are the solution to using a scope with too narrow a field of view. One solution would be to allow syndicate members access to hourly piers at advantageous rates rather than running mosaics. Mosaics create a special set of problems since you need good, complete, data for all panels.

There may be cases where mosaics are the best solution but they certainly should be discussed within a syndicate and with Roboscope.

A second point, which I see above, is that each pier will have a set of objects that get imaged every year. This uses time and, in the syndicate system, where members join at different times, may lead to multiple requests if the data set have been removed before your membership starts. Having a good, standard data set for the obvious repeat images, that are available to syndicate members, would reduce the pier traffic.

In addition to reducing requests, this would provide new syndicate members with example data; I find I'm constantly trying to optimize exposures. It also opens up some interesting possibilities; I recently saw an image of M33 taken as HOO (as I recall) but nobody is going to try this if they need to request LRGB data. Things like this are interesting and might get members to interact.

CS, Earle

Hi Earl you make some very good points, as it happens I more or less finalized how these types of piers are going to be run in the Southern Hemisphere only an hour or so ago and some of your points I had already addressed plus added some things you may like :) (you can see the text also with prices for the 1st pier in Australia on another post)

See below!

Regards

Steve

Option-7

• A maximum of 10 members
• 24 Collaborated jobs inputted into the system for the year, inputted 6 per QTR, Potential candidates for the following QTR are suggested by Roboscopes+members & voted on by during the previous QTR
• each member will receive 6x personal job credits per month (up to 3 hours based upon our SNR calculator)
• Each job has to be run through our SNR calculator in order to calculate imaging time required so if it only needs 2 hours then that's what it gets but likewise if it needs 5 hours then it will tell you (that's then 2 credits)
• Use our sub length calculator to get the sub lengths for each filter
• Use our filter calculator to determine the filter split
• All data will be checked by Roboscopes staff before release and will be re-inputted if affected by haze etc
• All data is kept on the server for a rolling 12-month period, so new members never miss out on older jobs that have been done a few months before
• Member use more of the sky to allow for moon avoidance over the month rather than image in just one area
• If we find the pier does have extra headroom, we could add some standard jobs, mosaics or collaborations into the pier & the odd "Steve special" job.

Steve and I do see times where the piers are sitting idle even when the skies are clear. So to keep the piers busy we need to understand why the scope isn't imaging. This can be down to a few things i.e. moon constraints etc. but quite often its simply because there isn't anything for the scope to image in the prime part of the sky at that time. 

However its not just about putting loads of objects in for the scope to image, for example 10 object in one part of the sky will take much longer to complete compared to 10 spread out. I understand that desirable objects can be clustered which is fine but making use of those sparser regions will give users more completed data sets.

The aim is to maximise the productivity of the piers and increase the number of complete data sets annually to our users and make sure you all get the maximum amount of hi quality data sets possible per year.  The numbers are based on a full compliment of syndicate users and so with less users numbers of jobs would be adjusted. 

Cheers

Peter

Steve put a post here which you can read https://www.roboscopes.com/index.php/forum/roboscopes-a-new-widefield-syndicate-southern-hemisphere-skies-located-in-austrailia-please-dm-me-if-interested

I think we need to remember that in astronomy your telescope and camera is good for one field of view. We can force it slightly at home by adding a reducer, for example, but in reality if you want a proper job of a target you should really buy the equipment to do that.

Moasaics as you say are an antidote to that, but you are again asking equipment to do something that it was not natively designed for. You could argue that the resolution would be improved vs a wider field set up - but by how much and at what cost? How many other jobs get sidelined because of even a 2 panel mosaic which really should have gone on a wider set up? That two panel forces the scope to stay in one part of the sky rather than moving around to optimal areas.

You can not get advantagous rates on buying new equipment that doesn't fall within your field of view at home, I don't see why we should get advantageous rates at Roboscopes on hourly.

The last few days I have been looking at Roboscopes' competition around the world, and what they offer here is his really quite unique. It's a bit of a treasure, actually, run by real actual humans. I appreciate we all have limited money but Roboscopes is an excellent value proposition as it is - and I think the new plans unveillled by Steve continue that (I actually prefer them to the way Spain is run).

Roboscopes is a business. If it does not make money, we all lose this. The prices are more than fair - especially with the data that's being offered for 12 months rolling on the new piers in Oz.

