JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Apr 4, 2007 9:31:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 4, 2007 17:01:52 GMT -4
Many thanks for all those marvellous links, JMV. Actually I should thank you. I had previously tried to find the region in that Apollo 8 photo, but after searching for hours without luck I gave up. Your post on March 15 gave me a new direction to search and encouraged me to take another look. So, thanks! Couldn't have done it without you. Group hug! This is another one of those "this is how real science works" moments. Each person is building on the accomplishments of the other, and they acknowledge it.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 6, 2007 5:56:35 GMT -4
Each person is building on the accomplishments of the other, and they acknowledge it. And we correct each other if it's needed, even if it's just grammar or spelling but forgiving the occasional typo, and there's a certain person around here who's quite well-respected for doing it regularly, although some of the more feeble frail folk get a little tetchy about it at times. ;D AND it would be rather good of Showtime to do a bit of acknowledging of all the work presented on his behalf, mentioning whether it has helped, and answering the questions he has been asked. But because he hasn't., perhaps it's okay to digress into a question for Gillianren. Is it "ignorant of", "ignorant about", or does it even matter? I have two style books and neither they nor my dictionariies mention it. I think it possible that in my younger days, of might have been considered "correct" but usage has changed things since then and about is now acceptable too. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm just not sure and I'm curious about it. Can you enlighten us? I've often used the expression, "We is all igerant about sumpin'."
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 6, 2007 6:43:23 GMT -4
I had previously tried to find the region in that Apollo 8 photo, but after searching for hours without luck I gave up. Your post on March 15 gave me a new direction to search and encouraged me to take another look. Thanks, because I was going to ask how you cracked it and whether you had found some information elsewhere that helped. I'd have never done it with what I have here because the all-important three-toed paw in Pasteur is covered up by the name in my small map. It can sometimes be quite a difficult task, trying to identify craters from the lower orbital photos, because perspective, terrain variations, lighting angle and other things can fool us. I thought of sending you a personal message to ask some questions and avoid changing subjects here, but it's all part of learning for all of us and Showtime doesn't seem to want to finalise anything. So: 1. Can you particularly recommend any downloadable maps of both sides of the moon, but particularly the farside and the nearside margins (which aren't well-covered in Rukl's atlas)? It doesn't matter if they are a 2 or 3 megabytes, although I'd prefer smaller bits, but at my super-slow dialup speed a I just can't do a lot of searching. 2. Is there a text file of some kind that lists everything in the LPI panorama and Lunar Orbiter photos? I recall seeing a coloured photo in a book of what areas were covered by the panorama cameras, but can't find it. 3. Have you noticed whether the LPI sells all their photos at a modest price on CD-ROM? Those panoramas are fascinating if you are familiar with what they are showing. To those who are not familiar they would just be a jumble of boring craters. They can be even to me when I don't know what I'm looking at. You have to keep in mind that the centre is looking straight down and each side of the print is looking quite obliquely to that side, as if they cover an area of around 150 degrees. They must be really spectacular viewing for the folks who have the right equipment to see them in stereo. Now that is something I would like to see! [Changed well-coved to read well-covered.]
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 6, 2007 11:09:35 GMT -4
"Ignorant of" is probably the more proper form, but "ignorant about" is common usage.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 6, 2007 12:36:48 GMT -4
I think each phrase can have a particular meaning, but context will override it.
In my opinion, to be ignorant of something suggests not knowing it exists, while to be ignorant about something suggests being unable to discuss it in sufficient detail. For example, if one is ignorant of photogrammetry then one doesn't know what the word means or that such a science exists. But to be ignorant about photogrammetry suggests that one knows it exists and may know toward what it is intended, but may not know what is possible in the science and may not be able to work problems that arise in it.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Apr 6, 2007 19:22:27 GMT -4
Thanks, because I was going to ask how you cracked it and whether you had found some information elsewhere that helped. I'd have never done it with what I have here because the all-important three-toed paw in Pasteur is covered up by the name in my small map. It can sometimes be quite a difficult task, trying to identify craters from the lower orbital photos, because perspective, terrain variations, lighting angle and other things can fool us. The three-toed paw was indeed the key. I first ID'ed it using Google Moon. Then I searched for higher quality panoramas of that area to make sure. That index map made it possible the find the right ones quickly without having to go through all of them. Um... not sure what would be good. LPI has lots of maps on their site. These Earthside and Farside Charts have some overlap in the margin areas. Some of the areas in these Equatorial Zone Mosaics are sharper than others. I don't know how helpful they are though. I know there are Apollo panoramic photograph indexes in paper format but I haven't seen one online. Lunar Orbiter Atlas has several search functions. The List of Feature Names function helped me find that picture of Peek and Mare Smythii I showed earlier. And that Original LO Booklet pdf-file lists coordinates for LO pictures. Well, not all their photos, but they do offer a couple of sets: www.lpi.usra.edu/store/products.cfm?cat=9
