Okay...the pictures are a little fuzzy, but I've noticed they've 'cleaned' them up a little and they are clearer. <br /><br />Whoever posted their 'colorized' photos, hey man, you weren't that far off the color scheme!!! Its a little more orange then you had it, but wow!!!!
- Status
Not a valid comparison. Do your homework. <br />And yes, you're probably the only one who is disappointed.
<font color="yellow">Grooble might have been joking but I'm not--those images suck. I'm disappointed. Seven years for blurry black and white images?! Hello? Am I alone here? </font><br /><br />Cut a little slack please. This is the FIRST lander on Titan. I have no doubt that the best attempts were made in designing the mission to maximize the picture quality and the data.<br /><br />There is less sunlight at Saturn. And the Titanian atmosphere is dense, foggy and hazy. The best cameras of 2005 still generate low-res photos in foggy, hazy, low-light conditions on Earth. So do my eyeballs, for that matter.<br /><br />Geesh. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
Re: Are there mountains way out in the distace?<br /><br /> I might not confirm mountains, but most likely hills.
Blurry or not, we have exactly 350 more images of Titan's surface than we had on January 13. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
I hope the same ones who were clamouring for imediate release of images as soon as recieved from Titan are not now complaining about the quality.<br /><br />Remember that the first images being released are RAW IMAGES. I don't know how much more clear they can get with processing, but I'm sure some improvements can be made. <br /><br />I, myself am <b>very</b> pleased with the images. There is <b>plenty</b> there to ponder in terms of surface properties and processes. After all, the purpose of the images is not to be pretty, although I find that they are.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Certainly the minority in this forum, but I suspect in the rest of the world we are very much the minority. I feel bad for them, but if they don’t get it then its something I cant explain.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The best cameras of 2005 still generate low-res photos in foggy, hazy, low-light conditions on Earth. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Resolution is a property of the camera, not what the camera is taking a picture of. The original data (which ESA is too embarrassed to release, so it had to be leaked onto the web, e.g. http://mars.lyle.org/titan/ ) shows they're very small images. They're "blurry" because they were enlarged for general release, and no amount of post-processing will make them sharper because you can't replace missing data.<br /><br />Obviously with limited battery life and upload speed, and not knowing if they'd survive to the ground, they had to balance taking a lot of tiny images versus a few glorious full-color images, and they chose the former. But that was the wrong decision. The people who pay for this project -- government and taxpayers -- just see images that suck. They don't care about instruments that benefit a total of three PhD students each. The people are paying for the project and want results that benefit them too. Ignoring this is bad policy and bad politics. <br /><br />Meanwhile, ESA wastes further battery and bandwidth recording "sounds of descent" ( http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/huygens_alien_winds_descent.mp3 ), which is nothing but white noise. I mean, come on... when has "wind" EVER been anything but a bunch of white noise? If they're trying to impress the masses, they should have known that's not going to work. It just shows that the ESA doesn't get it. For all of NASA's corny pre-scripted sound-bites ("the baby's out of the womb, we just haven't counted its fingers yet"), they're at least conscious of the need to reach out to the masses to get their support and continued funding. ESA should be aware of the same if they want
I am willing to bet that overlaying ("stacking") the dozens of near-identical images (see mars.lyle.org) will do wonders to improve image sharpness.<br /><br />Modern astronomers, particularly amateur astronomers, do this now and generate detailed pictures using 14" scopes and a video camera detector can in many respects match the image fidelity of the 200" Hales scope of 30 yrs ago. <br /><br />Maybe one of our forum members can do the image stacking first?<br /><br />See for example,<br />http://members.optushome.com.au/ssmassey/vidast.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
The cameras the TV networks use in race cars have a clear, rotating disc and wiper arrangement in front of the optics. Cheap solution to a problem as these race cars seem to be constantly spewing all kinds of nasty chemicals on the electronics, probably not too unlike Titan's atmosphere. Also, suspect most of aerosolized goo in Titan's atmosphere, would not collect on a surface that was even slightly warm. This technique was (I think) employed on the Pioneer Venus multiprobes to keep sulfur/sulfuric acid off of diamond windows for IR scanner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
There is probably over a decade of R&D between Huygens and the Mars Rovers and I wouldn't be surprise if some of the technology developed for Huygens has its direct descendants on the Mars rovers. Did anyone here even have a digital camera 10 years ago, let alone a radiation hardened bandwidth limited one?
