3/10/2015 Update
-
by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin
Here's the current status: We've converted a large number of observations (with identifications attached - that's part of the process) and have been going back and forth with the Minor Planet Center. We've submitted quite a few times.
The hold up on is as follows:
There is a check that ensures that the marked locations correspond to a path along a great circle. All orbits on the sky look pretty much like a great circle (i.e., a circle that fully inscribes the celestial sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle) over the amount of time that the images were taken. They are willing to accept about one pixel variation across the points (this is their standard amount - and non-negotiable for the science to work out).
Converting the locations of found asteroids from the data we're getting from the your work and keeping the error below one pixel has proved very challenging to automate. We continue to work on this.
All your data is being saved and the images you've used will not be reported via other mechanisms (i.e., we're not going in by hand to extract - whoever is the first to find the asteroid remains that way).
I thank you for your time and patience - your work continues to amaze me and you are finding objects that we can't locate in the existing catalog. Now we have to work through the details of getting that all data carefully groomed to be acceptable to the minor planet center.
Thank you,
Dr. AsteroidPosted
-
by grums
Hi Dr A. Is what you are saying regarding the asteroids having to be on a great circle the same (as far as we are concerned) as the four points being in a straight line (within +/-1 pixel) given the likely range of angular speed in arcsec/sec captured by the image sets?
Would any of the image sets taken at different times (though within the same period of the survey) capture the same asteroids because this would give a very much more accurate estimate of the orbit? It must be hard to get a reasonable orbit estimate from 4 closely spaced points with +/-1 pixel precision unless there are contemporaneous confirmations over greater distances and time.
Posted
-
by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin
grums - the requirement for the asteroid to be nearly moving on a great circle is driven by the MPC's requirement for good orbit data.
If the asteroid appears in more than one image set, it provides a much better orbit determination. In fact, a second set of observations are required before the asteroid becomes a numbered object (i.e., goes from 1999 RQ36 to 101955 Bennu).
One of the significant challenges we're facing is that the if the asteroid were easy to centroid via computer - the original Catalina survey would have found it. This is a pretty tricky thing to work on and make sure we do it right so your observations are accurately reported to the MPC.
Posted
-
by hightower73
EXCUSE ME DR A. there was a person here that showed me how to get a proberable track of an asteroid in this forum, i forget his name but could proberly look for it, the site he used was http://asteroid.lowell.edu/cgi-bin/astplot to come up with which asteroids were in that frame set at that given time, and work out which asteroid was which in that given set and know if the asteroids were known about. I still have the private post which tells me how to use it. it it takes about 10 mins per set to do, and i belive andy was also shown.
If this person can do it in 10 mins and they can confirm a new suprnova in 24 hours, why does it take 9 months or more to get a single result here??
and please give a laymans explanation and not a scienctific one please for us mortals that just want to know whats going on !!!!
Posted
-
by djsimister
@hightower73 Well said.
It really does feel sometimes that We're kind of neglected and/or insignificant Yet we should be acknowledge and given a bit more attention. As the most important ingredient. As mass providers l Don't forget , Its we the "Citizens" who actually make all this happen. without whom virtually all citizen science projects would ultimately fail to take off. And i do think we really need some balance here!Posted
-
by DZM admin
Should have another update tomorrow morning from Dr. A ...
Posted
-
by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin
The results that we need to get must come through the minor planet center. They have a very specific requirement for how you send in an asteroid.
One of the things they require is that the locations of the asteroids be extremely precise across the four (or occasionally three depending the details) images - and that these locations correspond to a line on the sky.
It must move very very clearly like a bead on a line.
Here's the major problem - you (the asteroidzoo community) are very good at finding asteroids that the machines are incapable of finding - for example asteroids that are skirting bright stars or running along defects in the camera.
For the same reasons the machines are bad at finding them is that they do not have a reliable center (because of contamination from other sources of light or defects).
So, the first time (and the other times) we tried to make a submission to the minor planet center, we can't make the points line up to their specification.
Does that help?
