TITLE: GCN GRB OBSERVATION REPORT NUMBER: 636 SUBJECT: RE: Budget cuts in BeppoSAX operations: impact on GRB observation DATE: 00/04/17 19:26:10 GMT FROM: John Stull at SBAG 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 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.]