Hmm. Three. And all in the same hemisphere. Ain't that kinda curious . . .

Three debris fields . . . hmm again:

Let's abstract the situation: Three relatively closely spaced points on a roughly spherical object make a triangle.
Now toy with it . . . connect each point with the center of its opposing side to find the triangle's centroid (where the lines intersect inside the triangle); extending those lines across [around?] the opposite hemisphere determines another point of intersection.

Use this antipodal intersection point to interrupt the surface and "unpeel" it along those extended medians a little bit——say 30 arc-degrees so we stay well distant from the debris fields——and use that extent of unpeeling-the-orange to create a Constant-Scale Natural Boundary map well suited to comprehensively study the debris fields and their interactions if any.

Alternatively, assuming no access to CSNB software, use
1) the antipodal point as the edge of an azimuthal equidistant projection to get a standard map crudely suitable for the same purpose, with severe distortion causing trouble only within say 30º of the map's edge. This won't be a problem if semi-orbital dust transport is not in play. The severe edge distortion can be eliminated by
2) an Oblique Peirce Quincuncial projection centered on the nearside centroid, rotated so the cross is a best fit with the medians. You'll get four far-side 45º "flaps" instead of the three 30º flaps you'd get with CSNB, so expect some map-edge interruption of the debris fields if semi-orbital dust transport is occurring. This could be minimized by
3) Setting up a digital 3-D model and glancing back and forth between it and either of the imperfect conventional maps and——assuming you've got above-average short-term memory——thereby sniffing out airborne debris interactions if any.

Just thinking out loud while Sopranos S2 E13 loads . . .

2020 e-poster now up, constant-scale natural boundary maps with photomosaics:

progress 2020: mapping 67P to reveal sub-orbital material transport

Pam's and my e-poster is up:

Comet 67P maps with photomosaics E-POSTER

just in time for the end of the Tuesday Night Poster Session!

Be patient, as it seems to take a little while to load, what with the new, 10-meg size limit.

FYI: Because these maps include Hathor, 67P's extreme overhanging cliff, these are the comet's first comprehensive photomosaics.

I'll post another link over on the comet thread, where content comments are better located. Maybe tomorrow; feeling a little tired at the moment . . .

Wholeheartedly agree. I often have trouble making these stereo posts "read." Not so with this one!

e-poster now up for mapping 67P in my peculiar method:

lpsc2018 eposter 2879

Just uploaded my e-poster on mapping 67P:
e-poster mapping comet 67P/C-G

Here's the same projection, but focused on the opposite pole. And with the 0–180 meridian across the middle, left to right.
The trailing hemisphere is the top half and the leading hemisphere is the bottom half.

What I'm wondering is: is there any usefulness to this view? Seems to me that if the incredibly active south pole shows up so distinctly in the first map (above, this thread), and the tiger stripes and the ring around them are due to tidal flexing, we'd see something similar happening at the north pole, where the tidal flexing stresses are presumably no different.

But we don't, right?

(A quick edit: this map is not exactly the same as the first one: the map boundary is slightly altered to reduce maximum shape distortion.)

I'm using Safari, but also happens in Firefox.

I'm beginning to suspect the problem is in my machine, one of the early 27" iMacs with the 5K screen.

The problem shows up when trying to open other very large files in the Safari and Firefox browsers.

But oddly enough (just now try it), the file does open in Chrome!

Thanks for help.

c

I've posted a high-resolution version of the above map (second row in the poster) over here:

http://rightbasicbuilding.com/2016/03/16/e...s-b-large-file/

But be sure to read the post. I'm having trouble getting it to load on-screen at full size.

You'll probably have to right-click and select download linked file.

Wish I knew how to fix that problem. Suggestions?

EDIT: Please let me know if you download it successfully.

If unable, send me a message via this forum and we'll figure out a way to FTP the file.

An LPSC poster is now up, over here:

LPSC poster

describing how this projection was conceived, and showing three additional aspects (rotated cut lines).

Here's a good map for contemplating tiger stripes in relation to the rest of the moon's surface (15˚ graticles).


A larger version over here

a Charon foldable globe?

Yes, Charon is on my radar, but awaiting the more complete coverage release they promise here:

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science...mp;image_id=264:
"Many additional images now stored on the spacecraft’s digital data recorders are expected to be transmitted "home" in fall 2015 and these will be used to complete the global map."

I'm prepping the Pluto data now for LPSC 47. If anyone can convert the colorized Pluto image to a simple cylindrical, I'd be happy to immediately update the Pluto daisy-petal map.

