GCN Circular 636
Subject
RE: Budget cuts in BeppoSAX operations: impact on GRB observation
Date
2000-04-17T19:26:10Z (25 years ago)
From
John Stull at SBAG <stulljl@king.alfred.edu>
As an SBAG BACODINE participant back in the "olden times", I'm very sorry to
hear that.
I suppose the people in charge will suggest that GRBs be rescheduled to
happen only during normal working hours.
Very best wishes. Just remember what the Dame of Sark said in an interview
long ago: "Smile, DAMMIT, smile."
cheers John Stull
Alfred University Observatory
-----Original Message-----
From: GCN Circulars
To: stulljl@king.alfred.edu
Sent: 4/17/00 2:32 PM
Subject: Budget cuts in BeppoSAX operations: impact on GRB observations
TITLE: GCN GRB OBSERVATION REPORT
NUMBER: 634
SUBJECT: Budget cuts in BeppoSAX operations: impact on GRB observations
DATE: 00/04/17 18:29:31 GMT
FROM: SAX Science Operations at IAS/CNR Frascati
<saxsci@ias.rm.cnr.it>
Due to budget cuts, BeppoSAX operations have been reduced by ASI as
follows:
as of April 4:
- Mission Planners (previously available 24 hrs a day on call)
will serve during office hours only (8 hrs a day Mon.-Fri.)
- Duty Scientist at the Science Operation Center will not cover the night
shifts
as of April 15:
- Scientific Instruments will not be operated during Saturday & Sunday nights
As a consequence we estimate that:
- THE NUMBER OF FAST GRB LOCALIZATIONS
WILL BE REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF ~2.
- THE NUMBER OF FAST GRB FOLLOW-UP (i.e. AFTERGLOW OBSERVATIONS)
WILL BE REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF ~ 3
L. Piro
BeppoSAX Mission Scientist
[GCN OPS NOTE (03may00): Circular #636 was an accidental "reply" to
Circular #634 using a particularly unsocial mailer that ignored
the "Reply-to" field in the original Circular. And since the Subject-line
of the reply contained the "GRB" string, and since it was being sent
by a valid submittor; the submission was unfortunately distributed
as valid Circular. It would have been deleted from the archives and the
Circular serial number set back to the previous value, but another Circular
(#637) was submitted before I could get a reply from the 636 submittor
stating that he did not want his reply in the permanent record -- so it
stands in the record.]