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

[JonClarke]

It's called "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."<br /><br />The same people, had they been about would have complained about no pictures from the early Veneras, which were also descent probes, the early Mariner flybys of Venus, the Pioneer Venus descent probes, the Galileo descent probe, and the poor quality of Mariner IV, 6, 7 Mars flybys, and the Apollo 11 and 12 TV.<br /><br />It is also called "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."<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>

 

[thalion]

The first pictures of the far side of the Moon by Luna 3 were bad, even by 1959 standards--but they significantly increased our knowledge of the Moon's surface. The first pictures of Mars' surface by Mariner 4 were primitive--but they were light-years ahead of the best pictures from Earth, and taught us much about the planet (which led to incorrect assumptions at first, but that's for another thread). The Galileo descent probe took no pictures at all, but still greatly increased our knowledge of Jupiter. <br /><br />In the <i>Cosmic Connection</i> (IIRC), Carl Sagan talks about a time at the dawn of the space age when cameras on spacecraft were considered by some to be a petty extravagance. He made a case for cameras himself, and it turns out that his POV was the best one. The point is, however much these pictures fall short of the panoramas from Viking, the MERs, Surveyors, what have you, they're better than nothing, and what we see teaches us a great deal about the surface properties and processes of Titan. <br /><br />If the public can't get excited about a few "blurry" pictures from Titan's surface, then that's really not ESA's or NASA's problem. Suppose the pictures really had been super sharp, right down to the surface. What would have changed between that hypothetical parallel universe and the one we're living in now? I'm guessing public interest might have been held for another week, then no one would care anymore. Look at the MERs: a year on the Martian surface, with the best cameras placed on any lander, and the media outside of the space community has all but forgotten about them. Clearly the power of the public's "WOW" is limited even with the best equipment. So again, I say that the supposedly poor imagery is not ESA or NASA's problem. <br /><br />Yes, so the public pays the taxes that pay for ESA and NASA. I say, big deal. Does the American public support the space program ten times more because of the successful MER missions, or MGS, or Odyssey, or Cassini?

 

[JonClarke]

For space imaging Luna 3 was state of the art in 1959 (they were the first after all). But there were some ignoramuses that thought they were faked.<br /><br />Better images from Huygens was possible, but at what cost. what would have to have been left off? The penetratometer? The GCMS, the spectrometer? People forget there is no such thing as a free lunch.<br /><br />As it is there is a wealth of staggering detail in the images. Let's taking about the implications for Titan surface processes.<br /><br />Take the black areas. Are they really former seas? Or playa lakes? or something else?<br /><br />What is the origin of the channels carved into the black areas? Sub aqueous (aqueous meaning methane in this case) or formed after the methane dried up.<br /><br />What about the drainage system. Runoff or sapping? What does this say about the methane cycle and the permeability of the surface of Titan?<br /><br />This the surface permanantly moist, or only occasionally?<br /><br />We have imaged, what, 1% of the surface. How representative is what we have seen? Is it typical, or wetter/drier.smoother/rougher than usual?<br /><br />Jon <br /> <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>

 

[slappymcb]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No one on this board has offered up any convincing argument or evidence as to why a handful of high resolution images was outside of the constraints.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Yes we have. You merely fail to understand the evidence. We tell you about bandwidth, battery life, what was known about the environment during the design phase, data transmission windows, balancing observations across 6 intstruments without any human intervention, and so on, and all of it is factual and sufficient. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Bobvanx and JonClarke, will all respect, you are clearly not hardware engineers and have never engineered a sensor in your life, and that's fine (I don't know anything about graphic design, or biology for example). But I don't think you've even <i>read</i> any technical information about the DISR (I suggest you start at http://www.rssd.esa.int/SB/HUYGENS/docs/START.pdf ), otherwise you wouldn't make your silly assertions about something that's easily doable for a comp engineering 101 student, let alone a team as qualified as the DISR group.<br /><br />The facts are, the DISR compresses with plain old DCT and huffman encoding (yes, aka the JPG scheme, but with just a few differences). This means they can specify a precise compression ratio, since it's simply a matter of throwing out however many DCT coefficients they want or don't want. <i>Thus</i>, you could easily use a standard-sized 512x512 camera for the side camera (instead of their 128x256) and simply bump up the compression ratio to maintain the same bandwidth as with the lower-resolution image. Then after landing, they could have simply lowered the compression ratio, and if they were worried about battery or survival they could have streamed from low to high frequency coefficients until a full 512x512 lossless image

 

[silylene old]

SlappyB:<br /><br />The Huygens probe had but a 3 hour, 9600 baud link to Cassini.<br /><br />Yet you complain about the lack of modern megapixel resolution color photos. Have you considered that maybe there was a limitation to probe's ability to transmit scores (let alone hundreds) of megapixel images, plus transmit all the science data, using just a 3 hour 9600 baud linkage?<br /><br />You really do sound very arrogant thinking you could maximize the science data better (given the transmission limit) than the Huygens scientists have succeeded in accomplishing. <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>

 

[slappymcb]

Uhhhhhh, silylene, their 128x256x8 at 3:1 is 10K. And 512x512x8 at 24:1 would be....10K. Re-read my post.<br />

 

[no_way]

"Uhhhhhh, silylene, their 128x256x8 at 3:1 is 10K. And 512x512x8 at 24:1 would be....10K"<br /><br />Ah, and we'd all be wondering whether we are seeing earthworms or compression artifacts on images..

