Don't they have computer simulations that would show all of those planetary orbits, along with the moons, the attending illumination from the sun, the moons, and attendant shadows cast on the planet, etc., in full graphic representation??
My God, I would place even money I can pull up Google results that will direct me to FREE SOFTWARE that will allow me to run such a graphic program on my home computer..
How is it the Space Institute doesn't have such software?
How is it they aren't running such software on their targets in the solar system?
I would think that if someone is going to use the (darn) HUBBLE telescope to take shots of Uranus, then the first thing you do is run simulations on your (darn) computer(s) to determine what it is you SHOULD be seeing, and be able to compare it to the photographic results..
Seriously, the more I think about this the more it (ticks) me off..
That's just what they'd like you to think...
Yeah, I didn't get theat either. I'm sure they have ephemerides for all the planets and their satelites. I rmemeber years ago there was a somwhat similar series of eclipses of Pluto and Cahron, and they had been planned for in advance.
The difference between simulation and reality?
Let's see - you can have Olive Oil (Popeye's girlfriend) as your prefered simulations ....
.... and I'll have Raquel or Gina Lollobrigida.
THAT is the difference.
Perhaps they have just enough computer time to do their stated work--taking up more computer time to work out the positions of 27 moons that have no bearing on their work might be a violation of their grant...just guessing here, perhaps computer time is a lot more plentiful than it used to be, but I still think we need more info before trashing these stargazers as imcompetents.