Index Thread Archive Nov-2010 Archive Send
 Main index   Previous in threadNext in thread   Previous in archiveNext in archive   Index by Subject for Nov-2010Index by Author for Nov-2010Index by Date for Nov-2010   Index by Subject for ArchiveIndex by Author for ArchiveIndex by Date for Archive   Reply to messageNew message 

Subject: <no subject>
Author: Harold A Weaver <Hal.Weaver@jhuapl.edu>
Date: 22-Nov-2010 11:21:43
Hopefully Mark Sykes, as SBAG Chair, will chime in shortly, but here's my perspective as one of SBAG's "founding members". Most of the large satellites (e.g., the Earth's Moon, the Jovian Galilean satellites, and Titan for sure) should *not* be included in SBAG's scope. However, certain "dwarf planets" (e.g., Pluto, Ceres, etc.) should be included because they are not already covered by other AGs, and they are more directly related to the other "small bodies" clearly covered by SBAG. Triton is a special case, and there are good reasons (e.g., Triton may very well have been a TNO captured by Neptune) to include some discussion of it in SBAG's science doc. Cheers, Hal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harold (Hal) Weaver The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Space Department 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD 20723-6099 email: hal.weaver@jhuapl.edu 443-778-8078 (office) 410-978-5172 (cell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 11/22/10 11:04 AM, "Rivkin, Andy S." wrote: > > Well, sort of, I guess. But SBAG needs to have reasonable bounds > somewhere-- without the large icy satellites SBAG's purview can be > succinctly put as "those objects that formed independently of the 8* planets > recognized by the IAU". The SBAG web page claims SBAG's raison d'etre is > "to identify scientific priorities and opportunties for the exploration of > asteroids, comets, interplanetary dust, small satellites, and > Trans-Neptunian Objects." Other groups have the large satellites as a > specific, important focus, and will do and have done much more work than > SBAG can or should do on them. > > I agree there are absolutely linkages to be made between the small bodies > and some of the large icy satellites (or with the Moon, or with Mercury) but > I think the less focused we are the less effective we'll be. If we discuss > the large satellites in any real sense in a roadmap, we'll need to take some > position on Europa vs. Titan, and we'd also need to address the large > satellites in the other sections besides the science issues section > (technology capabilities, in-situ study, theory...). > > I'm attaching the OPAG white paper that was submitted for the Decadal > Survey. I'd suggest that at the most we have a few lines noting some of the > crossover between the large icy satellites and the small bodies population > (icy regolith evolution, cratering rates, whatever), a pointer to OPAG, and > a note that they have developed or are developing their own roadmap for > large satellite studies. > > Cheers, > -Andy > > > *Not to re-adjudicate that particular discussion. > > > On 11/22/10 10:32 AM, "Nuth, Joseph A. (GSFC-6900)" > wrote: > >> Andy, Casey, >> I had put these bodies into the Science Issues section for completeness - and >> no one objected. We have had a presentation on a proposed JPL rendezvous >> mission to Triton at our first meeting. While I agree that these bodies are >> not the small bodies that I am interested in, we do have Pluto and KBOs as >> well. In this light the large icy satellites are not necessarily out of >> place >> in SBAG. I would be perfectly happy to put pointers to an OPAG report if >> needed, but I do not see a great problem in having an overlap with OPAG >> either. >> Joe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lisse, Carey M. [mailto:Carey.Lisse@jhuapl.edu] >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 10:27 AM >> To: sbag.science@pc93.lpi.usra.edu >> Subject: RE: PDF-File-Verify-Sender:[SBAG Science Issues] >> >> Joe, >> >> I second Andy's question - these objects are some of the prime focus items of >> the OPAG group and their >> next flagship mission, and we have plenty on our plate. >> >> - Casey >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Nuth, Joseph A. (GSFC-6900) [joseph.a.nuth@nasa.gov] >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 10:16 AM >> To: sbag.science@pc93.lpi.usra.edu >> Subject: RE: PDF-File-Verify-Sender:[SBAG Science Issues] >> >> Andy, >> I had put these bodies into the Science Issues section for completeness - and >> no one objected. We have had a presentation on a proposed JPL rendezvous >> mission to Triton at our first meeting. While I agree that these bodies are >> not the small bodies that I am interested in, we do have Pluto and KBOs as >> well. In this light the large icy satellites are not out of place. >> Joe >> >> From: Rivkin, Andy S. [mailto:Andy.Rivkin@jhuapl.edu] >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:57 AM >> To: sbag.science@pc93.lpi.usra.edu >> Subject: Re: PDF-File-Verify-Sender:[SBAG Science Issues] >> >> >> Just curious what this part implies: >> >> >> On 11/10/10 10:04 AM, "Nuth, Joseph A. (GSFC-6900)" >> wrote: >> >> * Large, Icy Satellites of the Giant Planets >> >> >> >> Presumably we're not taking on Ganymede/Titan/Triton/etc in the small bodies >> roadmap? >> >> -Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >

This Thread
  Date   Author  
22-Nov-2010 Joseph A. (GSFC-6900) Nuth
22-Nov-2010 Mark V. Sykes
* 22-Nov-2010 Harold A Weaver
16-Nov-2010 Carey M. Lisse
16-Nov-2010 Mark V. Sykes
16-Nov-2010 Michael E. (JSC-KT111) Zolensky
16-Nov-2010 Mark V. Sykes
16-Nov-2010 Zhengwei Hu
16-Nov-2010 Michael E. (JSC-KT111) Zolensky
15-Nov-2010 Mark V. Sykes
12-Nov-2010 Joseph A. (GSFC-6900) Nuth
10-Nov-2010 Marc Fries
10-Nov-2010 Joseph A. (GSFC-6900) Nuth
This Author (Nov-2010)
  Subject   Date  
* <no subject> 22-Nov-2010
Science Issues Update 11-Nov-2010