Enceladus Plume Search, Nov. 27 Options

[jmknapp]

Interesting item in the science plan kernel (S16) just released to the NAIF website:

OBSERVATION_ID: S1629

SEQUENCE: S16

OBSERVATION_TITLE: Plume Search

SCIENCE_OBJECTIVE: Hope to detect/observe plumes, whether from volcanic activity or geysers.

OBS_DESCRIPTION: Point and stare.

SUBSYSTEM: ISS

PRIMARY_POINTING: ISS_NAC to Enceladus (0.0,5.0,0.0 deg. offset)

REQUEST_ID: ISS_018EN_PLUMES001_PRIME

REQUEST_TITLE: ENCELADUS Geyser/Plume Search

REQ_DESCRIPTION: 1;ENCELADUS Geyser/Plume Search 1x1xNPp -- 3 different exposures

BEGIN_TIME: 2005 NOV 27 19:00:00 UTC

END_TIME: 2005 NOV 27 20:00:00 UTC

[tty]

Note the darker "cores" to the high albedo spikes at about longitude 60 and 210. They suggest that either there relatively fewer particles with low velocities or that the low-velocity particles have a different composition.

tty

[dilo]

Note the darker "cores" to the high albedo spikes at about longitude 60 and 210. They suggest that either there relatively fewer particles with low velocities or that the low-velocity particles have a different composition.

tty

I have impression that albedo is rather related to particles origin: the central/polar tiger stripe (blue color code) generate darker material compared to the other two... ones
Anyway, amazing work, jmknapp!

[jmknapp]

I have impression that albedo is rather related to particles origin: the central/polar tiger stripe (blue color code) generate darker material compared to the other two... ones

Another possibility: maybe the central stripe isn't as active, or not active along its entire length? The sim assumed that each stripe was active across its length. Nice to see Voyager data come in so handy!

Hendrik:
BTW, what is arxiv? Does one need academic/institutional affiliation to submit a paper?

[ugordan]

jmknapp: Seriously, you should think about writing a (short) paper on your sim. I don't know if others did similar simulations, but the results are intriguing. Perhaps with a little bit of playing around with distributions of venting locations you could make an even better fit to the albedo map. The paper doesn't have to be a hundred pages long, a few pages might do, describing your reasoning, steps and discussing your tentative results a bit.

Someone's bound to do this anyway and you might feel bad when they take the credit for it.

[elakdawalla]

jmknapp: Seriously, you should think about writing a (short) paper on your sim. I don't know if others did similar simulations, but the results are intriguing. Perhaps with a little bit of playing around with distributions of venting locations you could make an even better fit to the albedo map. The paper doesn't have to be a hundred pages long, a few pages might do, describing your reasoning, steps and discussing your tentative results a bit.

Someone's bound to do this anyway and you might feel bad when they take the credit for it. 

If Joe is interested in that, the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference would be a good way to go. They publish two-page "abstracts," and their deadline is January 3. --However, if he does want to publish anything, of course, that is really "doing science" which means he would have to strictly avoid even giving the impression that he has looked at any Cassini Enceladus data that has not been delivered to the PDS. That would be a no-no at this point! I think the early Enceladus data should be part of the next PDS release, right? And I hear there is a publication coming up, perhaps in Science, perhaps in January, which should free other scientists' tounges a bit...

--Emily

[jmknapp]

....would have to strictly avoid even giving the impression that he has looked at any Cassini Enceladus data that has not been delivered to the PDS.  That would be a no-no at this point!  I think the early Enceladus data should be part of the next PDS release, right?  And I hear there is a publication coming up, perhaps in Science, perhaps in January, which should free other scientists' tounges a bit...

Yeah, I seem to recall something about that in the MER documents, something like any early released information is not to be published for a set time? Of course, "published" may be a nebulous concept, what with web-publishing and all. I suppose it means not in peer-reviewed venues? Or perhaps, strictly, anywhere?

[elakdawalla]

Yeah, I seem to recall something about that in the MER documents, something like any early released information is not to be published for a set time? Of course, "published" may be a nebulous concept, what with web-publishing and all. I suppose it means not in peer-reviewed venues? Or perhaps, strictly, anywhere?

Yeah, now that preliminary versions of "data" are available on the Web for the rovers and Cassini it's much harder for people on science teams to police access to data. Obviously scientists who are not on the imaging teams for either mission look at the pictures and take note of things that they eventually want to publish about. But they absolutely cannot publish scientific analysis of anything that is out there -- raw images, press released images, whatever -- until the data is formally released to the community via the PDS. In the past, when people have published about press released images, they have been "drummed out of the business" (in the words of one scientist I talked with recently). Once it's in the PDS though, it's fair game. This is to give the scientists who've worked to bring the instruments to space a first chance to publish about the data, and also to calibrate the data properly based on their unique knowledge of the instruments before it's made available to scientists who don't have that unique knowledge and experience.

--Emily

[The Messenger]

...This is to give the scientists who've worked to bring the instruments to space a first chance to publish about the data, and also to calibrate the data properly based on their unique knowledge of the instruments before it's made available to scientists who don't have that unique knowledge and experience.

--Emily

In this case, I think jmknapp is stepping around their toes, but not on them. His approach is original and well conceived. Give the devil his due.

THE SYSTEM makes the assumption that the PI's are in the best position to validate and evaluate their own data. Most of the time this should work well, but on several of the current missions I have serious doubts.

For example, the WMAP team has been camped on the 2d & 3rd year data for 2-3 years. Literally hundreds of papers have been written that are based on first-year results, and some of these present serious challenges to the initial WMAP team findings.

So why the silence? Serious challenges have been raised, and I am of the opinion the WMAP team members are sitting on data they are either unwilling or unable to defend. As long as this stalemate continues, how can the science progress?