Starship Asterisk*

by **Kurt** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:28 am

Towards the end of the video, in the lower left quadrant, there is a large triangular area defined by a lightly colored 'line'. Just curious.

by **ta152h0** » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:41 am

well then, deploy the drogue chute and get down to about 25000 feet and have a look. This thing is nothing more than a standard cratered body other than the fascinating spots

by **BrunoD** » Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:52 am

Amazing, completely knackered that place...

The bright spots are recent impact sites.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:03 pm

ta152h0 wrote:and screws up the natural altimeter we all possess. I like vertical exaggeration but does that render small features invisible ?

No, if anything it makes small features more apparent. 2X vertical exaggeration probably provides a more realistic approximation of what we'd actually see with our eyes from orbit than a video with no exaggeration would. That's because we would have additional perceptual cues that the video doesn't provide.

by **ta152h0** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:55 pm

and screws up the natural altimeter we all possess. I like vertical exaggeration but does that render small features invisible ?

by **Idaho Astro** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:05 pm

Cousin Ricky wrote:If this is intended to show what a flyover would look like, then why the vertical exaggeration, and why the contrived star field? In fact, this is not what a flyover would look like.

I have to agree. Go ahead and make the vertically exaggerated version (preferably with prominent text along the bottom that says so), but please also give us the non-exaggerated version. Building false intuition just creates confusion and ultimately risks turning people off to science.

by **bystander** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:06 pm

UCLA-led NASA mission provides closest ever look at dwarf planet Ceres
University of California, Los Angeles | 2015 Jun 11

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:30 pm

ta152h0 wrote:Can LED lighting occur naturally ?

I doubt it. And certainly not in the sort of materials we find on the surface of solar system bodies. And not white.

by **ta152h0** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:54 pm

Can LED lighting occur naturally ?

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:39 pm

Cousin Ricky wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:
Cousin Ricky wrote:If this is intended to show what a flyover would look like, then why the vertical exaggeration, and why the contrived star field? In fact, this is not what a flyover would look like.
Other than artistic purposes and awe factor, which work, the star field is likely there because it is expected to be visible in the darkness of space. It has been an issue here numerous times that space images don't show stars "nice image of the ISS but where are the stars".
My question remains. If it really is intended to show what it would look like, then how is it legitimate to cater to people's misconceptions of what things look like in space? If they just wanted to make an artistic piece based on real data, or even exaggerate for visualization purposes, that's perfectly fine; but then don't say that this is what it would look like.

I think this is, in fact, what it would look like (to a reasonable approximation). While cameras capturing bodies like this record very few stars, our eyes would see the background starfield just fine, and few people would detect the difference between an actual or simulated starfield. Our brains would also likely pull out more 3D structure, making the small 2X vertical exaggeration of the video come closer to approximating our first hand view.

by **Nitpicker** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:30 am

Cousin Ricky wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:
Cousin Ricky wrote:If this is intended to show what a flyover would look like, then why the vertical exaggeration, and why the contrived star field? In fact, this is not what a flyover would look like.
Other than artistic purposes and awe factor, which work, the star field is likely there because it is expected to be visible in the darkness of space. It has been an issue here numerous times that space images don't show stars "nice image of the ISS but where are the stars".
My question remains. If it really is intended to show what it would look like, then how is it legitimate to cater to people's misconceptions of what things look like in space? If they just wanted to make an artistic piece based on real data, or even exaggerate for visualization purposes, that's perfectly fine; but then don't say that this is what it would look like.

The answer may be in the video itself. No where on the video, the YouTube page, or the JPL site does it say that it was intended to give a realistic impression, so I must conclude that this was just editorializing done by the APOD commentator.

BMAONE23 wrote:As far as the galactic plane issue goes, nothing is stated in the write up regarding this being an equatorial orbit. Orbits can be around any axis even one that coincides with the galactic plane.
I wasn't the one who brought up the galactic plane. Since there is no indication (other than the (possibly spurious) APOD description) that the video was intended to give a realistic impression, I must conclude that the orientation of the star field is irrelevant.

Rather, the author of the APOD explanation was using the term "look like" as a simile, not a metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

(And it certainly looks a lot more like Ceres than the Moon, irrespective of the orientation of the backdrop.)

by **Cousin Ricky** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:55 am

BMAONE23 wrote:
Cousin Ricky wrote:If this is intended to show what a flyover would look like, then why the vertical exaggeration, and why the contrived star field? In fact, this is not what a flyover would look like.
Other than artistic purposes and awe factor, which work, the star field is likely there because it is expected to be visible in the darkness of space. It has been an issue here numerous times that space images don't show stars "nice image of the ISS but where are the stars".

My question remains. If it really is intended to show what it would look like, then how is it legitimate to cater to people's misconceptions of what things look like in space? If they just wanted to make an artistic piece based on real data, or even exaggerate for visualization purposes, that's perfectly fine; but then don't say that this is what it would look like.

The answer may be in the video itself. No where on the video, the YouTube page, or the JPL site does it say that it was intended to give a realistic impression, so I must conclude that this was just editorializing done by the APOD commentator.

BMAONE23 wrote:As far as the galactic plane issue goes, nothing is stated in the write up regarding this being an equatorial orbit. Orbits can be around any axis even one that coincides with the galactic plane.

