I meant Greg Roberts. ________________________________ From: Fred Valcho <fvalcho@yahoo.com> To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org Sent: Sun, August 15, 2010 9:51:36 PM Subject: Re: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites Mostly to George and and in support of Ralf, .02 I've been a subscriber to this list for about 2 years or so. I have never posted my sightings, but I eagerly await new pics and posting and try to view every single one, and I further try to take the raw data and use one of the software apps or web sights to look at the Sat data, etc, because I am a hungry starving freak trying to eat as much as possible. I'll be the first to admit a lot of the data made no sense to me at in the beginning. I'll confess to ignorance on all counts. But I keep reading. My professional life is filled to the brim with raw network data, protocols, specifications, presentations, etc, etc, etc. I eat the stuff 24x7. And I love it. I wanted to be a chef, but Vietnam changed that. Now, its electrons flowing in a net, algorithms people dream up, and specs I have to proof or simply just accept - they are not always correct! With that said, folks postings to this alias is a fresh breeze for me. I am amazed at my own existence in the universe. I have no reason to suspect anything but pure amateur enjoyment from all the postings. Prove a posting as false? Not crossing my mind, even if I had the time, and I did find a suspicious post, I would contact members offline. Just like at any 'job', I follow the rules and stick to the consensus. Science is a tricky business, you can be right for years, then suddenly find out your wrong. For as many years as I've been in my line of work (27), I find I am always at the bottom and have to prove myself to the team at nearly every new major undertaking. It is simply human nature. I've learned to turn the grief around that I receive, and turn it to a positive that I can use to show I am capable of more. People will take this as professionalism, and it's goes a long way to get "in". If someone must complain, I sure hope they have the bullets in the gun to back it up! For without proof and substance, they may turn out to just be a 'complainer', and no-one on the team would be happy with that. If I don't believe something, I try to put my mind in the other persons shoes, and look at the problem from his view. I aske dfor documentation, then try to duplicate it. Just like in a thesis, I need all the facts. I have feelings and pride, but I don't want these to skew my professionalism. It doesn't get me anywhere, just more frustration and I've had enough of that in my 57 years. When I first subscribed, I rooted my self to George as my mentor, because he has done what I would love to have done, studied the sky professionally. George explained why he does what he does. From that I learned why SeeSat-L really exists. Just for fun, and to share. Upon Ralf's first posting, I became enthralled at the detail, but knew he had to use ample pics to achieve his resolution detail. I've worked with Photo Shop for years in lunar photography to enhance my crater details looking for landing sights and left over equipment (this is my main fascination in the sky), and can see similar results in his work. Still, I show his PICs off to folks at work and my wife. I can't get enough of them! So I for one say keep it up, you have a supporter here. and Hey, and I learn tons without having to lift a finger, I love it. If I knew it all, I'd write a book. now back to work. Fred ________________________________ From: George <gr@gr5.org> To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org Sent: Sun, August 15, 2010 6:44:52 PM Subject: RE: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites > 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, With satellite observations there are common errors even among the most reliable. Sometimes the time offsets are subtracted instead of added so that the time is off by e.g. 10 seconds or 1 minute. Sometimes someone makes a typo or mentions the wrong object id. In these cases the error is usually caught quickly, the original observer goes over his notes again and fixes the mistake. In science it's great if someone can verify your results. I really can't tell you if there is a parallel among "high res ground imagery of sats". Possibly not. However I can tell you that image processing techniques have made stunning progress (blind deconvolution for example) and will continue to make further progress. If someone 20 years from now wants to re-analyze a highly processed image on seesat-l and can't get to the original they are out of luck. In contrast, if someone wants to use 10 years of ppas data to determine satellite configuration based on flashes and sophisticated software, the data is all available. - George Roberts _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/private/seesat-l/attachments/20100815/c585dd84/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/private/seesat-l/attachments/20100815/65306b34/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 16 2010 - 05:29:31 UTC