Milestone-Proposal talk:Commonwealth Solar Observatory, 1924

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is proposal for an achievement rather than for a person?
2. Was proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. If the advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Is proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
8. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
9. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
10. Scientific and technical units correct? (e.g. km, mm, hertz, etc.) Are acronyms correct and properly upperercased or lowercased?
11. Date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Helpful_Hints_on_Citations,_Plaque_Locations

Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

Submission and Approval Log

31 July 2023 = Submitted as Special Citation. 29 November 2023 -- History Committee approved.

Original Citation Title and Text -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth Solar Observatory, 1924

Astronomical observation and research has been conducted at Mount Stromlo from before the foundation of Canberra as the Australian National Capital. A formal observatory has flourished on the site since 1924, overcoming light pollution by establishing a major outstation with international cooperation and overcoming bushfire devastation to rebuild on its strengths. Over time the Mount Stromlo Observatory has evolved from solar observation through optical munitions manufacture to be the centre of optical stellar research in Australia and a world figure in astrophysics and associated instrumentation. By developing its capability in instrumentation coupled with world class testing facilities, it has become a major partner in the developing Australian space industry, and a designer and supplier of components for the world’s largest optical telescopes while continuing as a leading research institution.

Citation -- Ambarishnatu (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Solar Observatory has evolved from solar observation to optical munitions manufacturer to be the centre of optical stellar research in Australia and a world figure in astrophysics and associated instrumentation. By developing its capability in instrumentation coupled with world class testing facilities, it has become a major partner in developing Australian space industry, and a designer and supplier of components for the world’s largest optical telescopes.

Expert reviewer's comments uploaded on behalf of the advocate by -- Administrator4 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

18 August 2023

Dear David,

I have been asked to review the proposal by the IEEE ACT Section to award a Special Citation for the Commonwealth Solar Observatory. I have read the proposal and I am writing to you in support of the award. In particular, I was asked if the wording of the proposed citation is accurate.

For more than a century, the Commonwealth Solar Observatory has produced innovation, research, and public education in Australia. It has evolved from solar observation to optical munitions manufacturing to become a centre of optical stellar research and world class developer of astrophysics instrumentation. It has become a major partner in developing the Australian space industry, and a designer and supplier of components for the world’s largest optical telescopes.

I believe this is accurate. I was further asked if the evidence presented was a sufficient substance to merit the Special Citation. In my opinion the short history of the Observatory presented in the proposal substantiates the claim of an engineering history and national prominence to deserve the citation. The first federal building following the creation of the ACT was a telescope dome at the Observatory. This was followed by electrical engineering achievements that have marked each of the decades that the Observatory has existed. Lastly, I was asked if the Observatory was a significant site worthy of bearing the citation. The ACT has many sites of national significance, but for science and engineering the Observatory is certainly one of them.

I hope this review meets your needs in assessing the proposal. Sincerely

Jeremy Mould FAA Emeritus Professor of Astrophysics Swinburne University of Technology

Second Expert Reviewer's Comments Uploaded by Advocate -- Jbart64 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 at 9:58 am Subject: Re: IEEE Special Citation Recognition Review Request

To the IEEE Commitee and Chair:

To my knowledge and with my research for my history textbook [1] with Dr Ragbir Bhathal in 2013, the information is accurate, however there are some typographical errors such as south Pacific where I'd argue Southern Hemisphere.

The interest of Barrachi was multiple but included the eventual moving of the national time survive (which eventually happened the 1940s as Melbourne observatory close), and to provide a reference longitude for Australian cadastral and mapping, in addition to astronomical operations. The surveying for the national capital Canberra also made use of the Oddie coordinate information by the Surveyor Schriviver [1].

The site is significant nationally as it helped define not only time but the layout of the national capital, and in 1914 provided the data to show the suitability of Mt Stromlo as the location of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory and later the Mt Stromlo Observatory joining the Australian National University and producing the very first PhD gradate in what has until then been an research oriented university, and is now a leading teaching an research university.

I would support this citation.