I wasn't the one who brought up the galactic plane. Since there is no indication (other than the (possibly spurious) APOD description) that the video was intended to give a realistic impression, I must conclude that the orientation of the star field is irrelevant.

by **BMAONE23** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:00 am

Missed that pesky illumination angle

by **Nitpicker** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:58 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Other than artistic purposes and awe factor, which work, the star field is likely there because it is expected to be visible in the darkness of space. It has been an issue here numerous times that space images don't show stars "nice image of the ISS but where are the stars".
As far as the galactic plane issue goes, nothing is stated in the write up regarding this being an equatorial orbit. Orbits can be around any axis even one that coincides with the galactic plane.

The background stars also help to give a sense of speed and motion. But you can tell the orbit of the virtual camera in the first sequence is pretty close to equatorial around Ceres, based on the way the sunlight illuminates Ceres. The alignment with the Milky Way was the first thing I noticed, and it made me look up the details to verify that Ceres's rotation is not at all closely aligned with the galaxy's.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:51 pm

geckzilla wrote:I made a picture illustrating how a person might typically imagine Earth's atmosphere to be versus how it is closer to reality. It is pretty much a flat nothing against the sphere of Earth once one is far enough away that the entire sphere is in view.

In class, I show the kids a standard 12-inch globe, and they work out that Mount Everest at scale is about the height of the thickness of a couple of sheets of copy paper. You could feel the relief of the Earth's surface, but you couldn't really see it.

by **geckzilla** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:36 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
ceelias wrote:The comments on the vertical exaggeration are interesting to me. As a civil engineer, all of the road designs we do (profile views) are exaggerated 10 times vertically to allow us to see very flat slopes. The use of vertical exaggeration is a well respected means of viewing topography for watershed analysis as well as determining scenic (and not so scenic) views, among other uses.

Simply put, I would have been surprised if the views did NOT have the vertical exaggeration!
I believe Google Earth defaults to a 2X or 3X vertical exaggeration, as well, unless changed. Makes sense for large planetary bodies since the vertical distance range is typically so small compared with the horizontal. Without exaggeration, most planetary surfaces simply look flat.

It's got a funny way of messing with our perception of scale. We do it all the time with depictions of the atmosphere, too. I made a picture illustrating how a person might typically imagine Earth's atmosphere to be versus how it is closer to reality. It is pretty much a flat nothing against the sphere of Earth once one is far enough away that the entire sphere is in view. I think it miniaturizes planetary bodies when vertical heights are exaggerated. Seeing how thin the atmosphere is or how insignificant an otherwise tall mountain range is really puts things in perspective.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:22 pm

ceelias wrote:The comments on the vertical exaggeration are interesting to me. As a civil engineer, all of the road designs we do (profile views) are exaggerated 10 times vertically to allow us to see very flat slopes. The use of vertical exaggeration is a well respected means of viewing topography for watershed analysis as well as determining scenic (and not so scenic) views, among other uses.

Simply put, I would have been surprised if the views did NOT have the vertical exaggeration!

I believe Google Earth defaults to a 2X or 3X vertical exaggeration, as well, unless changed. Makes sense for large planetary bodies since the vertical distance range is typically so small compared with the horizontal. Without exaggeration, most planetary surfaces simply look flat.

by **ceelias** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:16 pm

The comments on the vertical exaggeration are interesting to me. As a civil engineer, all of the road designs we do (profile views) are exaggerated 10 times vertically to allow us to see very flat slopes. The use of vertical exaggeration is a well respected means of viewing topography for watershed analysis as well as determining scenic (and not so scenic) views, among other uses.

Simply put, I would have been surprised if the views did NOT have the vertical exaggeration!

by **bystander** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:12 pm

kellogg wrote:
How fast does Ceres actually rotate?

About once every 9 hours (Ceres)

by **kellogg** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:34 pm

Frankly, I'm more curious about the rotational exaggeration vs the relief exaggeration.

How fast does Ceres actually rotate?

Scott

by **ta152h0** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:31 pm

hope the end of the mission is an Eros style landing with cameras rolling

by **hwelborn** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:19 pm

I have a visceral response to photographs like this...it is almost a kind of panic, and I think it is related to understanding, grokking, that "there but for the grace of What goes Earth, and life." Isn't life strange?

by **Dad is watching** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:16 pm

Agreed that this was a bad way to start the blog stream...

But I was wondering about the surface itself. In some areas, there are craters inside craters with smaller craters in them. And in other areas, the surface appears to be much less cratered, smoother perhaps, with what appears to be that white surface feature/gradient in abundance. Is this an artifact of image processing or are we looking at surface areas of different ages? Could this be evidence of some sort of internal activity in recent geological time frames?

by **geckzilla** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:11 pm

Craine wrote:
Guest wrote:In other words this is a lie.

guest2 wrote:Why 2x the vertical? Please show same with 1x.
Troll much?

This is a non-issue.
Virtually everything APOD presents is in some way manipulated. Images are cropped, combined, enhanced, in false color, sharpened or whatever is needed to either make it aesthetically pleasing, or usable for scientific or educational porpoises.
In this particular case it is an animation. A simulation based on real data. It is as close as you are going to get without actually being there yourself (in which case it would probably be too dark to see much with the naked eye anyway).
It is what it is because it is the best way to represent the data in a meaningful way for the chosen goal.

If you don't understand this, go watch C-SPAN.

I don't think the two guests are the same person and they aren't saying anything against the rules. Rough way to start the thread and not the nicest way to put it, but some people do not like this video and it's ok if they express this feeling it as long as they're not insulting.

by **bystander** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:09 pm

WilardChicago wrote:What makes an asteroid like Ceres round?

gravity (See dwarf planet and hydrostatic equilibrium)

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)

Re: APOD: Fly Over Dwarf Planet Ceres (2015 Jun 10)