Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Image planning for Mutual Events

Full Version: Image planning for Mutual Events

Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Outer Solar System > Saturn > Cassini Huygens > Cassini general discussion and science results

Toma B

Mar 6 2006, 06:11 AM

Take a look at TOP STORY in Spacedaily...
Cassini Catches Enceladus Transit

"The image is so new that Cassini scientists have not yet verified which of the other moons is involved in the encounter."
So if I have understand this correctly, Cassini just snaps images and scientist later try to gues what's on them.
Great job!!!

Jeff7

Mar 6 2006, 06:31 AM

It's just a $3 billion spacecraft, I mean really, how hard can it be?

ugordan

Mar 6 2006, 08:12 AM

The great thing about journalism is that you can ignore it.
I used to pick up newspapers now and then and realize just how much crap they throw into subjects I know something about. That made me wonder what they're feeding me on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge on. I've now learned to control my urge to pick up and read a daily newspaper. Just say NO!
I don't know of Spacedaily's reputation, but judging by the name, you'd think they'd write with a little bit more competence...

Thank god for forums like this!

Myran

Mar 6 2006, 11:11 AM

I second ugordan on that it had to be a less competent writer at Spacedaily, now lets se how competent I am assuming the moon we see are Rhea.

Sym05

Mar 6 2006, 11:29 AM

Using images numbers from http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=2351, plus some raw images search to narrow date/time and using Celestia software maybe that Cassini scientists can discover correct names

Add following lines to favorites.cel in Celestia and play with FOV:

"Enceladus-Dione 03-03-2006" {
isFolder false
parentFolder ""
base [ 0.003170696433215006 1.670200158258178e-006 -0.0001119544168099931 ]
offset [ -1.129089226628577e-013 -7.546047120499111e-017 -2.293467065567212e-015 ]
axis [ 0.241406 0.95022 -0.196988 ]
angle 1.7954
time 2453797.653858596
selection "#0/Saturn/Enceladus"
coordsys "ecliptical"
}

"Enceladus-Rhea 03-02-2006" {
isFolder false
parentFolder ""
base [ 0.003170758515822197 1.662585263079551e-006 -0.0001119972213953919 ]
offset [ -9.560277916542681e-014 -4.81385764583564e-017 5.071355661800947e-016 ]
axis [ 0.242808 0.952468 -0.183981 ]
angle 1.73277
time 2453797.012350113
selection "#0/Saturn/Enceladus"
coordsys "ecliptical"
}

pat

Mar 6 2006, 02:03 PM

B)-->

QUOTE(Toma B @ Mar 6 2006, 07:11 AM)

[/quote]

This is just poor journalism. I don't know which "Cassini scientist" they asked but I know for a fact that the "Cassini Scientist" who planned this observation (submitting the initial request in 2001) knows damn well that the satellites are Enceladus (the small one) and Dione (the big one). This is a mutual event observation specifically to observe Enceladus tranisting Dione and timed almost to perfection at that!

Rob Pinnegar

Mar 6 2006, 02:55 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 6 2006, 01:12 AM)

I used to pick up newspapers now and then and realize just how much crap they throw into subjects I know something about. That made me wonder what they're feeding me on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge on.

You just nailed my attitude towards most newspapers word-for-word.

Sometimes it's as if half of what they say is propaganda, and the other half just plain wrong.

[Edit: In fairness, I think that much of the time the reason for such errors is that scientists tend to be pretty cautious about what they say when they are being interviewed. The reporter, on the other hand, has to find some way of making the article "exciting" so that Joe Sixpack will want to read it. So, they end up adding some of their own artistic flair... and a few glaring errors along with it. One way of approaching this is to ignore most of the writeup, ignore any and all speculation, and try to concentrate on the direct quotes from the scientist being interviewed.]

remcook

Mar 6 2006, 03:19 PM

Space Daily has a very variable level of articles, I find. From very good to very bad. I guess that's because anyone can write to it (I think. is that right?)

tedstryk

Mar 6 2006, 03:28 PM

What I think they may actually mean is that they put it up so fast that the scientists hadn't had a chance to get back to them about what is in the image. I hope that is what is going on here...

