[Third indorsement.] FEBRUARY 21, 1912. From: Superintendent. To: Prof. M. Updegraff, United States Navy. 1. Referred for any further comment which you may desire to make and return to the superintendent to-day, if practicable. [Fourth indorsement.] J. L. JAYNE. FEBRUARY 26, 1912. From: Prof. M. Updegraff, United States Navy. To: Superintendent. Subject: Report on Paris Conference of October, 1911. 1. By way of explanation in part of differences between the figures given by me in the within letters and those given by Prof. Eichelberger in the third indorsement, I will say that the work of the Nautical Almanac Office, regarded from a legal standpoint, must be divided apparently into two parts: (a) The work directly involved in preparing the yearly volumes of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac. (b) The work of "improving the tables of the planets, moon, and stars," which indirectly serves the same purpose. 2. On consulting with Prof. Eichelberger I find that in getting the cost of work under class (b) done during the three years and one month, for which I was in charge of the Nautical Almanac Office, he has included only certain kinds of research work, making, according to his figures, $3,776.64. Work amounting to about $6,000 in correcting old tables of the fixed stars and in preparing new tables was not included. Work classed as miscellaneous, amounting to about $2,000, but which apparently should come under class (b) rather than class (a), was likewise omitted. The sum of these three items, in round numbers, is $12,000. The total resources of the office during this period are given at $61,350.79. This gives nearly 20 per cent as the portion of the resources of the office expended in work for "improving the tables of the planets, moon, and stars" instead of "6 or 7 per cent," as stated in the third indorsement. My estimate of $6,000 for the amount of "scientific work" had no reference to the total amount of work done coming under class (b). I have never held the opinion that all work done under class (b) must, in the meaning of the law, be scientific work or research work in the sense in which those words are used by astronomers. 3. Again, in deducing the cost of preparing for publication the yearly volumes of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, that is the work coming under class (a), I find that Prof. Eichelberger included some work which I should put under class (b); but the principal cause of this difference is that while he has deduced from the records of the office the actual cost (according to his own classification) of preparing the volumes of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac (In the quotation at the for 1913 and 1914, I deduced the cost ($10,000 aside from proof reading) from prices of piecework and "with the personnel of two years ago.' beginning of paragraph 6 of the third indorsement the words above quoted are not included.) 4. I have again gone over my figures for the cost of preparing the American Ephemeris and find them to be substantially correct. Judging from my own experience, the direct preparation of the yearly volumes of the Ephemeris should under normal conditions absorb only about one half of the total resources of the Nautical Almanac Office. The large amount of work accomplished under the management of Prof. Newcomb in "improving the tables of the planets, moon, and stars" points, I think, I have heard that it was considered under Prof. Newcomb to the same conclusion. that the Ephemeris (as it was before the recent revision) could be got out yearly with the piecework fund of $7,000. Whether this was supposed to include the checking of the computations and proof reading I do not know. It should be understood, however, that I do not undertake to determine what the cost of preparing the yearly volumes of the Ephemeris is or should be under present conditions. 5. There are discrepancies between the figures given by myself and Prof. Eichelberger as to the cost of work assigned to our Nautical Almanac Office by the recent Paris conference, and also as to the saving effected by the plan for exchange of work proposed, but they seem to me to be of small importance in this connection. I see no MILTON UPDAGRAFF. necessity for further comment on the recommendations of the Paris conference. |