Thank you for spending the time with me. As long as submitters are willing to document the methods and data, (he says he is) then I don't see any difference. Obviously some people are "suspicious" of the results, so they should take their suspicions to the submitter, shouldn't they? They can then attempt to replicate the results, and see how they compare to the submission and documented subjects (such as the ISS). Asking the submitter to go to great lengths documenting the process and materials, and posting it to a largely "not suspicious" group seems to be an unnecessary burden. A one-on-one discussion is also likely to remain more polite than a suspicious person challenging the hard work of a hobbyist in a public forum. I guess I don't really understand the distinction. -----Original Message----- From: seesat-l-bounces+paulgrace=lookoutranch.com@satobs.org [mailto:seesat-l-bounces+paulgrace=lookoutranch.com@satobs.org] On Behalf Of Ted Molczan Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 00:09 To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org Subject: RE: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites Paul Grace wrote: > We don't require source data submission for all orbital element > submissions, nor discussion on the technique involved. The reliably of the orbits we routinely derive from our observations has been amply demonstrated over many years, and I am not aware of any controversy in that regard. Nearly all positional observers report their observations via the list, using appropriate standard formats, which include estimates of timing and positional accuracy. Orbital element sets derived from observations can readily be verified for accuracy, by assembling observations proximate to the epoch of the elements, or within the observational arc, if stated. When I encounter difficulty with an observation in the course of performing an orbit analysis, I know that I can count on the observer to cooperate fully in resolving the issue, even to the point of providing the underlying data. It is understood that in challenging an observation, the intent is not to embarrass or insult the observer, but a part of the scientific process. When sharing major findings, I make an effort to document the methods and sources, and am prepared to share data. See for example, Section 2.2 of the following, in which I offered the key tables used to perform the analysis, upon request: http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/IDCOGO11/Identification_of_UI_Objects_in_COGO_1 1.pdf In contrast, ground-based high-resolution imaging of satellites remains fairly early in its development stage, and there has been controversy regarding the reliability of some of the results. Development of appropriate reporting standards, and a willingness to share complete raw data, would help to resolve such concerns and improve confidence in results. Ted Molczan _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 15 2010 - 18:07:54 UTC