Phil Stooke

Mar 6 2006, 05:14 PM

Pat said "I don't know which "Cassini scientist" they asked "...

I'm sure they didn't ask any scientist. This is just taken from the text on the Raw Images page, which identifies only Enceladus. The rest is a failed attempt to disguise the web writer's ignorance by passing it off as somebody else's.

Phil

volcanopele

Mar 6 2006, 05:51 PM

ROFLMAO!!! IF they asked any Cassini scientist what the larger moon was just by showing them the picture, yes, without first checking either our image database, the sequence design, Celestia, other Cassini simulators, yes it would be difficult to pick out which larger moon it was just from a crescent. I admit, I actually had to check Celestia on this one. But then again, I'm not the one who designs these types of observations (or any observations really). But the implication that we had no idea what we were looking at, just snapping pictures at random, is flat out wrong.

Holder of the Two Leashes

Mar 6 2006, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 6 2006, 02:12 AM)

Oh, how right you are! I've expressed pretty much the same thought for myself many times.

canis_minor

Mar 6 2006, 07:08 PM

QUOTE

the "Cassini Scientist" who planned this observation (submitting the initial request in 2001) knows damn well that the satellites are Enceladus (the small one) and Dione (the big one). This is a mutual event observation specifically to observe Enceladus tranisting Dione and timed almost to perfection at that!

Enceladus and *Rhea*, actually. The Cassini database entry for this observation explicitly lists both Enceladus and Rhea in the description of the imaging request.

And a good portion of the unlit B ring (and foreshortened A ring) also. Very neat.

Phil Stooke

Mar 6 2006, 08:20 PM

From the size, and especially the details faintly visible in Saturnshine, I am fairly certain this has to be Dione, not Rhea.

Phil

elakdawalla

Mar 6 2006, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (canis_minor @ Mar 6 2006, 11:08 AM)

Enceladus and *Rhea*, actually. The Cassini database entry for this observation explicitly lists both Enceladus and Rhea in the description of the imaging request.

I think you're thinking of the March 2 mutual event, which was with Rhea. The March 3 one was Dione. From the Saturn Viewer...

March 2
Click to view attachment

March 3
Click to view attachment

--Emily

canis_minor

Mar 8 2006, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Mar 6 2006, 01:35 PM)

I think you're thinking of the March 2 mutual event, which was with Rhea. The March 3 one was Dione. From the Saturn Viewer...
--Emily

Of course you're right. I guess one of my points was, the scientists definitely knew what body they were imaging in CIMS (the activity planning database). Incredible that they got two so similar profiles within a couple of days....

volcanopele

Mar 9 2006, 05:50 PM

If you don't mind, I'd like to split this thread up, between questions regarding the Enceladus image and Saturn composition posts.

paxdan

Mar 9 2006, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Mar 9 2006, 05:50 PM)

If you don't mind, I'd like to split this thread up, between questions regarding the Enceladus image and Saturn composition posts.

please do, while you're at it can you get rid of the 'stupid isn't it' title, it is not appropriate.

volcanopele

Mar 9 2006, 06:34 PM

Done and Done

AlexBlackwell

Mar 9 2006, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Mar 9 2006, 06:34 PM)

Done and Done

FWIW, aside from minor spelling errors or violations of the terms of service, I'd tread very easy in changing the names of topic titles or altering the content of posts. If this option is exercised too often, the history of the site can be literally re-written (even if unintentionally) in a sort of Orwellian way, IMO.

volcanopele

Mar 9 2006, 06:50 PM

QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Mar 9 2006, 11:43 AM)

I agree. However, there are cases where the thread title, or the description don't mention what the thread is about or even providing a clue. In those cases, I feel it is appropriate to amend the thread title to make it clearer. IF the thread originator disagrees, I have no problem with changing it back, but I feel in this case it was appropriate to change. This option, as you mention, should not be exercised often, but I feel one of the duties of a moderator is to ensure ease of communication, and have thread or description titles that reflect the content of at least the first post, is one of the more important necessities.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.