Page 11 of 12

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: May 29th, 2009, 3:05 pm
by manutd94
Has anyone found any good books lately on Remote Sensing?

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 2nd, 2009, 2:26 pm
by gneissisnice
I have to say, this was not really a good test. Most of it was on the satellite imagery rather than the environmental stuff, and 37 questions, with mostly multiple choice is not a great way to determine who knows more about the event. And this is coming from the person that got 3rd (well, one of the people). I think we medalled because of the tiebreaker page, honestly.
And the questions based on Canadian geography were kinda weird. I mean, they weren't blatantly on that, they were more like "Based on this unlabeled map of Canada, what was the temperature increase of Quebec?". So we had to know where Quebec was.

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 4th, 2009, 3:31 pm
by gogofofo
I have to say, this was not really a good test. Most of it was on the satellite imagery rather than the environmental stuff, and 37 questions, with mostly multiple choice is not a great way to determine who knows more about the event. And this is coming from the person that got 3rd (well, one of the people). I think we medalled because of the tiebreaker page, honestly.
And the questions based on Canadian geography were kinda weird. I mean, they weren't blatantly on that, they were more like "Based on this unlabeled map of Canada, what was the temperature increase of Quebec?". So we had to know where Quebec was.
Yeah, the test was way too short/easy. There was really no way to separate who did and didn't know the event, so I had no idea where we would end up placing. I'm just thankful we ended up in the top 20. And about Canada, my partner asked the proctor where Newfoundland (or some other Canadian province) was, and he wouldn't tell him. Which is annoying because I don't think that knowledge of Canadian provinces lies within the rules of the event.

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 5th, 2009, 12:54 pm
by tad_k_22
The test was good, though, on all points but that it was too short--and Van Hecke (supervisor) was just using Canada remote sensing images, he was drilling in the point that everybody should have read the tutorial. Longer was the main problem.

Great job in Astronomy, by the way!

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 5th, 2009, 7:31 pm
by GoldenKnightB
[quote="tad_k_22"]The test was good, though, on all points but that it was too short--and Van Hecke (supervisor) was just using Canada remote sensing images, he was drilling in the point that everybody should have read the tutorial. Longer was the main problem.quote]

Are you refering to the tutorial from NASA (Dr. Nicholas Short) or is there another one?

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 5th, 2009, 9:20 pm
by sciolykid101
What tutorial?

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 6th, 2009, 6:15 am
by rocketman1555
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/

this is the nasa tutorial

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 6th, 2009, 6:53 am
by manutd94
Will Remote be the same next year? It says it's pending to be human impact again, but does anyone know yet?

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 6th, 2009, 9:31 am
by gneissisnice
I figure its probably the same, since it was mars for a few years, and its only been human impact on the environment for one.

Re: Remote Sensing

Posted: June 6th, 2009, 4:41 pm
by gogofofo
The test was good, though, on all points but that it was too short--and Van Hecke (supervisor) was just using Canada remote sensing images, he was drilling in the point that everybody should have read the tutorial. Longer was the main problem.

Great job in Astronomy, by the way!
Oh wow, that tutorial was one of the first things I looked at for the event. Why did he think that we should have known to study it?

Thanks!