APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:00 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
iamlucky13 wrote:
TheEmperor wrote:
All the technology we have... beautiful pictures of mars and Saturn yet we can't even get a decent photo of the asteroid that's closer to the moon?
I think some perspective would help.

It's 400 meters across. The moon is 8700 times bigger.

A picture of this asteroid taken with the highest resolution instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope would be only 10 pixels across. Viewed at 100% resolution on your computer monitor, it would display less than 1/8 inch across.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by iamlucky13 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:19 am

TheEmperor wrote:I think this image is stupid. All the technology we have... beautiful pictures of mars and Saturn yet we can't even get a decent photo of the asteroid that's closer to the moon? Come on man how dumb do you think we are?
I think some perspective would help.

It's 400 meters across. The moon is 8700 times bigger.

It passed 200,000 miles from earth. Compared to the probes we sent to Mars or Saturn it's 1000 times further away.

A picture of this asteroid taken with the highest resolution instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope would be only 10 pixels across. Viewed at 100% resolution on your computer monitor, it would display less than 1/8 inch across.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:36 pm

TheEmperor wrote:I think this image is stupid. All the technology we have... beautiful pictures of mars and Saturn yet we can't even get a decent photo of the asteroid that's closer to the moon? Come on man how dumb do you think we are?
This object is smaller, darker, and farther away from the camera than the examples you give. And of course, as previously discussed, this image is an early release. You can be sure that better, higher resolution images will be coming along once the various science teams have had the opportunity to do more processing.

Personally, I think it is remarkable we are able to get this good an image of a black object the size of a warehouse nearly as far away as the Moon!

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by TheEmperor » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:25 pm

I think this image is stupid. All the technology we have... beautiful pictures of mars and Saturn yet we can't even get a decent photo of the asteroid that's closer to the moon? Come on man how dumb do you think we are?

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by zloq » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:35 am

Yes - it is interesting that features do show up - even though it's abstract. But that's because a generally smooth surface with just a few features on it would have those features mapped locally onto the image - as long as each feature has a unique-ish range and velocity pair of coordinates. As it rotates the velocity will change and the z-value will change - both looking like simple rotation around an axis.

If the axis of rotation were pointing directly at earth, there would be no horizontal information - just a vertical line corresponding to latitude, and the brightness of each point on it would sum all the features across longitude for that value of latitude - assuming a sphere.

In Emily's blog, at the bottom, she makes reference to the triple asteroid 1994cc, shown here:

http://planetary.org/blog/article/00002038/

If this were a "real" video, then all the alignment looks coincidentally perfect. The big asteroid axis is aimed right at the viewer, and the other two asteroids are moving vertically with a weird offset. But for the moons, you only know their distance, in the y axis, and their velocity, in the x-axis - which is why they are shifted a bit from the vertical axis and move only vertically. But you can definitely see features rotating on the asteroid. There is no info on where the moons really are laterally - at least from each single image.

I finally found a direct reference to this new APOD image and more background - and this time the image is annotated with pixel resolution that mentions both spatial and frequency dimensions:

http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/2005 ... nning.html

It's unfortunate that with so many write ups of this event and the images on the web, they all avoid talking about what is really depicted in the images.

Maybe not too far from now there will be an APOD with a 3D rendering of what it really looks like.

zloq

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:56 pm

zloq wrote:Here is a link to a 2010 Icarus paper by Ostro, who was a co-author with Hudson on one of its citations. I believe it is publicly available. If not - it is Ostro et al., Icarus 207, 2010, 285-94.
Interesting. I was looking at a different paper, which presents things somewhat differently. I agree, based on your reference, that this image appears to be a single snapshot in a distance-frequency space, meaning it hasn't yet been transformed (I took it to be not a single snapshot at all, but the resultant transform of a series of images- something that can be produced immediately). If it is a distance-frequency space map, it's interesting how effectively it reveals true physical structure (like that big crater). It isn't intuitive to me that such a mapping would do that.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by zloq » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:58 pm

Yes - my mistake. I got your link mixed up with Brenner, who did the Goldstone observations. Emily writes a blog for the planetary society. Either way - I thought her write up and animated diagram, which you embedded in your response, were pretty good. She didn't specifically say users complained about ugliness of images - but she did a good job of conveying the abstract nature of the images - and put things like "imaging" and "picture" and "look" in quotes to emphasize this point.

