Can Remote Observing be Good Observing? Reflections on Procrustes and Antaeus

TL;DR

This paper discusses the human factors and potential drawbacks of remote observing in astronomy, emphasizing that remote observation should complement rather than replace the astronomer at the telescope.

Contribution

It offers a reflective analysis on the implications of remote observing, advocating for its role to enhance human involvement rather than diminish it.

Findings

Remote observing can lead to unintended consequences if not carefully managed.

Enhancing the astronomer's presence is preferable to complete abstraction from the instrument.

Historical tales illustrate risks of over-automation and loss of human oversight.

Abstract

Remote observing seeks to simulate the presence of the astronomer at the telescope. While this is useful, and necessary in some circumstances, simulation is not reality. The drive to abstract the astronomer from the instrument can have unpleasant consequences, some of which are prefigured in the ancient tales of Procrustes and Antaeus. This article, written in 1992 for a conference proceedings on remote observing, is reprinted here with only slight editorial changes and the addition of a short Afterword. I consider some of the human factors involved in remote observing, and suggest that our aim be to enhance rather than supplant the astronomer at the telescope.