I am hoping with the advent of Discord, new piers coming online we can start to generate a real buzz in our syndicated / collaborative groups. I'd really like it if people "hang out" in the Discord channel to shoot the astro-sh*t and build a community.

Please don't take this as anything other than trying to explain why there are times when a pier is sitting idle for short periods and why mosaics are the only solution in some cases. 

Idle times.

Roboscopes want the piers to be utilised as close to 100 percent of the available time as possible, understandable. So why are there times when a pier is not imaging due to no relevant jobs? This is not solely due to no target(s) in the queue, but may be because a broadband submission is prevented from running due to the phase of the moon.

Syndicate members I believe will tend to only submit targets that interest them, something I do. The next such job may not start until an hour or two after astronomical darkness. 

Upon receiving a notification from Steve that a pier is sitting idle usually at the start of the night, fill-in jobs are submitted by some members. Steve is now a happy bunny. :) What about syndicate members? How many members actually use the data from those jobs? The ultimate effect of those jobs is likely to impact on jobs not yet started such that they don't complete as soon as they could have. So what is the lesser evil?

Mosaics.

There are many 2 pane popular ones suitable for pier 14. I see no problems with that. Steve has already implemented a ruling to have a mosaic with more than 2 panes voted on. A two pane mosaic of something like the North American nebula, or, the Heart and Soul arguably could require less imaging time than some single jobs, most notably Steve specials. 

Cheers, 

Ray 

To be fair Ray, it's hard to argue against two panel mosaics when the total integration time of the pair is the same as a single panel. With integration time kinda capped, 2 pane mosaics are actaully OK! I think the main issue is when the integration time stays the same for both indivual frames, doubling time on target.

Alas, I have derailed the topic! Sorry.

Please don't take this as anything other than trying to explain why there are times when a pier is sitting idle for short periods and why mosaics are the only solution in some cases. 

Idle times.

Roboscopes want the piers to be utilised as close to 100 percent of the available time as possible, understandable. So why are there times when a pier is not imaging due to no relevant jobs? This is not solely due to no target(s) in the queue, but may be because a broadband submission is prevented from running due to the phase of the moon.

Syndicate members I believe will tend to only submit targets that interest them, something I do. The next such job may not start until an hour or two after astronomical darkness. 

Upon receiving a notification from Steve that a pier is sitting idle usually at the start of the night, fill-in jobs are submitted by some members. Steve is now a happy bunny. :) What about syndicate members? How many members actually use the data from those jobs? The ultimate effect of those jobs is likely to impact on jobs not yet started such that they don't complete as soon as they could have. So what is the lesser evil?

Mosaics.

There are many 2 pane popular ones suitable for pier 14. I see no problems with that. Steve has already implemented a ruling to have a mosaic with more than 2 panes voted on. A two pane mosaic of something like the North American nebula, or, the Heart and Soul arguably could require less imaging time than some single jobs, most notably Steve specials. 

Cheers, 

Ray 

 

 

Ray in the nicest possible way most of your conclusions are incorrect but that doesn't matter for now :)

1, Steve is never happy :)

however, none of the above-mentioned by you me, Pete or anyone else to that matter will solve the issue as it can be summed up in two words - Planning & communication

• A failure to plan jobs ahead throughout the season on the whole
• A failure to plan areas of the sky
• A failure to check what's being imaged
• A failure to communicate as a group

if you actually look at every page of the Roboscopes website you will see that we do three types of imaging service

1, Hourly - a brilliant but expensive way to get exactly what you want without buying any equipment

2, Hosting - Quite possibly the best and most individual way to go but by far the most expensive when you take into account owning the equipment and renting/hosting space at a dark sky location

3, syndicates - the most cost-effective way to get a lot of good quality data at the lowest cost. A syndicate in the dictionary is described as, I quote, "a group of individuals or organizations combined to promote a common interest"

If you check every page where we refer to syndicates I talk about working together, as a group, talking on the forum, planning together as a group of like-minded people. If you check every forum post we have ever made over the years, All we ever say is it's about working together to get the best out of the pier and collaborate to make it more productive

Dear (Mr Unhappy) Steve, 

A very detailed plug on all the great reasons to use Roboscopes and lots about all the things we as Syndicate members ought to do. I've no problems with that at all, especially since it helps enormously to maximise use of Syndicate piers. 

Cheers, 

Ray