RE: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites

From: Paul Grace (paulgrace@lookoutranch.com)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2010 - 18:07:24 UTC

  • Next message: George: "RE: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites"

    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