zloq

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:01 pm

[img3="Emily Lakdawalla: the guy who keeps getting asked
"Why do these images of asteroids always look so ugly?
"]http://www.kevland.com/blog/wp-content/ ... /el-sm.png[/img3]
.

zloq wrote:
The neufer link is from a guy who keeps getting asked - Why do these images of asteroids always look so ugly? - and he is answering as best he can - describing the raw range/frequency images - which is what people are seeing and asking him about - as are people in this thread. I'm just trying to fill in some of the details I don't think he addressed.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by zloq » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:30 pm

Yes - there is an inversion process to recover geometry - but you can't do it with just one frame. If you have never seen a frequency/range image of an asteroid - then I don't know what to say. They are the input to the inversion process - and the output is a 3D model - not an image - though once you have such a model you can make such a rendering.

The images and animations we see now are hot off the press - and there has been no time to crunch them into a 3d model. As I said - I don't know when the first such results will appear.

Here is a link to a 2010 Icarus paper by Ostro, who was a co-author with Hudson on one of its citations. I believe it is publicly available. If not - it is Ostro et al., Icarus 207, 2010, 285-94.

http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/7_Ir ... 0.iris.pdf

The paper describes the full process of going from raw, delay-Doppler images to a 3D model, and includes the fuzzy, silhouetted 1/4 view images of asteroids that are commonly shown - and look like these new ones. I'm confident you have seen other such images depicted in the same manner - but the details may not have been included in the captions - as is the case for these new images. There are more recent inversion models based only on light curves - but it's even worse than radar in that it takes tons of poses to deduce a 3d model that is most parsimonious with the photometry. This asteroid will have models combining both radar and photometry I expect - but it will take a long time.

Note that I'm not denying that an inversion process can and will happen for these data eventually. But when it does - the output won't look fuzzy at all - it will look like a 3D shaded model. If you have conflicting information on how exactly these recent images were processed, then I welcome a pointer. In the meantime note that they are not only fuzzy, but they appeared quickly after the event, and they only show 1/4 of the surface. Furthermore, the animation suggests that the rotation axis just happens to be pointing directly at the viewer - i.e. out of the plane of the screen. That is what you would expect from raw data - and the apparent alignment is an artifact of having the x-axis be frequency. It is all consistent with being raw frequency/range images - like the ones you are unfamiliar with, but are depicted in neufer's reference and in my 2010 Icarus reference.

The neufer link is from a guy who keeps getting asked - Why do these images of asteroids always look so ugly? - and he is answering as best he can - describing the raw range/frequency images - which is what people are seeing and asking him about - as are people in this thread. I'm just trying to fill in some of the details I don't think he addressed.

zloq

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:46 pm

zloq wrote:I think if you study the lower right plot in the link provided by neufer you will get the idea. In that plot, as it is formed, frequency is vertical and range is horizontal. In this case range is vertical and frequency is horizontal. This is a range-Doppler image - and they call it that because it is a range/frequency depiction. I think if you review the literature on the topic you will find many such images of asteroids and they all look like this, with the dimensions being meters in one axis and Hz in the other. If you think these images have somehow been converted to true x/y depictions - then I would be interested in any citations you have regarding the inversion you allude to - and an explanation for why we only see 1/4 of the object - in this and other such range-Doppler images of asteroids.
The images posted by Art show the raw data. These data are the input to a method known as Hudson inversion (look up R Scott Hudson for a list of his papers on the subject), the output of which is a spatial image. I've never seen an asteroid image labeled as you describe- meters versus frequency. Do you have an example?
If the shadows were done synthetically somehow - then why wouldn't they show two halves - each shaded - as separate depictions - since we are seeing the object face on?
We are seeing the asteroid face on, but the image produced is more complex. The time-domain data returns a set of cross-sectional views along one axis, and the Doppler data provides a set of cross-sectional views on an axis orthogonal to that one. In a similar manner to computed tomography, these separate cross sectional data sets are combined to produce (with some ambiguities) a spatial map, which is the published image. I think the apparent shadowing is a consequence of the way the inversion process works: in essence, the object appears illuminated orthogonally to the line between it and the observer.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by zloq » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. This is not an abstract image with range on one axis and frequency on the other.
I think if you study the lower right plot in the link provided by neufer you will get the idea. In that plot, as it is formed, frequency is vertical and range is horizontal. In this case range is vertical and frequency is horizontal. This is a range-Doppler image - and they call it that because it is a range/frequency depiction. I think if you review the literature on the topic you will find many such images of asteroids and they all look like this, with the dimensions being meters in one axis and Hz in the other. If you think these images have somehow been converted to true x/y depictions - then I would be interested in any citations you have regarding the inversion you allude to - and an explanation for why we only see 1/4 of the object - in this and other such range-Doppler images of asteroids.