I am really disappointed in the attitude of some of the people here about these images. IT'S FREAKING TITAN. HOW FAR AWAY IS IT AGAIN? Good lord, it's not like Huygens had Kiowa-style optics on it (plus, remember that if NASA had built it, we could have put p[robably 10X the funding into it... ESA has to really scrimp to get their budgets approved). It's Titan, we've never been there, and that alone makes these pictures amazing. <br /><br />As for a lander / rover, how long is Cassini expected to live? Long enough for us to send a Titan-Rated version of MSL, most likely, if we got started now. True, it would cost a LOT of money, but maybe we could go international with it? Cassini should still be alive in 13-14 years given the size of its RTG's... you could still use Cassini as your uplink... there were final orbit studies for Cassini that suggested you could have it end up in a Titan orbit... you could then use it as little more than a relay for your Titan Surface Laboratory.<br /><br />Anyway, that's my fantasy. <br /><br />And you disgruntled "feh" types - calm down. This is a BRAND NEW WORLD we're seeing!
You could make a stange rover for these icy moons by using hovercraft technology. Under the skirt (so to speak) have a nuclear heat source. Presumably the frozen ground/liquid would flash and give you bouyancy and a modicum of vectorable thrust. A place like Titan you would want the winds to push you along. To stop you would just retract the heatsource into an insulated compartment where it would simply keep the rover warm and charge the batteries.<br /><br />Trpuble with a lander on the jovian moons is that the radiation at the surface would make life tough on electronics.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Did anyone here even have a digital camera 10 years ago, let alone a radiation hardened bandwidth limited one?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Well, NASA had one over 30 years ago... check out the vibrant, high-resolution color Viking I pictures.<br /><br />I know ESA's kind of new at this, but they should have at least aimed beyond 1962-era moon probe technology. NASA would have gladly helped them out if they had any questions, and probably could have donated an old 70's-era color camera from their scrap room if ESA had just asked!
Well if NASA could do such a better job why don't they send a lander to Titan then.<br /><br />Last time I looked NASA seem to lose lots of their own landers, as do the Russians, and that's on well studied planets such as Mars. <br /><br />This thing made it to Titan off Saturn, let's not forget that! A new world, first shot, they made it, that is incredible! This is not just another rover doing the same ol thing.<br /><br />ESA have done a spectacular job all things considered. I prefer their pictures of the surface Titan to NASA's by a long shot!
<br /><br />Don't get me wrong NASA do a great job but lets give ESA some credit this is a major success for them and for everyone involved! We could have been sitting around here crying in our beers over the lander burning up in the atmosphere or failing to detach or any number of problems.<br /><br />Actually in a way this is good, if we want some nice wallpapers of Titan we are just going to have to send another lander/rover <br />
<br /><br />Don't get me wrong NASA do a great job but lets give ESA some credit this is a major success for them and for everyone involved! We could have been sitting around here crying in our beers over the lander burning up in the atmosphere or failing to detach or any number of problems.<br /><br />Actually in a way this is good, if we want some nice wallpapers of Titan we are just going to have to send another lander/rover <br />If I remember correctly the probe entered the atmosphere with a 7 rpm spin and it was still 3 rpm just before it landed. The cameras looked out the side while the thing spun while swinging on a parachute under really low light levels in high winds that actually changed it's direction. Snapping pictures as fast as it could the mosaics got pieced together from whatever pictures it took. It's not a stable platform like hubble with its rate gyros and magnetic torquers. They must have been real fast shutter speeds so they did a good job getting contrast. I like the pictures just fine. They are WAY more than I expected. <br /><br />Remember the pancam manual for the mer rovers? 300 pages of tech. stuff. The one thing I've found is the ESA websites are all pretty basic and looking for data there always runs me in circles. Anybody else feel this way or am I doing something wrong? I couldn't find how fast the smart-1 was going. Anybody think I can find about the CCD there, like the frequency response or how many bits in the A-D converter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Flippin' heck, it hasn't been 48 hours and people are already whinging! We have got colour pictures from TITAN, both during descent and of the surface, showing a diversity of sources and landforms. They are a bit fuzzy but processing will sharpen these up in due course. Anyone who complains about then has not got the slightest idea what they are talking about or the magnitude of the achievement here. The MERS transmitted three pictures each during descent. Galileo none. We have hundreds from Titan.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
I invite everyone to take a good hard look at this image. It's a gorgeous color image of the planet Neptune taken by Voyager 2, a craft launched in 1977--meaning it was built before Star Wars was even filmed. The image is clear and sharp and returned to Earth from a distance much farther away than Titan.<br /><br />Scientists and researchers must realize that science and research is largely funded by the PUBLIC. When we spend billions of dollars and spend seven years to return blurry black and white pictures that look like they were taken with a 1940s camera, even if they are of great scientific value, the public is going to logically think, "All that time and money for THAT?! Some crappy, blurry pictures of fog and out-of-focus rocks!"<br /><br />I cannot believe that ESA sent something to travel all that way over all that time and it didn't occur to them that people would like to see discernable images.<br /><br />Those pictures clear up nothing. They show what MIGHT be a lake and some rivers--if you use your imagination. And you REALLY have to use your imagination. Already scientists are saying, "Well it might be lake or a sea or maybe just some wet clay." OK, we already knew that was probably the case before we landed anything there. Those pictures just increase the speculation.<br /><br />ESA is proud they landed something on Titan--yes, that's an achievement that they negotiated deep space and landed there...would have been nice if they would have taken ONE decent color snapshot of the visit.