Posted
-
by hightower73 in response to Dr.Asteroid's comment.
it kinda does, and it kinda dont. i can understand they need precisely the right details, however, if the software is not capiable of getting the tracks correct or inconclusive, why are they using it???
if some of here can get a track of the asteroid and we know when the set was taken, surely its just a case of taking another set of images from a dish and make sure the asteroid is there??? why does it need to 1 pixel ? i understand the 1 degree rule, but 1 pixel? thats really really precise isnt it?
sorry but to me surely the mpc must be more capable then some of us mere mortals and can get this fixed???
Posted
-
by pravk7 scientist, admin in response to hightower73's comment.
I've be working with Dr. A on some of the detection retrieval. Here is an explanation of why it's hard to push through this process:
People find asteroids very well, but they don't click on the centers accurately. For example, on a given asteroid, Person 1 may click a little too far to the left and Person 2 might click a bit to the right and so on. This is perfectly fine, since on average, the clicks will cover the little blip on the image. But when trying to estimate the center of the asteroid we loose some precision. Next, when converting that to the position in the sky we loose a lot of precision. (There are also some annoying observational issues like telescope pointing errors on the original imagery, which makes the whole thing even worse).
So an error of a few pixels on the image can translate to large errors in estimated motion on the sky.
You guys have clicked on several things that provide orbits! Which is awesome! But poor click precisions propagate through and resulting orbits are often now trustworthy. We’re working on improving this.
Oh and, a bit unfair to compare asteroid detection to supernova detections. Those fellas simply sit still and go boom… asteroids buzz around in different directions… 😉
Also, not surprising that someone can plug in asteroid positions into a program and estimate an orbit correctly. Some orbits are easy to determine. Asteroid sky motions can be varied, some asteroids move quickly, some are slow, some are bright (hence we can determine their centers precisely), some are not bright; all this plays into correct orbit determination.
The MPC algorithm is designed to account for a variety of these cases within a certain tolerance. We’re trying make sure that all your detections met those criteria.
Posted
-
by Barbalbero in response to pravk7's comment.
Thanks for the update.
I think there can be an easier way to find the center of the Asteroid we mark. Once it is established there are objects moving in a set of images, instead of calculating the centers of the asteroids using the click we did, isn't is possible to calculate the centers from the original set of images with some computer programs? I cannot imagine it takes months in order to find the centers of an object moving in 4 images. Thanks to the Catalina Sky survey, a lot of asteroids were already discovered, and I suppose the information sent to the MPC in order to have confirmations of the discoveries are not so different from the information produced by the Asteroid Zoo project, so sometimes I cannot understand why all the data useful for the MPC seems so impossible to be obtained from the data produced by this project, it is several months many people involved in this project give a contribution and we are still waiting the centers of the asteroid we maybe found are calculated with precision.Posted
-
by nicro46
I am also quite surprised that there are problems due to the imprecision of our pointing when we report a new asteroid: there has been particularly recommended and, objectively, the system itself can not be. I thought that the report would lead to a new more effective verification of original images.
Posted
-
by hightower73 in response to pravk7's comment.
Thank you for your reply,
i understand now and it makes a lot of sence.
yes i can fully understand asteroids whizz about across the sky, and yes at differnt speeds, heading and orbits. if your able to calculate these now, why is the mpc rejecting yours and ours work??? i still find it difficult to understand that if you can get a heading and calculate its distance and orbits, why you cant point a dish where its supposd to be now, and confirm its there?
Posted
-
by AstroTinker
Is is possible using Ctrl + , which others here have reported as kicking in image manipulation from the windowing program, is causing some shifts in the asteroid marking? i.e. does the program averaging a brighter pixel close to a dimmer one causing the apparent brighter pixel to shift enough to be aggravating this problem?
Posted
-
by AstroTinker in response to pravk7's comment.
If the problem is in to-the-pixel accuracy, then we need a zoom tool that will provide that specific level of accuracy. Obviously the Ctrl-+ zoom browser feature does NOT give that. It might need some simplification, but perhaps an option to true-zoom the image set at about 3x (original into 9 separate images, with some overlap) should be simple enough for the software to handle.
I know a lot of map and image web viewers of 5-10 years ago used that type of format, with arrows in the sides and corners to navigate within the larger image. Surely some of that was explicitly set up to provide true-zoom on an image, rather than interpolated, and could be scavenged for our use. Hmm... I think ESRI (the GIS folks) built the old map viewer I remember... maybe they could open-source or donate that old version of their viewer.Posted
-
by AstroTinker in response to pravk7's comment.
