Very much so. Apparently I'm not good at words today. My apologies.
-
-
-
Replying to @kchangnyt @h_mcnally
Disagree. Context is visibility of asteroids 'inside' Earth's orbits, not of planets. Makes zero sense in context. /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
There is no cutoff to visibility at Earth’s orbit. (What Myhrvold said Mainzer said.) Are you saying there is?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
for small (faint) the sky brightness (background) also scales up >> signal to noise plateaues. Thus planets irrelevant. /3.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
LSST claims it can detect asteroids closer to horizon and has done simulations showing that. Yet to be demonstrated in practice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
My point is Venus is irrelevant in context because seeing planets and asteroids are not comparable, by many orders of magnitude.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
Besides, this Venus pt has nothing to do w/ the new paper. This is Nathan's March PASP published paper that passed peer review.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
NOPE!!!! That paper say *nothing* about Venus. It twice mentions another observatory being on a Venus-like orbit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
It was an anecdote of a conversation between Amy and Nathan. The peer reviewed paper says LSST can see well w/in Earth orbit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
One more time: in the context that I say this, it is fine.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.