Anyone?

c

A daisy petal foldable globe of Pluto is over here:

Pluto Foldable Globe

[attachment=38034:PLUSH67P.jpg]


Now THAT's nice!

Might be me.

I made those foldable maps of several asteroids, and Phobos and Deimos that got a bit of attention a few years ago.

World maps with constant-scale natural boundaries, (samples at www.rightbasicbuilding.com).

As well as maps of spherical bodies that also fold to solids.

Trouble is, if trouble it be, that my maps of spherical bodies fold up to condensations of the sphere rather than nice spheres.

Other projection systems based on platonic solids generate better spheres. Some better than others: the icosahedral is pointy; the daisy-hemispheres is pretty good. The "apple-peel" example above is especially nice! I've not seen it before; someone should take a bow.)

So, anyway, mine come out lumpy or misshapen in an irregular manner that is a function of the natural boundary system selected as the map's border. The advantage is not so much the globe as it is the map itself, which is also irregular (sometimes highly irregular) but precisely so to display global patterns. A map of earth using (subsets of) continental divides is nice for contemplating global geomorphology, and can be rearranged for different perspectives on the subject.

I'm highly intrigued by the new information on Pluto, and begin to strategize a boundary system to experiment with, similar to what my coauthor and I did at last year's lpsc with Miranda, Ganymede, Dione and Enceladus.

Consider a bifurcating centroid-tree through Sputnik and then out the white lobes as a starting system. Not sure how far the apparent evidence could take it, perhaps branching again, from there.


It may be possible to identify points of interest and districts of distinction on an unseen hemisphere based on large-scale organization of an observed hemisphere. At least for bodies with shell-like crusts in existence long enough to have attained gross equilibrium. (This worked especially well on Ganymede, and not too bad on Dione, but of course this was reverse engineering because those surfaces are known in entirety or nearly so.) Miranda was another test, but of course the back side will remain unseen for the foreseeable future.

Pluto might be a nice test body for this conjecture, because some information about the hemisphere unobserved by New Horizons is in those 2011 blurry Hubble images, which some maps above have included.

No promises. I may get distracted by 67-P Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Or maybe Bennu.

Well, granted, but even if we have no global imaging, a constant-scale natural boundary map, made from the tentative shape model, would display graticles and topological districts in reasonably accurate proportions.

After the shape model is refined, I could adjust the map accordingly.

And as the images arrive, we'd have the mapping blank (so to speak) ready to go.

Note that the empty grid of a constant-scale natural boundary map, unlike an empty grid in a conventional projection, captures district proportions, so topological content (or at least prototopological, i.e. folding, content) is transformed to the plane.

The downside would be we'd need to make two models with incised graticles, and I'd have to do the handwork twice, but that's not such a big investment of time, is it?, in order to have an accurate mapping blank ready to accept images as they arrive. The investment of dollars to make the model twice is a consideration, too, but these days that's not much dough, either. Less than the cost of driving Atlanta to Houston.

Otherwise, in the interim, we have to endure viewing the available images in grossly distorting formats.

Phil -- are we ready for me to give a shot at making a constant-scale natural boundary (foldable) map of this thing?

I've located a source here in Atlanta who can turn a 3d file into a plastic model, from which I can work.

Someone will need a shape-model file with graticles incised. Tayfun? I don't suppose you are following along with?

I have to say, for all I argued earlier for flipping the map, I personally have no problem reading the map from top down. I suspect that's true for most everyone who use maps a lot, and I'm guessing that's representative of your target audience.

Nice observation, Floyd.
The horizontal Header bars contribute to the apprehension of these things as charts.
This is fine, maybe better, if you keep them unflipped.
But if you flip them, then best to employ graphical maneuvers to imply annotations. That is, if flipped, then use even a lighter gray than jmknapp did. Or even retry bold font. Maybe bold font underlined?

jmknapp's gray scale bars and gray Header bars look good.

I'm with ngunn on this one. I know we read a page of text from top to bottom, and the map is consistent with that, but when you ride in a car and look out the windshield and look at the map in your lap, you instinctively orient the map to read from bottom to top, so it orients with your view forward.

I realize your book will have no windshield, but the instinct, I think, transfers.

You might try one or two -- give the flip-the-map idea a test drive, so to speak -- and see how it works.

As for the black-and-white scale bar, I like it very much as a visual reference. When I'm thinking pictorially (looking at a map) I can glance at the scale bar and get a suggestion of distance without having to access the other side of my brain and perform some mental computation to know distance. BUT, the trouble with these is proportion. At that width, they scream "look at me!" They'll work better if you slim them down, say 50%. (maybe more; it's a judgment call . . .)

