This site may be down for up to an hour for network maintenance during the period
21 January 2022 22:30 UTC - 22 January 2022 00:30 UTC.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:PRS Small Bodies Facets"

From The SBN Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
[AR] Don't know if this helps, but for "dust studies" we have a fair number of data sets with a target of "Dust" and measurements that are called things like "mass spectra", "time of flight spectra", "spatial distribution", and such.  I don't know of anything analogous for gas.  Are there such data sets, and if so how do they describe themselves now in terms of target and observation type?
 
[AR] Don't know if this helps, but for "dust studies" we have a fair number of data sets with a target of "Dust" and measurements that are called things like "mass spectra", "time of flight spectra", "spatial distribution", and such.  I don't know of anything analogous for gas.  Are there such data sets, and if so how do they describe themselves now in terms of target and observation type?
  
 +
[mfa]  We will have purely gas datasets, e.g., from the ROSINA instrument on Rosetta.  We may have some in the IHW datasets from IMS and/or NMS.  Most other datasets addressing gas have dust mixed in, i.e., many people study dust without gas, but few people study gas without dust, if for no other reason than the need to get rid of the signal from the dust.
  
 
== Surfaces, interiors, and atmospheres ==
 
== Surfaces, interiors, and atmospheres ==
Line 12: Line 13:
  
 
[AR] Atmospheres has one of the simplest facet lists - just one facet, with just two values "structure" and "meteorology".  Now, part of this is that they're dragging feet, but looking at the sort of data on the Atmospheres website, would you expect similar data products for KBOs?  If so, then the Atmospheres facets will work.  If you think the sort of results we might get would be substantially different, then we either sweep it up under small bodies or coordinate with Atmospheres on their facet lists.  They're a bit preoccupied with MAVEN at the moment, but I suspect a reasonable proposal would be accepted.
 
[AR] Atmospheres has one of the simplest facet lists - just one facet, with just two values "structure" and "meteorology".  Now, part of this is that they're dragging feet, but looking at the sort of data on the Atmospheres website, would you expect similar data products for KBOs?  If so, then the Atmospheres facets will work.  If you think the sort of results we might get would be substantially different, then we either sweep it up under small bodies or coordinate with Atmospheres on their facet lists.  They're a bit preoccupied with MAVEN at the moment, but I suspect a reasonable proposal would be accepted.
 +
 +
===Lightcurves===
 +
 +
[mfa]  Do we want the sub-facets in now?  Or do we just want to put words in the facet description describing these possible future sub-facets?

Revision as of 17:48, 19 September 2013

Dust studies. What about gas?

We have a facet for dust studies, which is appropriate. Should there be "gas studies" ? [msk]

[AR] Don't know if this helps, but for "dust studies" we have a fair number of data sets with a target of "Dust" and measurements that are called things like "mass spectra", "time of flight spectra", "spatial distribution", and such. I don't know of anything analogous for gas. Are there such data sets, and if so how do they describe themselves now in terms of target and observation type?

[mfa] We will have purely gas datasets, e.g., from the ROSINA instrument on Rosetta. We may have some in the IHW datasets from IMS and/or NMS. Most other datasets addressing gas have dust mixed in, i.e., many people study dust without gas, but few people study gas without dust, if for no other reason than the need to get rid of the signal from the dust.

Surfaces, interiors, and atmospheres

My guess is that studies of surfaces (reflectance, gelogical maps) and interiors (seismology, excavation, models) belong to physical properties, and we may want to add something to that effect before "etc." However, are we OK with atmospheric studies (e.g., of KBOs) being categorized with the atmospheres discipline? [msk]

[AR] Atmospheres has one of the simplest facet lists - just one facet, with just two values "structure" and "meteorology". Now, part of this is that they're dragging feet, but looking at the sort of data on the Atmospheres website, would you expect similar data products for KBOs? If so, then the Atmospheres facets will work. If you think the sort of results we might get would be substantially different, then we either sweep it up under small bodies or coordinate with Atmospheres on their facet lists. They're a bit preoccupied with MAVEN at the moment, but I suspect a reasonable proposal would be accepted.

Lightcurves

[mfa] Do we want the sub-facets in now? Or do we just want to put words in the facet description describing these possible future sub-facets?