If the shadows were done synthetically somehow - then why wouldn't they show two halves - each shaded - as separate depictions - since we are seeing the object face on? The reason is - this is a raw depiction of the frequency/time info - just as in neufer's figure - and there is no way to distinguish location except through range (z, or time) and velocity (rotation based doppler shift, or frequency). Inversion happens once you have many, many poses - and even then it's an ill-defined, model-based inversion process.

zloq

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:39 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
In reality, if a 400m asteroid struck the Earth, the odds are that casualties would be very low.
The casualties on Earth, perhaps; it would be a rough go for the asteroid passengers, however.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by bystander » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:12 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Asteroid 2005 YU55 captured at the Starhoo Observatory.

Images, Video from Around the World of Asteroid 2005 YU55′s Close Pass

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:08 pm

zloq wrote:A key is that these are very raw and abstract "images" and they don't represent an x/y cross-section - they represent range vertically and frequency horizontally - with brightness corresponding to the intensity of the reflection. If you try to view it too literally as an image, then it just won't work.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. This is not an abstract image with range on one axis and frequency on the other. The range and Doppler data has already been inverted into a true spatial image. That is, we are seeing this object as it actually is, in two spatial directions. That's why when you see the movie version, actual spatial structure- ridges and a huge crater- is plainly visible.

The inversion process can produce ambiguous results, which is part of what produces the noisy looking image. As more data is integrated, the ambiguities will be resolved, and a more accurate image synthesized. But what we see in this preliminary reconstruction is a reasonably accurate representation of what this asteroid actually looks like, not an abstract view.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by zloq » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:53 pm

geckzilla wrote:I don't know about anyone else, but this is pretty counter-intuitive to me.
I think the image is really hard to interpret if it's viewed literally as an x/y image - but the figures and text linked to by neufer above are pretty good - especially the plot that gets drawn at the very lower right of the animated figure.

A key is that these are very raw and abstract "images" and they don't represent an x/y cross-section - they represent range vertically and frequency horizontally - with brightness corresponding to the intensity of the reflection. If you try to view it too literally as an image, then it just won't work.

I don't know why no one answers more clearly the most obvious question about these images - which is - if the object is viewed face on, why do we only see a crescent of information - corresponding to only 1/4 of the object? The reason is that you are seeing a full 1/2 of the object, but the 2 quarters cannot be distinguished, so their features are superimposed. This makes it even harder to interpret as an image of a 3d object - but if a distinct feature is on either of the two sides, it will remain distinct as the object rotates and you can track it.

If you image many "poses" of the object as it rotates and passes by - only then can you invert all the information to construct a 3D model of the true surface geometry - and then make synthetic renderings of it as a shaded object for more direct visual interpretation. Those 3D shaded renderings may look completely different from these range/freq. views - but localized structures may be identifiable in both.

So - the view direction is from the top, and the top of the image represents objects that are closest - i.e. the facing surface of the roughly ellipsoidal object, while to the right are features somewhere down along the surface that are moving toward you and to the left are features moving away. You are sort of looking along the axis of rotation - but really you are just in the plane formed by the rotation axis and the direction to earth since the rotation axis is tilted. Since the closest surface is also fairly perpendicular to us - it reflects strongly and is bright.

