yes, you get a good measure of surface "roughness" from RADAR.

Space/Science » in reply to re: The science behind the lakes hypothethis

alcaray — 10/3/2006 5:30:07 PM (archived)

This does not show up in the image, but it is in the data. When it gets translated to dumb-speak in a popular science news story, they typically describe the surface as smooth or rough or very smooth or very rough. That Michael could not see it in the image is not a surprise.

The whole thread (15 posts)

Titan's Lakes - Sawyer - 9/29/2006 1:44:31 PM
- re: Titan's Lakes - Michael Gmirkin - 9/30/2006 11:48:59 PM
  - And you're ignoring Occam's Razor, why? - Jacob Samorodin - 10/1/2006 7:01:28 PM
  - And you're ignoring Occam's Razor, why? - Jacob Samorodin - 10/1/2006 7:01:14 PM
    - Who says I'm ignoring Occam's Razor? - Michael Gmirkin - 10/3/2006 2:21:34 AM
  - The science behind the lakes hypothethis - phil - 10/1/2006 1:54:02 PM
    - re: The science behind the lakes hypothethis - Tom Brosz - 10/2/2006 12:25:35 AM
      - yes, you get a good measure of surface "roughness" from RADAR. - alcaray - 10/3/2006 5:30:07 PM
        
        Fair enough. - Michael Gmirkin - 10/3/2006 10:36:10 PM
        
        As I said, they made reference to the RADAR data in the article when they used the word "smooth" - alcaray - 10/4/2006 5:16:04 PM
        
        re: RADAR. - Tom Brosz - 10/3/2006 8:38:29 PM
        
        Jeapardy answers (n/t) - alcaray - 10/3/2006 9:28:09 PM
      - re: The science behind the lakes hypothethis - Michael Gmirkin - 10/2/2006 11:48:30 PM
        
        Minor correction and some other thoughts... - Michael Gmirkin - 10/3/2006 12:18:50 AM
  - Am I missing something? - Sawyer - 10/1/2006 12:37:54 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (15 posts)