Concerning the matchup of images within the set, I noticed the color cycler seems to do a fairly good job. Could that algorithm be used for the flicker frames?
Posted
-
by j.t.searcy
I stopped participating in Asteroid Zoo for some months. I'mmmm backkk! On many of the images under "What do you see here?", in green is this: "Guess what, you're the first to see this set of images". Does that mean what it says...my eyes are the first to see this image, or is it more complicated than that?
Jerry SearcyPosted
-
by hightower73
no your the first to see it
Posted
-
by AstroTinker in response to j.t.searcy's comment.
An automated camera on a telescope at the Catalina Sky Survey(CSS) took the images, and their program processed the images for their use. Folks at CSS may have actually have viewed likely candidates selected by their program, and those forwarded for verification would have been viewed. The several million images from CSS are publicly available, so someone else -might- have seen that image there. Asteroid Zoo folks acquired batches of these images, a program chopped them up and arranged them to be randomly handed out when you ask for one to classify. If you see that message, you were definitely the first Asteroid Zoo user to see them, and very likely the first eyes to actually see those particular images.
Posted
-
by Kishu
Hi Dr. Asteroid,
Sir, can't we get help/guidance from the MPC or CSS or any other relevant authority as to how to go about it exactly ? When it has been already done before, then we should be able to get help from people who have done it, IMHO. After all, the essence of all this is that we find hazardous asteroids before time and also asteroids that can be useful. As it's a very important goal for the mankind as a whole, I feel we should be able to do much better than this and I believe we are capable too!
Another thing I'd like to know is, can we citizens, get samples of some valid and invalid samples ? That is, some samples that are valid from MPC's point of view and some that are not (with descriptions in layman's terms), so that we can understand properly what exactly is missing and if possible, we citizens lend some helping hand ? Just as an example, I am a software developer, may be I can come up with some algorithm if given the chance and understanding of the whole problem in as simple terms as possible.
Regards,
KishorePosted
-
by hightower73
could we have an update please, or is this now a wasted project? we did ask a month ago for an update and the reporting site has not been updated since 16th october last year ! thats 4 months ago.
also have noticed someone has locked a post so noone else can add to it, does this mean you finally have some news?
Posted
-
by MvGulik
Mmm ... That lock on the "Asteroid Zoo Updates: Reporting Site" topic seems a bit odd and disconcerting to me.
(*takes a beep breath* ... hoping I'm wrong)Posted
-
by hightower73 in response to MvGulik's comment.
my thoughts entirely ! i looked and thought oh-no. plus no word from anyone on the project.........sorry guys but i really think this time the project has died.
Posted
-
by Barbalbero in response to hightower73's comment.
We are really waiting new information since months, sometimes I think that it is better if this project is closed since we have 0 result despite the efforts of all the people involved. The other discussion about the reporting site has been also locked: maybe instead of spending time locking it, Moderators could write a reply, even small.
Posted
-
by Kishu
Yeah I see that there are no updates lately, I do want to be positive though. I hope this project catches up soon!
Posted
-
by Kishu
Regarding the locked "Asteroid Zoo Updates: Reporting Site" thread, I think it has been locked as the reporting link (http://reporting.asteroidzoo.org/) is working now. Just wait for some time and a big list gets loaded.
Posted
-
by MvGulik in response to Kishu's comment.
Sorry, but as far as potential reasons go for locking that topic, that one seem a bit silly.
You don't lock a topic just because you (think) some 'on the side' problem was fixed, while the main-project target is still in a unfinished state.
Posted
-
by MvGulik
Whatever the reason for whoever locked that topic. They (Azoo), again, broke a general social rule by, in this case, not explaining/clarifying the lock.
But ... considering that the bulk of the generated data that Zooniverse projects generate seems to come from the high quantity of short term users (dabblers). And not from what they call "super-users". Is kinda make sense that social quality/skills are deemed a lesser priority. (Which unfortunately, in may case, effects my view on Zooniverse as a whole, and not just this project. Not that that really matters, as I'm just a single user.)