I think this asteroid is getting a lot of coverage by radar, in addition to detailed light curves from many observers. I expect that eventually the data will be put together for a pretty good model and 3d rendering - but I'm not sure how long that will take. In the meantime I expect there will be more animations of "images" like this - and they should not be interpreted too literally when they are actually animations of raw range/frequency plots of the data.

Recently there was a very close and fast asteroid, 2011MD, and I don't think there was any radar done for it, and amateur light curves showed interesting structure. The Goldstone radar tried to aim at it - but apparently failed to acquire the target - I guess because its orbit had been perturbed so much that the predictions weren't accurate enough. So I don't think there are any radar views of it, let alone 3d models - but there are some intriguing light curves. I hope there is better luck with this asteroid.

zloq

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:55 pm

orin stepanek wrote:It the asteroid was to hit Earth; I don't think there would be much that could be done other than evacuating the area that it was likely to hit! :?
It is doubtful the location could be predicted with enough accuracy. Most analyses I've seen of this scenario show that more people would be killed in the evacuation process (necessarily over a wide area) than in the impact itself. If modeling showed an ocean impact, it is possible that coastal evacuations could be carried out similar to the way things are now done when hurricane storm surges are predicted.

In reality, if a 400m asteroid struck the Earth, the odds are that casualties would be very low.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by orin stepanek » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:41 pm

It the asteroid was to hit Earth; I don't think there would be much that could be done other than evacuating the area that it was likely to hit! :?

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:32 pm

geckzilla wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but this is pretty counter-intuitive to me.
That's probably because you are not a bat.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by geckzilla » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:19 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but this is pretty counter-intuitive to me.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:16 pm

geckzilla wrote:
So to image the asteroid is it something similar to using sonar to map the ocean floor? That data is used to generate a height map in some kind of 3d program which can then light the surface and make it a lot easier for humans to interpret. Er, I mean that's what I always thought went on. I can't seem to think of a way to explain it more clearly.
Sonar that maps the ocean floor (or fetuses) provides for its own horizontal resolution.

Asteroid images depend entirely upon the objects spinning motion to provide a pseudo-horizontal resolution.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:09 pm

nstahl wrote:
So may we infer the brighter parts are moving toward us?
No.

The brighter parts represent relatively flat reflective perpendicular surfaces (or possibly corner reflectors).

The rotating regions with the greatest red/blue doppler shifts are place on the far right/left of the image respectively.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by geckzilla » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:07 pm

So to image the asteroid is it something similar to using sonar to map the ocean floor? That data is used to generate a height map in some kind of 3d program which can then light the surface and make it a lot easier for humans to interpret. Er, I mean that's what I always thought went on. I can't seem to think of a way to explain it more clearly.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by nstahl » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:43 pm

So may we infer the brighter parts are moving toward us?

After posting that comment it occurred to me the Sun is probably the strongest broadcaster in the area on those wavelengths also, so maybe the bright area is pointed toward the Sun, and it really is a shadow situation.

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:35 pm

zbvhs wrote:I agree with nstahl; the purported radar image doesn't look right. If Goldstone was viewing its own radar return, we should be seeing a full-face image of the object. If one powerful source had beamed radio energy at the object and it was then viewed by an array of radio telescopes, could the resolution have been improved?
As noted, the image is synthesized by an inverse transform from time resolved delay data and doppler data. The shadowing is part of the synthesis process.

Illuminating the object from one location and observing it from another would not improve resolution. Resolution could theoretically be improved by monitoring the reflection from two or more stations and combining the data- essentially, just increasing the radar aperture. I think this would also require modifying the illumination signal, and there are probably a load of practical issues that make such multiple station radar imaging impractical (or so I assume, since I don't recall ever seeing images produced that way).

Re: APOD: Asteroid 2005 YU55 Passes the Earth (2011 Nov 09)

by neufer » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:06 pm

zbvhs wrote:
I agree with nstahl; the purported radar image doesn't look right. If Goldstone was viewing its own radar return, we should be seeing a full-face image of the object. If one powerful source had beamed radio energy at the object and it was then viewed by an array of radio telescopes, could the resolution have been improved?
The radar "image" is really only a pseudo-image.

One only "sees" the near side of asteroids with radar imaging in accordance with the reflection delay and the doppler shift.

