3D shape, cartography, and geoid of Comet 67P C-G |
3D shape, cartography, and geoid of Comet 67P C-G |
Aug 6 2014, 02:11 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10176 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
Explorer 1 said:
"A 2D map of C-G seems like a tough order; the projection math alone..." Don't worry! If you can put a grid on the surface (as we have seen already), you can warp that grid into any map projection you like. Mapping will be no huge problem - in fact I expect they have a rough one already (I've been playing with one myself). Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Aug 10 2014, 06:36 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 13-July 05 From: The Hague, NL Member No.: 434 |
thanks, Gerald, for your insights. I noticed you follow the Rosetta blog, too. Unless another Gerald is at work there! My own name (Peter Groeneweg) is a bit too difficult so on the ESA blogs I'm PeterG.
In my previous entry my use of the English language is perhaps "difficult" too, so let me say here what I really wanted to say: I feel privileged to be a member, a junior member to be more precise, of a forum that has experts like Phil in its ranks. No unmanned spaceflight subject seems too arcane for the forum! A further thought: is a cartography system the province of ESA, or does it need endorsement by the international organization(s)? One thing seems sure: after the initial spectacular success at 67P/C-G I expect more missions to follow and a sound cartography system seems most useful to have by then. |
|
|
Aug 10 2014, 07:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2346 Joined: 7-December 12 Member No.: 6780 |
... I noticed you follow the Rosetta blog, too. Unless another Gerald is at work there! ... I admit, I couldn't help to extend the funny metaphorical thought experiment about the Philae descent and landing (with limited type setting options). But names don't need to be unique, necessarily. Why along the field lines..? Because it corresponds to the intuitive and physical concept of "up" and "down". Notions like slope / steepness, depression, hill, etc. make a sense. It's kind of generalization we are used to from Earth on a physical basis, not merely geometric. Technical difficulties to find the field of gravity are going to be reduced by the orbital measurements. These measurements allow even to determine the interior mass distribution to some degree. But an estimation would do the job, too. The surface shouldn't fold back to itself (conjectural to some degree at this point), since the gravitational potential should be defined uniquely, at least for the non-rotating body. The body itself may be layered or contain overhangs, of course. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd June 2024 - 03:33 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |