Feh...another flat wasteland with a bunch of rocks

[centsworth_II]

Probably the test images were fully processed. Also, the conditions in which the test images were taken are obviously much different. The biggest difference I can think of that would affect image quality is lighting. The images on Titan were taken in light highly scattered by the thick layer of Titan haze. The light level is also much reduced from that in which the test images were taken. And many of the images on Titan may actually have been taken through haze, cloud or fog. All of this makes for great reduction in contrast and obviously affects overall quality. The test images seem to have all been taken on clear, bright days.<br /><br />The Titan landing images are certainly reduced in quality from the test images, but their value is immense! I imagine that once the entire landing profile has been compiled -- matching images and results from all instruments along one timeline -- that if images show the probe falling through cloud or fog, the instrument data from that time may determine their composition. In that case, a foggy image may be very valuable to the overall science.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"Anyone who complains about then has not got the slightest idea what they are talking about or the magnitude of the achievement here."<br /><br />I agree. What a bunch of losers.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">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. </font><br /><br />I'd rather say it is more likely they are the same people who hang out in the "SETI - search for life" forums and post stories on alien abductions, blue flowers, crop circles, Elophim and Raelienism. ( Most SF authors do know the boundry between fact and fiction and speculation) <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>

 

[no_way]

An apples-to-apples comparison would be with Venera landers, which did take pictures probably in similar or harder conditions, albeit much closer to earth.<br /><br />http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface<br /><br />I wonder if a hypothetical next Titan probe, if ever built, will be a balloon or blimp like Vega 1 & 2 were. Now that we have some first-hand data on conditions there it should be possible to design one.

 

[kaisern]

I have to disagree that Venera is an apples to apples comparison. Venera, remember, was landed in 1975! But supposing we do, examine the Venera photos. The detail is far better than those from Huygens, a probe built twenty years later.<br /><br />I understand bandwidth and power limitations restricted the amount of data transmitted to some 25MB. Please examine the photo below. It's a high resolution image from one of the surface shots taken during the Pathfinder mission in 1997. File size is 41KB. At that resolution and size, 1MB of space would allow over 20 such images. Had the Huygens planners allocated just 1MB of data transfer of the 25MB limit, just think--we could have ten or twenty great images that actually tell us something.<br /><br />With what they returned us, we're all saying, "Well, that MIGHT be a river...might be a chasm...might be a gash...don't know."<br /><br />Again, travelling the distance and successfully navigating through the harsh conditions is wonderful; however, SHOW US SOMETHING!<br /><br />I also have to take exception to the references made by some that folks like me who express this frustration are typically sci-fi forum denizens. I have studied Titan for 20 years and have been passionate about it since I was in high school. I don't think that what I'm saying is fantasy or unreasonable.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>At that resolution and size, 1MB of space would allow over 20 such images. Had the Huygens planners allocated just 1MB of data transfer of the 25MB limit, just think--we could have ten or twenty great images that actually tell us something.</i><p>Given that the probe was <b>completely unguided</b>, we could just as easily have ended up with 10 or 20 pictures of nothing. Try dropping a camera from an aeroplane and see how many great shots you get.<p>Seeing as the images were being shot at random and we had exactly one chance to get them, I'd take 350 low-resolution images instead of 20 high-res.<p>><i>It's a high resolution image from one of the surface shots taken during the Pathfinder mission in 1997.</i><p>This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Pathfinder was guided - they had time to compose that shot. One more time <b>THEY HAD <i>ONE</i> CHANCE TO TAKE THESE TOTALLY RANDOM IMAGES</b>.<br /></p></p></p></p>

 

[redwhitearcher]

Well as one that saw all the raw images I can somewhat agree with last post. There are about 1000 pictures and only about 100 of them anything can be seen. And I count anything as barely seen makrs of "river errosion" from 5 km height.

 

[orzek]

Kaisern<br /><br />I somewhat agree with your position, though it is nice that we have some pictures of Titan, it would of been even nicer to have them in colour and larger in resolution. The pictures shown now are okay but lack too much detail to figure out what you are actually looking at. Sure science will benefit but these missions cost a lot of money and therefore it makes sense to sell yourself with good pictures that would wow the public who after all payed for this. ESA needs to take a leaf out of NASA's PR and be more visible. After all before the probe landed they all were talking up how interesting and amazing the pictures will be. Yes to scientists and space nerds but not to the public at large with what they have at the moment.<br /><br />Hopefully with more study and image processing we should get better pictures that actually can tell us something definite about Titan and show us something more interesting. Or, to be pesimistic maybe scientists will be arguing about the meaning of the pictures for years to come?<br /><br />As for the others who criticise kaisern and others like him, even though you have valid points you lot still come across like scientific snobs. Despite the excuses for the pictures it has been anticlimactic somewhat!

 

[askold]

I agree with the original post - in principle. The people holding the purse strings were probably sold a bill of goods, but that's what it takes to fund these missions.<br /><br />You sell congress the sizzle so the scientists can get the steak. The science is the most important part of these missions, but it's pretty boring to the layman - the exact composition of the atmosphere, etc.<br /><br />The general public wants to see sea monkey people.

 

[kaisern]

I understand your analogy about the sea monkey people, and you're right--and while I'd (and everyone else, I'm sure) would love to see sea monkey people--I would settle for some images that are discernable. I mean, many of those images are embarrassing! Look at this one I've attached. They released this to the public! I viewed it 64x magnification, and there is NOTHING in it. It's just a gray blob. I understand tons of images will be worthless, but why were those images released?! That's the way most of the other images are, too. So far they've shown us, what, a handful of images with anything in them? <br /><br />Terrible. If the public cared and if they saw the results, they would rightfully ask, "All that money for THAT?!" The Cassini-Huygens budget was $3.4 BILLION dollars, folks. BILLION! Do I have the right to express frustration? You betcha! My tax dollars went toward paying the lion's share of the program, and please don't try the, "Well the US paid for the Cassini; the Europeans paid for Huygens, so your tax dollars didn't go towards Huygens." The whole reason why this project got funding in the first place was because of the promise of landing an advanced probe on Titan to study a world similar to early Earth. Had Huygens been cut from the project, I strongly suspect Cassini would have died on the vine.<br /><br />To travel 2.2 billion miles and spend $3.4 billion dollars of taxpayer money, I cannot believe there is not more outrage being expressed. The Mars Orbiter was lost because engineers failed to convert metric units to standard or vice versa. That's a mistake. OK, mistakes happen. That's an egregious mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. These blurry photos don't indicate a mistake--they indicate a poor design and poor planning.<br />

 

[wvbraun]

"These blurry photos don't indicate a mistake--they indicate a poor design and poor planning."<br /><br />LOL. I have every confidence that the esa folks got the best pictures possible with the technology available. You simply don't know anything about the limitations and problems they faced (me neither, but I don't make such ridiculous claims). Maybe you should try to get in touch with someone who was actually involved in building Huygens. Oh, and BTW: It was $3.2 billion.

 

[centsworth_II]

Also.... anyone who wants to dismiss the success of the Huygens mission simply because they are not satisfied with the pictures has no clue about the momentous science that will come from the other instruments (no, I'm not talking about the sound).<br /><br />One of the primary objectives of the Huygens mission was to determine the complexity of Titan's organic chemistry. I'll be looking forward to those results and hopefully revelling in their richness while the "I can take better pictures with my digi-cam" guys are still crying.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hendrixfan]

You guys could've just said "hey, black and white images are cheaper and easier to send than color images. They carry less information and thus, are more quickly recieved." The colour martian pictures were made so using educated guesswork and inference. As you can see here in one of the Viking images, thier initial cognition was that the martian sky was blue/grey, when now it is believed that the sky is actually pinkish (see the Spirit picture). Of course, we'll never truly know the exact hue of the martian sky until we see it for ourselves, in living colour. <br /><br /> So now I'm just waiting for the ESA to colourize a select few of the photos, although this may prove to be a daunting task (for them, that is).

 

[hendrixfan]

You can see the pictures here:<br />http://library.thinkquest.org/~12659/media/solar_system/mars/viking_image.jpg<br /> &<br />http://www.universetoday.com/html/wall/spirit_first_colour_mars.jpg<br />

 

[JonClarke]

If you think a highly processed panoramic composite image from pathfinder is a valid comparison to the titan images then you don't understand the situation.<br /><br />The reason why people are saying "we think this or we think that has nothing to do with the quality of the images it is because we don't know. This is an utterly alien surface. We don't know what the surface of Titan is really like. We have seen a bit of it and we still don't know. We have not seen the surface of an ice world in an appreciable atmosphere before. We have not seen the surface on an icy body at this distance or resolution before. It will take years to understand it. If you have studied Titan for 20 years you should understand this.<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>

 

[bobvanx]

The instrument, designed at University of Arizona, is called the DISR for those of you who care. Jon is completely correct that you can't compare these images with anything you've seen before. In testing the DISR, the team made panoramas using controlled camera motions and at a balmy 300°K. On Titan, this same instrument functioned on an erratically spinning platform, finally landing where the surface temp is 94°K. This is quite nearly the temperature of liquid nitrogen (77°K)!<br /><br />The ground environment also seems to be quite foggy, and in some of the triplets it looks like the fog is so dense as it blows through that it completely obliterates the view.<br /><br />So between coming down through a hydrocarbon soup that could have coated the optics with something like vaseline, to a cold that is literally beyond our experience, to whatever is surface environments optical qualities are, it is a stunning acheivement to get these pictures at all.

 

[silylene old]

Kaisern, admittedly, yes I was hoping for better pictures. Of course, who wasn't?<br /><br />On the other hand, my current attitude is how can we best enhance the images we have to learn as much as possible from them. I am so thrilled to have these pictures which appear to show liquid channels, drainage areas, ponds, coatlines, ice blocks and a crusty surface! Essentially, I am so happy with the data we do have, that I don't see it appropriate to criticize the ESA for what we don't have. What we have learned on Titan (and add Mars and Cassini to this list) will energize a whole new generation of planetary exploration. For that, I am grateful. <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>

 

[anoolios]

I'm elated that we got anything at all back from the Huygens probe, it's an amazing achivement! It's silly to lash out and criticize when all the facts aren't known. I will be patient in waiting for further analysis, explaination, and interpretation of the data; especially in light of the commendable way that the Huygens team has honestly and transparently taken responsibility for the data loss issue.<br /><br />Perhaps the most important thing to come out of these images will be the impetus to further explore Titan in future missions. I find the images to be extremely beautiful and tantalizing!<br /><br />However, the public does deserve an explaination of the poor image quality when compared to other missions. Even images from the remarkable Venera missions to Venus from <b>1975</b> are superior to the Huygens images seen so far. We have come to expect more; it is frustrating but we should be patient and give the Huygens team a chance to further explain the findings.

 

[spacechump]

Anoolios those raw images don't look very good to me. But the owner of that site used the raw data and today's processing software to enhance and process the image better than they could today. They'll use the same techniques with the Titan images I'm sure.

 

[anoolios]

Yes spacehump, that data was processed using modern techniques, however even the Venera images in my children's space book from the mid-70's are superior to the Huygens images. My point however isn't to be critical of the Huygens images seen so far, quite the opposite. The impresion of seeing images from other missions has set expectations that are probably not applicable to Huygens. It would be prudent for the Huygens team to explain why the images appear as such.<br /><br />I'll never forget the startled amazement I felt upon seeing the first image from Huygens; it was from the surface of Titan! I was really skeptical that we would see anything from the surface at all, knowing that the probe was not designed to be a lander.

 

[wvbraun]

Don't know if this has been posted yet:<br /><br />Fantastic pictures (colored panoramas!)

 

[yurkin]

To Kaisern and cohorts,<br /><br />It’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. The DISR is really a piece of engineering artwork. Even cleverer then the HRSC, I’ve got to hand it to those Germans, they can build a nice camera. Not only does it have a Photometer (violet), Spectrometer (Visible), Spectrometer (infrared), each one of these devices is able to look both up and down. There also four Solar Aureole cameras that measure the atmospheric dispersion of solar light. On top of that the three different red to near infrared imagers that have given us all those wonderful pictures.<br /><br />For another thing they are NOT BLACK AND WHITE. I know they look black and white but they are actually are actually 660-1000 nm grayscale images. That covers the red to near infrared range. The reason that this makes a lot more sense then a visible spectrum camera is because nearly all of the visible spectrum won’t make it though Titans thick atmosphere. The near infrared will make it through and carry for a long way. So even when Huygens was ten km up it could take remarkable clear pictures of the surface.<br /><br />There are three different visible imagers. The highest resolution looks straight down, medium resolution looks at a 45 degree angle, low resolution looks out the side and the whole craft spins. This is a clever way to getting a complete landscape image with a minimum of equipment. With a great deal of post-processing 3D rendered landscapes can be made from these images.<br /><br />About the surface images there are a few things to consider. For one thing the downward and angled cameras are pretty useless when you get to the surface. That’s not to say they weren’t extremely useful on the way down. So you can’t show a downward looking after Huygens has landed and say that this is useless. What else could the camera have taken a picture of it was pointing down.<br /><br />Now I know your next question is “why was the sideways looking camera low and t

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"I'm elated... it's an amazing achivement!... I will be patient in waiting for further analysis....Perhaps the most important thing to come out of these images will be the impetus to further explore Titan in future missions. I find the images to be extremely beautiful and tantalizing!" -- Anoolios</i><br /><br />I commend you for these comments, but must contend one issue with you. Comparing the Venera images with Huygens'. Granted, it would be great to have ground-level panaramas of Titan equal to those taken by Venera, but not at the expense of the fantastic bird's eye panaramas Huygens took of Titan. Why were panaramas at altitude not taken by Venera? Why not by the MER landers? As a matter of fact, have any landers, anywhere ever taken better panaramas than Huygens? Even the manned moon landings did no better than out-the-window shots. I don't know, but now that I'm thinking of it, I don't remember ever seeing a panarama, at altitude, of any body in the solar system (besides Earth) before those taken by Huygens. If there is one, show it to me. Then I will be able to compare. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

So, using those numbers (100 out of 1000), we <i>might</i> have gotten 2 good high-res images. I'll take my 100 low-resolution ones any day. At least the next artists impression will be better! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[askold]

This mission has to be put in context - as the first, it's a pathfinder mission. You don't know what to expect so just go and look around as broadly as possible.<br /><br />Then tailor subsequent missions based on what you find.