re: RADAR.

Space/Science » in reply to yes, you get a good measure of surface "roughness" from RADAR.

re: RADAR.

Tom Brosz — 10/3/2006 8:38:29 PM (archived)

I was thinking along the lines of the echoes being "softer" somehow from a liquid than from a solid, above and beyond the smoothness. Don't know if that's true or not.

Boy, how old are you that you still capitalize "radar" as though it still was the letters from RAdio Detection And Ranging? ;)

Of course, I still remember what 3M stood for.

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)