<i>"Anyone who complains... has not got the slightest idea what they are talking about or the magnitude of the achievement here." -- JonClarke</i><br /><br />I'll bet what we have here is a bunch that normally hangs in the sci fi forum and don't have a clue what <b>real</b> science is about. In any case, most who are not impressed with the accomplishment <b>and</b> the images will be gone and back where they came from before too long. <br /><br />By the way, I don't mean to insult all sf aficionados, just the ones who insult real scientists when their hard work doesn't match up to a sci fi fantasy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I'm not a scientist, but my non-scientist mind tells me that you are comparing two totally different things. Voyager had no atmosphere disturbance for example. The camera's to take such pics probably are as big as the Huygens probe itself...<br /><br />If I read such comments, it saddens me. There was a lot of 'hope we don't get a Beagle here' before, and I wonder if some people are not dissappointed because it didn't burn up in the atmosphere so you could have a laugh at Europe. We managed to put this thing on the surface, and yet you are still whining. Very dissappointing I must say. After that huge problem they discovered a few years back, I'm glad the engineer found a sollution to gather as much as possible data.<br /><br />I'm glad we do see something on the pics, I was affraid the fog would have been too thick... Have you ever tried taking pics in thick fog?
That is a processed image of Neptune, the images we see of Titan have limited processing as yet. Give the team time.<br /><br />It is also taken by completely different spacecraft, with different imaging system and power levels, under different conditions, transmitted through an atmosphere, under strict time constraints.<br /><br />If you are going to compare, make sure you understand what it is you are comparing and compare apples with apples.<br /><br />Yes, it is hard to understand what we see on Titan. Why? Because we don't know. This is an utterly alien world, a moon bigger than a planet, with an atmosphere denser than earth, where water is harder than granite, whose surface cannot be seen at visible wavelengths. The IR images from the Cassini flybys are equally hard to interpret.<br /><br />It will take months to understand what we are seeing here. This is not a TV show were people solve the unknown in minutes, or whether there there are not real limits to what is technically possible.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
I am curious if there was damage to the imaging systems, unforseen environment interactions, etc, that produced the poor quality images. The test images (run on Earth) are crystal clear with none of the graininess shown in the images released thus far. I do not know if the test images were touched up / processed or not though.<br /><br />Not criticizing so much as curious if there was something we didn't expect that caused the quality drop or if they expected it to be this grainy because of Titan's atmosphere all along.
The three imaging cameras on Huygens had resolutions of 160x256, 176x256 and 128x256. Compare to MER pancam at 1000x1000. The probe transmitted at 8 kb/s, far less than MER. Those who demand high resolution should realise only some 25 MB of data was returned by Huygens. Which is better: 350 images covering 360 degrees at a variety of altitudes and directions or a handful of hi-res pictures?
I'm not sure if you were replying to me, or in general, but I am not talking about the resolution of the images. I am speaking of the noise.<br /><br />SROS on this board posted the following link showing the test images taken with the DISR. I am curious if there was a problem or some unforseen circumstance that prevented this kind of quality at the surface.<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20030728012525/www.lpl.arizona.edu/~aeibl/disr_roof_img2.html
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
Russian cosmonauts make quick work of space station spacewalk
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram