Hi [Om],
Sorry for my slow replies. Dawn keeps me busy, which comes as no surprise to you. We arrived in survey orbit this morning, and that will be tweeted and put on our mission status page.
You’re right that that was not I on Facebook. I mentioned about giving the information for tweeting. For Facebook, if they send a question back to me, I answer it, but most of the time they don’t. So I’m quite unaware of what gets posted there.
As usual, the topic is a little more complicated than it appears from what you quoted below. For the approach phase images, we used two different camera integration times (what most people call exposure times). One value was chosen to ensure Ceres was correctly exposed and the other was chosen to bring out the background stars. The images alternate, so we interpolate to get Ceres' location relative to stars. We did it the same way at Vesta. In at least one of the Ceres OpNavs, it just so happened that some stars showed up in the images exposed for Ceres. I don’t know what the Dawn person (who is not technical) had in mind with the comment about adding stars. We’ve never done that.
As for what Ceres would look like, you’re quite right that Ceres is significantly brighter than the background stars. That’s why we had two exposure values. I wrote in my
March 31 Dawn Journal that Ceres’ mean albedo is about 0.09 and the Moon’s is about 0.12. So you’re also correct that the Moon’s is 1/3 higher. If it matters, remember that Ceres is farther from the sun. The Planetary Society reposts my Dawn Journals (as do some other sites), and sometimes (but not often), I respond to comments there. I did address this aspect of it in responding to a
comment by Solon. That is, the intensity of the sunlight is around 12% at Ceres what it is at Earth or the Moon, so it would look darker to your eye. You’re also right that Ceres’ variation in albedo seems much lower, but, of course, there are those famous bright spots and others that are not so famous.
Regards,
Marc