Ted, I fully agree with you about the importance of the rule. Instead of making a long e-mail, I have made a page describing a deep technical analysis of recent Nanosail images from Mr Vandebergh. As you suspect, shape and colors are artifacts. I think that the new rule is especially interesting in this "textbook case". I even think that now a few raw images extracted from the video are not sufficient, the full avi file would be very interesting to assess. The analysis: http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/nanosail_vandebergh_analysis.html regards >From: Ted Molczan >Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:52 PM >To: seesat-l@satobs.org >Subject: RE: And I thought if Nanosail D was obseved flashing,means it's >rotating > >Ralf Vandebergh wrote: > > > Just wanted to link to my website to show an image to support this > > discussion, but even that is rejected. > > So It's even not possible to support a discussion by showing an image. > >When you comply with the rules, your images will be allowed: > >http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html#Rules > >In the rejected report, you claimed to have resolved the "the shape and >attitude of the Sail and perhaps a sign of >tumbling". Given the size and altitude of the object, the aperture of your >optics, and method of tracking, there is room >for doubt. The rules are intended to facilitate evaluation of your results. > >Ted Molczan > > > >_______________________________________________ >Seesat-l mailing list >http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l Thierry Legault www.astrophoto.fr _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 27 2011 - 20:38:37 UTC