Posted
-
by djsimister
@ MvGulik.
All contributors, both dabblers & super users (BTW. Love these, your descriptions) All their individual abilities, Social qualities, skills, effective collaboration, interaction, communication & scientific / none scientific feedback are all essential to the very survival of any crowd sourcing project. Without these positive essentials, There would be no Zoonivers or any other citizen science projects. Therefore, You do matter. You absolutely really do matter a lot.I've been contributing to our zoonivers since 2011. Have massively and joyfully contributed to virtually all projects from first conception to full online world accessible status.Some have naturally ended with specific missions or goals statistically achieved & accomplished others are forever ongoing projects that continue to this day. To date, I can honestly say that i personally have never encountered anything like this in any way, shape or form. The absent communication. The lack of science team input. The absence of interest and / or basic response to its contributing public and their reasonable genuine individually objective concerns.
What ever happened to Humans V,s Computers??
With Planethunters. (for example) Potential discoveries are welcome from NASA Kepler archive data? New planets and other major discoveries are always officially acknowledged, I mean those that were otherwise missed by NASA's Computer scrutiny. It's the very reason the data was released by NASA to the public ? To help them find those possibles that were overlooked, those that were missed or overlooked by computer process or those potential discoveries that simply fell out of mission parameters. "A very positive partnership formed with PH's That is ongoing & continuous. & making public new discoveries with shared and individual acknowledgements.
Despite Azoo available resources, The facts are simple. We as a very same community have successfully found and proudly highlighted many many asteroids that slipped through the computer algorithm, this is why as with most Zooniverse projects we are tasked to view the provided data sets with our humble human eye X2. In this instance, TO VISUALLY SEARCH AND EXPOSE ANY ASTEROIDS THAT WERE MISSED! (perhaps otherwise never found) So how come we can see clearly the obvious movements of an asteroid in 4 images? absolute obvious new asteroid discoveries! Yet the MPC cannot except them as such because of the inaccuracy of the Azoo submitted data for the individual new asteroid discovery we want to claim???? Is this a Joke? Why cant they just look at it with their collective scientific eyes like we have all done with a worldwide collective crowd sourcing vengeance? I mean, Its way past the computer has failed to discover stage right? It really is clearly scientific nonsense and totally unnecessary time wasting and / or consuming process ! for what ever reason it doesn't make sense.Let's make it even simpler. (No insult intended to anyone) Our discoveries are visually obvious. Why? because they can be seen! In reality, all that is needed is for most of them, I mean the obvious candidates, to be confirmed as potentially undiscovered, (As in unclaimed by any other body, org or person) After all We already know they exist because we really actually do see them!!!! This is why we have spent years highlighting them!!! Why we have Painstakingly gathered them all by the hundreds! All in our individual collections just so you can also see them clearly & share the magic of our discoveries.
Posted
-
by nicro46
I agree one hundred percent
Posted
-
by Kishu in response to MvGulik's comment.
I hear you! I am just trying to keep myself positive on this project.
Posted
-
by MvGulik in response to Kishu's comment.
I can understand that. 😃
Posted
-
by javi_goagc
Hello,
I´m sorry but I can´t help expressing what I think:
5 months without feedback or comments and the probably most important thread (Reporting site) of this site locked?
Where have you ever seen this?I am amazed.
I´m really sorry if I sound ungrateful. I appreciate the idea and the work that has been done. I´ve always regarded AsteroidZoo as a great initiative but now have became tired of waiting for something that really won´t happen. This project seems definitively a fiction to me (and I am confident I am not the only one who shares this view). We once spent hundreds/thousands of hours analyzing images and in reality It´s not going to evolve. It´s completely locked, as the main thread.
I really doubt that it makes sense keeping this project as supposeadly "alive" (is there any reason to believe that this project is not actually already dead?). At least we deserve a feedback or explanation.
It has nothing to do with the sort of experience we had when I participated in the PlanetHunters project.
I can understand that this project is just not a priority, and that current funds do not permit the dedication of time and resources, but if this project is really alive, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, close it. It´s only my personal mind. Things must be done with seriousness.A tired amateur astronomer who sadly no longer believes in this project.