Sincerely A/Prof Ralph Sutherland

[1] MT STROMLO OBSERVATORY From Bush Observatory to the Nobel Prize By: Ragbir Bhathal, Ralph Sutherland, Harvey Butcher https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/7212/ ePDF | December 2013 ISBN: 9781486300761 Publisher: CSIRO Publishing

[2] Charles Schrivener , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Scrivener

Associate Professor Ralph Sutherland Pronouns: he/him/his Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics , Mt Stromlo Observatory The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Milestone Proposal Advocate Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I am the Milestone Advocate and I fully support the milestone proposal. The proposed wording of the Special Citation plaque accurately reflects the documentation and was developed with input of local and regional historians and technical experts. The evidence submitted in the proposal supports the plaque citation with no similar or competing achievements or historical sites. Note, this is a special citation plaque not a milestone plaque, so the emphasis is on the historic site, educational importance, and museum contributions and not a specific technical achievement. I worked with the proposers during the development phase, and in my opinion, the proposers adequately described these aspects and their relationship to the historical site that is being proposed. David Bart Milestone Advocate IEEE History Committee Treasurer

Citation Improvement Suggestion -- Bberg (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Some changes that I made directly to Advocate Dave Bart have been implemented, so I appreciate that. I have some further suggestions for the current citation: (1) Change "world class developer" to "world-class development" (a 2-word adjective needs a hyphen, and this form of noun is consistent with the rest of the wording); (2) Change "It has" at the start of the last sentence to "The Observatory has also" since starting 2 sentences in a row with "It" sounds a bit humdrum, and including "also" makes the continued listing of accomplishments read better; and (3) Change "and a designer and supplier" to "including the design and supply" since this is consistent with the wording style of the rest of the citation. The resulting citation (changed from 64 to 65 words) would read:

Since 1924, the Commonwealth Solar Observatory has produced innovation, research, and public education in Australia. It has evolved from solar observation to optical munitions manufacturing, becoming a centre of optical stellar research and world-class development of astrophysics instrumentation. The Observatory has also become a major partner in developing the Australian space industry, including the design and supply of components for the world’s largest optical telescopes.

Re: Citation Improvement Suggestion -- Administrator5 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies that I am coming to this late. I am confused. Why is this a Special Citation?!??

"A special citation is intended to recognize museums, libraries, archives, or other historic sites engaged in the preservation of technical history for their achievement in preserving the history of significant technical achievements in all areas associated with IEEE and in making that history available to scholars, researchers, and the public in a way that is of at least regional importance"

This seems to be a citation for a designer and supplier of components. What has the Observatory done to preserve and present it's history? The Visitor Centre mentioned may indeed be worthy, but there is NOTHING in the background material...just a mention as the site of the plaque. The citation and the background material are only about the achievements themselves. I hate to say it, but this seems like an end-run around the Milestone process. If any or all achievements of this lab are Milestone worthy (even if only in cumulative fashion), then it should be nominated as a Milestone. There is precedent for the recognition of a multiple accomplishments of a laboratory over time (e.g., Bell Labs). Perhaps we need to be more clear in our presentation of the Special Citation Program. My own opinion, which I said at the time but we didn't follow, was that the Special Citation form should NOT look exactly like the Milestone form, since it is very different, and requires different questions (and, in fact, the Committee instructed staff to report it out separately and not roll Special Citations into the Milestones list).

On what criteria will this even be judged?

I strongly recommend tabling this item and charging the 2024 Milestone Subcommittee, as soon as it is constituted, to make a priority of reviewing the Special Citation Program and its relationship to the Milestone Program

Re: Re: Citation Improvement Suggestion -- Jbart64 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions from Amy Bix and Brian Berg. This is proposed as a Special Citation since, as explained in the history section, this historic site has undergone several transformations over more than a century, including its rebuilding after a regional 2003 fire. The purpose of the Special Citation includes recognition of historical sites. The achievement is the repurposing and continuing use of the site, which is identified in the plaque text and supporting materials. That use includes a range of research, innovation, and education. The use of a Special Citation for the historic site was considered more appropriate than the identification of every specific research achievement that may or may not be signified through a series of individual Milestone plaques. The Special Citation is recognizing a historical site; not a specific achievement, and not the visitor's center or any specific museum display or archival innovation. The current text is 64 words. I suggest adding a phrase at the end, resulting in the following revision to Brian Berg's latest version:

“Since 1924, the Commonwealth Solar Observatory has produced innovation, research, and public education in Australia. It has evolved from solar observation to optical munitions manufacturing, becoming a centre of optical stellar research and world-class development of astrophysics instrumentation. The Observatory has also become a major partner in developing the Australian space industry, including the design and supply of components for the world’s largest optical telescopes, while simultaneously furthering public education.”

Dave Bart