RE: Admin: policy for reporting high resolutionground-basedimageryofEarth satellites

From: Paul Grace (
Date: Sat Aug 14 2010 - 16:30:10 UTC

  • Next message: Ralf Vandebergh: "Re: re: Admin: policy for reporting high resolutionground-basedimageryofEarth satellites"

    I like seeing the imagery.  I believe it is a particularly difficult image
    to obtain because of the dynamics of the subject.  Seeing preprocessed data
    is interesting as well, but if a submission were dependent on giving away
    source data, then my choice would be to see the post data rather than no
    This mail list seems to exist for the purpose of sharing observational
    information of satellites.  Photos of satellites is observational data.  We
    don't require source data submission for all orbital element submissions,
    nor discussion on the technique involved.  It seems plain to an amateur (me)
    that if I want to learn how to create a satellite photograph (or determine
    orbital elements for a sat), I can contact a submitter via another channel
    for a lengthy primer.
    Let's admit that the owner of the information is free to do what he wants
    with the data, and share what he will with us.
    -----Original Message-----
    [] On Behalf Of
    Greg Roberts
    Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 00:52
    Subject: Re: Admin: policy for reporting high
    resolutionground-basedimageryofEarth satellites
    Morning Ralph and others
    Many thanks for your reply. I do understand your viewpoint and I certainly
    would not expect you to make available every single raw image that you get
    but I would very much like to see a "before" and "after" image so that I can
    better judge for myself what is real and what is not. I would also very much
    like to see a description of how you get from the raw to the final image. I
    dont think I can ever recall you mentioning what software you use so what Im
    basically getting at is that anyone new to this field doesnt have much of a
    clue about how to "go about it" and has to re-invent the wheel. With this
    much of a barrier present it will not be easy to get people inspired to try
    for themselves - I think this is also why readers generally have not
    responded with comments about your images - its all "black magic" to them so
    little or no interest.
    There are no doubt some who may be tempted but they need to be encouraged
    and shown how it can be done.
    I personally have very little interest in high resolution imaging and to be
    honest most of the time think its a total waste of effort but that could be
    due to total ignorance on my part. One thing I do know is that I could never
    even contemplate attempting such - I do not have the equipment, and more
    importantly, I do not have the seeing conditions necessary for such imaging.
    If I have seeing better than 12 arc seconds then I regard that as "very good
    seeing" for my location. As a professional astronomer I often experienced
    sub arc second seeing at the Observatory's outstation at Sutherland some 400
    km away from Cape Town - once the seeing decayed to the 10 arc second level
    we usually called it a night as the seeing was so bad the accuracy of our
    photometric observations became too bad - we were attempting to work to
    milli-magnitude accuracy , so unless I move location now its pointless doing
    high resolution imaging.Adaptive optics might permit it but Im certainly not
    going to go to that extreme!
    Now back to my low resolution geo imaging :-))
    Best wishes
    Seesat-l mailing list
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 14 2010 - 16:31:08 UTC