Posted
-
by hightower73
@javi_goagc Hello, Trust me on this, everyone is fed up and shares your views on this project. Some of us have put a lot of time and effort in this project, and have been with the project from day 1 and some of us has well over 10,000 classidfications to our names.
That said, some of us have been waiting for over 2 years for results from this project and I personally have contacted the head of the project, thier head and even the zooniverse director in the past for updates.
Within the last 5 months we have seen updates through the locked thread on thier reporting site, different updates including time stamps changed and different detections. They are still working on the project however the hold up is not as simple as they appear.
The hold up is with the MPC ( minor planet centre ) and they want very persific details and measurements that at the momment are still being worked on. Thats as much as anyone on this project can tell you at present.
We all here at the project feel your pain and fruastation, many of us have said the same things and noone listens to us. Is a huge headache of this project but something us mere mortals are unable to do anything about.
In time we all hope that something will come of this project, but at the momment all we have is hope. The fact that the plug has not been pulled yet and that the update does change ( albeit slowly and often weeks apart ) that alone gives us a little ray of hope that one day the MPC will accept the results and things to start moving forward.
Posted
-
by MvGulik
Why blame is put where is don't belongs beats me.
(hightower73) The hold up is with the MPC ( minor planet centre ) and they want very specific details and measurements that at the moment are still being worked on.
The MPC submission standaards where created way before AZ came around. Its AZ that either 1) grossly underestimated the troubles to pull accurate enough data to be MPC-useful from the CSS supplied image-set's, or 2) they painted a way to optimistic picture.
Posted
-
by hightower73 in response to MvGulik's comment.
Hello my friend,
If you read my post again carefully, youll see that i have said that the MPC want very percific details. yes this is very true, and yes your point is very correct that the MPC was here way before AZ.
My point was that as the MPC want correct details, AZ is failing the MPC as thier data is
a) incorrect
b) out dated
c) not eneough correct data for it to be of any use
d) they have not been sent any data
e) this is all a big scam
f) AZ has no idea what they are doing
g) the promises that AZ made, they cant keep to
h) the project is dead but they dont want to be seen in wasting moneyeither way, the blame lays directly at AZ's door not the MPC, nor does it at ours.
In my post i was trying to be optermistic as well being coy as to whom was to blame and be nice about it, but clearly if we want to be blunt instead of coy
ASTEROIDZOO AT ZOONIVERSE ARE TO BLAME FOR SHODDY WORK
is that better lol
Posted
-
by MvGulik
@hightower73 ::
Sorry for my/the misinterpretation.The initial text-start put me on the wrong path, "The hold up is with the MPC ...".
(unfortunately, unlike code, written text interpretation has no guarantied single fixed outcome at the readers end. (nor has it a easy one sided debug function.))
... ... ...
is that better lolDefinitely. lol
Posted
-
by hightower73
Lol yes I know exactly what you mean. I used to code in our years ago
Posted
-
by djsimister
HELLO. . ZOONIVERSE.........
Is there anybody out there????? Is there anyone at all? Anyone with eyes and a conscience?One who perhaps can read also??? If by chance there is, Then, have the courtesy to read the heartfelt comments above. Then maybe you could please do the right thing & communicate back & acknowledge at the very least what these totally dedicated, descent, hard working & very worthy zoonivers contributors are truly & very honestly feeling about the indifference & the abject silence that has noticeably been applied to this particular important & popular zooniverse sponsored project?
Posted
-
by Mitch56 in response to djsimister's comment.
Apparently not
Posted
-
by djsimister in response to Mitch56's comment.
Now then, Mitch56. Please. Let's not jump to finite conclusions here!
"Patience" is the word? Way back then in June, My hopes & expectations were high & Like everyone else, I felt a bit let down. My comments were perhaps a bit too cynical & sarcastic, I really believed there was never going to be a response & I stood a better chance of receiving an Extraterrestrial radio message via my seti@home BOINC App. One which contained my name, address & DOB?I still do believe this actually.. even more so :~}
patience
ˈpeɪʃ(ə)ns.
noun:
The capacity to accept or tolerate delay, problems, or suffering without becoming annoyed or anxious.Posted