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 6, 2007 23:26:23 GMT -4
Help! Last night I had a long look at AS8-14-2383, the Lunar Orbiter photos and the panoramas, but couldn't tie anything together. The lack of texture from the high sun doesn't help. There are some distinctive features, but I wasn't able to match them up with the other photos. There are some pretty fierce-looking highlands on the western edge of Pasteur, although it's probably the other way round -- they are the normal height and Pasteur is much lower. That's one of the confusing things about scale on the back of the moon -- the highlands away out on the horizon are sometimes so high that they look more like small hills nearby that have been photographed by an astronaut who is standing on another. There's a thought for the HBs. Area 51 or Utah, no doubt! AS8-14-2383 is one of few in which I've so far failed to identify craters. One of my early attempts that I enjoyed was identifying, in AS11-37-5447HR, West Crater, the one which Neil Armstrong manually overflew becauseof the rocks in it. It's not hard to do once you know what to look for and where because it is part of a very distinctive pattern. If you have to cheat there is a labelled version, but it doesn't identify West Crater. If anyone wants to know, I'll dig out the details sometime -- but this site helps: www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.htmlIn my opinion, to be ignorant of something suggests not knowing it exists, while to be ignorant about something suggests being unable to discuss it in sufficient detail. For example, if one is ignorant of photogrammetry then one doesn't know what the word means or that such a science exists. But to be ignorant about photogrammetry suggests that one knows it exists and may know toward what it is intended, but may not know what is possible in the science and may not be able to work problems that arise in it. Thanks, Jay. That makes a lot of sense -- never thought of it that way. Or if I ever did I forgot. Thanks for the replies in No. 81, JMV. Will study them later tonight. Meanwhile, the sun is beckoning again.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Apr 7, 2007 14:28:50 GMT -4
Help! Last night I had a long look at AS8-14-2383, the Lunar Orbiter photos and the panoramas, but couldn't tie anything together. The lack of texture from the high sun doesn't help. There are some distinctive features, but I wasn't able to match them up with the other photos. Does that help?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 7, 2007 20:37:56 GMT -4
In my opinion, to be ignorant of something suggests not knowing it exists, while to be ignorant about something suggests being unable to discuss it in sufficient detail. For example, if one is ignorant of photogrammetry then one doesn't know what the word means or that such a science exists. But to be ignorant about photogrammetry suggests that one knows it exists and may know toward what it is intended, but may not know what is possible in the science and may not be able to work problems that arise in it. Spot on, Jay. I was ignorant of photogrammetry until, well, I first encountered your Apollo research. Now, I am ignorant about it.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 8, 2007 8:15:46 GMT -4
Spot on, Jay. I was ignorant of photogrammetry until, well, I first encountered your Apollo research. Now, I am ignorant about it. [emphasis original]
I have an even better example: "Jack White was ignorant of photogrammetry until he was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Now, he is ignorant about photogrammetry." ;D
[edit: typo]
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 8, 2007 8:38:24 GMT -4
Does it ever! Like so many things, easy once you know. Thanks. I obviously made a whole series of blunders but couldn't figure out what at the time. Viewing them late at night when tired was one. Another was incorrectly assuming from the higher Earth in AS8-14-2383 that the foreground would have been vastly different from AS8-13-2329, so I completely missed the patch A to E in both, which would have set me right, and didn't look for any other correspondences between the two photos. Your smaller views above made a difference – I was using the high-res copies of AS8-13-2329 and AS8-14-2383 at full size, so only looking at parts of them at any one time and didn't do a close-enough comparison between the two at a reduced size. Also, not realising that H was visible in both photos, I was studying the area beyond H in AS8-14-2383, but couldn't find anything in the panoramas that matched what I was seeing, and, after a quick look, still can't, perspective and scale being the main problems. Having got nowhere, I intended to stitch a few panoramas together, which probably would have helped, but to sum up, I was like Al Worden in Part 10 of From the Earth to the Moon, not getting the big picture first: 0:28:48 Farouk El-Baz: There, the big picture, Al. You must tell me the big picture first. 0:28:52 Al Worden: Well, there's... 0:28:54 Farouk El-Baz: Quickly! 0:28:55 Al Worden: Basalt lava flows... 0:28:56 Farouk El-Baz: No, no, too specific. The big picture first. 0:28:59 Al Worden: Cinder cones, lots of lava. 0:29:02 Farouk El-Baz: From where is the lava flowing? 0:29:04 Al Worden: Damn! I don't know. 0:29:06 Farouk El-Baz: There's a breach in the cone. You see? 0:29:10 Al Worden: I cant! 0:29:11 Farouk El-Baz: Of course not. We've passed it already.
|
|