Generally, I agree your use of the Triptik approach is an excellent strategy. I'm presuming you are also going to include the key map (your second image above?). Many atlases use a similar approach.

I prefer the pale (low-opacity) white line because it shows underlying detail. Skinnying up the scale bars will help the relative appreciation of the pale white line.

Consider the scale bars (appropriately narrowed) on all four sides.

Great start!

EDIT (checked your post): Your key map ("not laid out appropriately for the book") is an excellent image. North is up, and the triptik locations are shown in context. You should show this map!
The graphical composition problem of how to rescue the white space now "wasted" in the corners (presuming you keep the proper, north-up, orientation [as an Atlas would]) is a secondary concern. Titles, legends, explanatory text boxes and elaborative footnotes could profitably fill these areas.
This issue gets slightly more severe because your page proportion (117 x 198) is rectangular and this map is square, so (assuming the map fills the page width) you'll also have a white bar across the top or bottom, but that additional white space could be relegated to the overall Figure Caption. Page proportion is close to a golden mean rectangle, so locating a square map on one end of the page (at top, probably), should look real nice.
The tertiary concern will be keeping the supportive space-fillers visually subordinate to the key map. One atlas I have (rats, can't seem to dig it out quickly to check the title) employs gray text to good effect for this problem. The text is larger than usual (there's not a lot to say on their key-map page), for easy reading, but the gray tone keeps it from dominating the subtle shades in the key map. You'll have more to say on your key map page (a la your post), but the gray-tone trick may nevertheless be useable.

SECOND EDIT (closer study of Triptik map): I see now what you doing with the black-bar-with-white-font Headings. I abandon the suggestion for wrapping the scale bar on four sides -- consider wrapping the scale bar on THREE sides (left, top, and bottom). I realize this is only a first draft, but I miss seeing white space to the outsides of the image, as it would appear on the page. This is vital to juding how much to slim down (if any) the scale bar width.

But, more importantly, to my eye the heavy-black Heading bars, as the scale bars, also overwhelm the subtle grays of the image. I realize the strong black horizontal Header makes the Drive category distinct, and agree that this is a desirable organizing objective, but consider ways to reduce the Bar's visual impact. Right now, again to my eye, the Header bars are too strong. What happens if you, say, eliminate the bars and change the font to bold? My guess, probably not quite strong enough to visually separate each Drive as nicely as the pure geometry of the black bar does, but, given the bold font, you could reintroduce the bar in a gray tone and not loose readability of the text.
Choice of gray tone is probably three: darker, equal to, or lighter than the average gray of the base map. I'd try lighter, first.

Keep us posted . . .

Applause!

(Is the obvious really obvious until someone states it precisely and clearly?)

Pam Clark and I are pleased to announce that the first in-depth treatment on world maps with constant-scale natural boundaries,
Constant-Scale Natural Boundary Mapping to Reveal Global and Cosmic Processes, is now available, click here.

(Amazon has it for 15% less if you've got free shipping with them. Springer shipping is included.)

downloadable front and back matter, chapter synopses and a look inside, is here.

CSNB mapping is a revolutionary approach to visualization that produces maps markedly different from, and yet complementary to, those produced by conventional 2D cartographic and 3D modeling techniques.

116 pages, 53 images, including material from UMSF contributors Phil Stooke and Tayfun Öner.

I haven't seen the electronic version, but in the printed copy, Figures 6.6 and 6.7 need a little brightening, and in Figures 6.8 and 6.9 the exploratory routes are hard to see. I'll post corrected versions on my website, soon as I get a spare moment. My old Mac Mini needs to see the doctor.

Here's the Frontispiece (a bit crisper than in softcover):

Oh, I tried refreshing the page, believe me. No luck.

The magic e-poster button also fails to show up in Safari browser, so the problem might be Tiger.

I'm in touch with Ms Tanner to concoct a workaround.

Anybody else have this problem?

Still no luck.

This is in the USRA Meeting Portal, right? Abstract Submission?

When I click on the abstract submittal button, I see only:

"Meeting Portal: Abstract Submission Form
44th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference
The Woodlands, Texas - Mar 18-22, 2013
Deadline for Submission: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:00 PM CST (GMT -6)
The deadline for submitting lpsc2013 abstracts has passed. If you have any questions, call 281-486-2142 or -2188"

Perhaps this is because I'm still using Mac OS 10.4 Tiger?

I also do not see my 2013 uploaded abstract.
Anybody else having this problem?