Bruce Macintosh

Other people are allowed to to use it with a clear use case and her written authorization

New proposed rule: only Jessie is allowed to show the figure.

I suppose it depends on whether you're more interested in the neptunes or the Earths - current version makes it hard to see what's going on for the small planets. Log axes also make constant density a straight line, and planet occurrence rates live in log space generally.

Of course you can fix those impressions when talking or later in a talk, and highlight the difference between discovery and reality in the population. But showing it shouldn't just be a ritual.

It implies that all (rather than some) systems are different than our own, that close in planets are more common than far out, that Earths are rare compared to super-Earths, etc.

But beyond that I think it actually misleads a little since the selection bias of the dominant technique (transits) is so strong.

It's definitely good for telling you about how discovery methods work and their biases, if that's the point of your talk (and it often is for my talks.) And I guess does have a bit of the shock-and-awe of "look at lots of planets".

Actually I take back the "excellent figure" statement. Let me introduce you to a little thing I call a log scale.

That's a great figure! Actual measurements. (I also like versions with EOS lines on them).

And it has no error bars, which is never a good sign.

There are maybe two or three other real patterns there (hot jupiters, neptune gaps), maybe hints of the giant-planet peak at 5 AU. Other things you see are artifacts of the mass <-> radius conversion.

Most of what you see are selection effects (planets in the bottom right are hard to detect.) The main thing it tells you is how to compare the sensitivity of different techniques.

We all show this figure, but I seriously agree with Peter that we need to rethink that. It tells a story but doesn't actually convey more than one or two important facts. It's almost ritualistic.

Eccentricity vs date of discovery.

The Landscape of Undergraduate Astronomy and Astrophysics Degree Requirements In this document we summarize the results of a survey of undergraduate degree-granting programs conducted by the 2024-2025 American Astronomical Society Education Committee's Subcommittee on UndeRgrad...

Interesting paper on requirements for undergraduate astronomy degrees and how non-uniform they are, and how this impacts students with these degrees: arxiv.org/abs/2602.03959

I (used to) build AO systems and cameras and such for a living and I am utterly incapable of spelling “insturments” correctly, if that makes you feel better

Bump on this - looking for an expert specifically on orbital data centres available in the next few hours. If that's you let me know!

The new Southwest terminal is a pretty impressive upgrade

Hopefully nothing optical (but we won’t know until we inspect). definitely some electrical work needed

@lickobservatory.bsky.social update: the dome is now sealed! Thanks to the summit staff, contractors, and main-campus staff for an amazing amount of work over the past four months. Now we can catch our breath and plan how to checkout/repair the telescope and the dome.

Does the paper say how much mass in iron would be needed? I might quietly think its an artifact since it’s a new instrument and IFS cube reconstruction can be fiddly.

One of the best things about working at UCSC is that the campus food options are so mediocre that this sort of temptation never occurs.

One thing I can't quite parse from the paper is the target launch date - does "3-5 years from the start of detailed planning" mean 3-5 years from now? Or did detailed planning begin sometime in the past? Or starts in the future? I guess either way that's something like "2028-2032"?

I am not, as many people know, I am not a naturally optimistic or supportive person, but let me say that this is an impressive concept by some smart people that could do some real science. (More thoughts later when I’ve digested the paper.)

Extremely cool! Looks like a very smart architecture and concept. Looking forward to learning more

And then finally Dr. Gates dug up this terrifying video of the actual fall striking sparks as it hits the parking lot. Plus lightning flashes. Sad to watch but nice use of multi-messenger science to track down the event.

Camera image from 3:16 with the dome and shutter barely visible

Camera image two minutes later with the dome and the shutter torn off

Firewatch cameras show the shutter on the dome at 3:16 and on the ground at 3:18

Wind speeds from various Mt. Hamilton sensors.

Barometer readings at Mt. Hamilton showing a sharp pressure drop

Weather records show the highest winds then, and a disturbingly large drop in barometric pressure

Seismograph readings from Lick Observatory showing a sharp shock just after 3:16 AM

One nice piece of detective work for the Christmas morning shutter failure at Lick - staff astronomer Dr. Elinor Gates (with others) figured out exactly what time the shutter fell down. The first major clue: records from the seismometer in the building. There's a sharp red spike just after 3:16 AM.

Have you tried looking at the puzzle at in K-band?