Northern hemisphere & Southern hemispheres can have identical reflection delays and doppler shifts and therefore they get averaged together just as if one was observing a quasi transparent asteroid in orthographic polar projection.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00003248/ wrote: The Planetary Society Blog By Emily Lakdawalla Nov. 8, 2011
How radio telescopes get "images" of asteroids
ImageImage
<<Every time I post a radio telescope image of a near-Earth asteroid, I get at least one reader question asking me to explain how radio telescopes take photos, so I'm hereby writing a post explaining the basics of how delay-Doppler imaging works.

To begin with, imaging of any kind done with radio telescopes (or radio antennae on spacecraft) is an active technique: the imaging requires that the antenna first broadcast a signal at the object of interest. The signal reflects from the object, and the antenna waits for the return signal.

The simplest sort of radio "imaging," then, is just radio ranging. Send out a ping, wait for the echo. Use a precise clock to time how long it takes the reflection to return to the antenna, and you know very precisely the range or distance to the target. That's RADAR, which is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging.

But we can do better than that. Here's a very simple cartoon that I drew, grossly simplifying what happens when you broadcast a signal at a lumpy object.The signal goes out as a nice waveform. It's reflected from the parts of the asteroid that are closest to the radio dish first, but while those first reflections are happening, the radio wave is still propagating toward more distant parts of the asteroid. So when the radio dish detects the return signal, the sharp signal has been spread out in time.

You can see how you could use these data to crudely estimate the size of the object you were looking at. The first reflection comes from the nearest parts of the object. The last reflections come from the most distant parts of the object that you can see. Take the amount of time that separates the first and last reflections, multiply it by the speed of light, and you get the distance between those two points. Then double that, assuming the body is quasi-spherical and has a hidden hemisphere behind the hemisphere we can see. This will not be a particularly accurate estimate, but it's a start.

One thing we can't do is figure out which reflections were coming from which parts of the asteroid. All we know is how strong the return signal was with respect to time.

Radio imaging gets better, though. It takes advantage of the fact that everything in the whole solar system is rotating. Some things rotate pretty fast. Imagine a set of waves propagating toward a rotating body. Actually you don't have to imagine it, I've drawn another horribly oversimplified cartoon.

As an asteroid rotates, some parts of it are moving toward us, while other parts are moving away. As the broadcast radio wavefronts hit the part of the asteroid that is moving toward us, the asteroid smacks into each wavefront faster than it would if it were not rotating. The speed of the wavefronts does not change, because the speed of light is constant, so the wavefronts end up being packed closer together. This is a Doppler shift. The asteroid has taken the broadcast wavelength and reflected it at a shorter wavelength from the parts of the asteroid that are rotating toward us. On the other side of the asteroid, which is rotating away, the opposite thing happens; each arriving wavefront smacks into the asteroid a little later than it would if the asteroid were not rotating, so the reflected waves are spread farther apart.

(One minor point here: the asteroid is not only rotating, it is also moving at some high speed with respect to Earth. So the whole return signal is already going to be Doppler shifted in one direction or the other depending on whether the asteroid is coming at us or going away from us; radio scientists account for this and "look" for the reflection around the expected return frequency given this Doppler shift due to the asteroid's motion. The Doppler shift due to the asteroid's rotation is a small increment of shift on top of the shift due to the asteroid's motion.)

Back at the radio dish, we have a detector that can split the incoming reflected waves into its different wavelengths. (Much like color cameras split incoming light into their different wavelengths.) The radio dish records the time and strength of the return signal at many different wavelengths. The result, as you can see in the crude graph at the bottom of the animation, is a "picture," actually a sort of colored-in graph with time on one axis and wavelength on the other axis. The faster the object is rotating, the more Doppler-shifted the return signals are; fast rotators spread out more across the wavelength axis. Things that aren't rotating at all, like in my first animation, collapse into a blip at the central wavelength.

Radio scientists refer to time as "delay," as in "the delay between our broadcast and when we heard the return signal," and the wavelength axis of my crude graph above as "Doppler." So turn that graph on its side and you get an explanation of how radio scientists can arrive at an image like this one, the significance of which I will explain in the next post. Arecibo would be two million kilometers above your head; delay increases from top to bottom, Doppler from left to right.>>

Top