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"...nobody at ESA told them to be sure to take a nice hi-res photo on the ground..." -- SlappyMcB</i><br /><br />No, they probably were told to get the most scientifically useful data they could.<br /><br />I'm no engineer, but I know there's no such thing as a free lunch, so no_way's warning about artifacts makes sense to me.<br /><br />In looking over the link you gave I was interested to learn that the resolution limit they chose for the images was similar to that of the human eye. To me this means that you would not see any more details of Titan's surface if you were riding Huygens and looking at it with your own eyes. Also, the "shutter speed" was 1/100 of a second (10ms). So to those taking pictures with their digital cameras to show how much better they can do, remember to set the speed at 1/100 of a second while you take your pictures at dusk.<br /><br />You, and others, keep referring to what I would call the "money shot". And you imply that this would be the shot taken from the surface. I think the money shots were those taken at altutude, showing a very earthly, yet very alien landscape of rivers, coast line, and drainage basins. No amount of added detail in the "rocks and sand" of the landing site would make it more spectacular than those bird's eye views.<br /><br />Anyone not excited about further investigation of Titan based on what Huygens has shown us would not be swayed by "prettied up" images. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yurkin]

Hey Slappy<br /><br />Now isn’t it more fun to write well thought out posts then nonsense? I’ve always thought so.<br /><br />Your plan looks like something that would work. Switch for the hardware from the side looking camera to a variable resolution. When Titan lands switch it to high-res mode upon landing, and switch off the other two cameras. Use the extra bandwidth, processing and energy freed from the other two cameras to power the higher resolution mode on the side looking. You are still taking a few resources from the surface science package, have added complexity, and a heavier SLC. Still it sounds doable and you would get 8 times the resolution.<br /><br />But the thing is, it’s a lot easier to say this in retrospect. The camera could have been facing a rock or buried to muck. That’s if the probe survived the landing at all. Even as it is 8X the resolution of the surface picture we’ve seen isn’t going to make a significant difference. It’s still going to be a barren landscape covered in rocks. In terms of the scientific return it would make no difference. I like the idea of switching off the cameras but I think those extra resources should have gone to the microphone. It would have been cool to hear the rain.<br /><br />If in retrospect if anything on Huygens deserved more resources it was the 45 degree camera. That’s the one that took those jar droppings pictures of the river delta and shore line. The code for Cassini’s receiver also could have done better with a little more work.<br />

 

[slappymcb]

Centsworth, if greater compression artifacts were an issue, you could just downsample to the same 128x256 then compress at the same ratio -- it would still give you better data than with a 128x256 source image. Or use a wider FOV lens and crop out all but the center 128x256 pixels... or any balance you want. You just have much more flexibility discarding data from a higher resolution camera than being data starved due to a smaller camera. And of course, all of the tweaking could be done in software as their tests and model of Titan evolved. <br /><br />But your assertion "the resolution limit they chose for the images was similar to that of the human eye" is simply incorrect. The side imager they used for the surface photo was only 0.2 degrees per pixel, whereas the angular resolution of the human eye is typically ~0.02 - 0.13 degrees. BIG difference, plus higher resolutions let you capture a wider FOV and reconstruct it without losing resolution, or let you "zoom" in on the image and add detail instead of just making the pixels bigger. <br /><br />And there's just no comparison with the images and "riding Huygens" to see it with your own eyes (your FOV is near 180 degrees, for one thing, the side imager about 25), or using some kind of consumer digital camera, since all you'd see is a dark hazy mush. Those DISR images were taken between 660-1000nm wavelength which they correctly figured would help cut through all that. <br /><br />Whether or not a surface photo would be the money shot I suppose could be debated, though. I think at the time of design, they just did not know the atmospheric composition except it was a soup of hydrocarbons with quite likely multiple layers of clouds, so it was hard to say what the atmospheric visibility even at 600-1000nm might be and how well the panoramas might turn out. In the worst case with just a few meters visibility, a high-res surface photo still would have given a good "money" shot since the panoramas would be mostly featureless,

 

[slappymcb]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now isn’t it more fun to write well thought out posts then nonsense? I’ve always thought so.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>But shock and outrage is more entertaining! <br /><br />Regarding the microphone though, yes I think that would have been really cool too, especially if they got the thump of landing (or would that be a "splat"), then maybe sounds of shattered ice settling, then just silence (or rain, do they know that for certain?). Or even just silence from the surface would be good, just knowing it's from another world.<br /><br />Hopefully the mission proposals people are putting together for future unmanned missions include video. However minimal the scientific value, being able to show a video of landing, (with sound if applicable), would be the best of all!

 

[bobvanx]

I'd like to second Yurkin's sentiment: thanks for the well thought-through posts!<br /><br />I tried to follow your link to the PDF file, but all I got was the cover. The rest of the document didn't show up for me. I even tried a couple of work-arounds I know. No joy. But I've looked at the specs for the DISR and the batteries and the transmitter from other sources.<br /><br />You pegged it correctly, I've never designed a sensor. However, I <i>have</i> project managed complex enterprises, had to juggle resources across dozens of competing needs, helped other people launch businesses or roll out new technology, and so on.<br /><br />I agree, there are usually missed opportunities in any endeavor. And sometimes there <i>are</i> gross ineptitude and inflated estimates of capability (of which Beagle II and Mars Climate Observer are victims) The hardest thing to do is to clearly define the problem, so your solution is the best fit. In the case of this atmospheric probe, if you had been in charge, clearly there would have been a different set of priorities.<br /><br />Did ESA err by not including a scan platform in the specs for DISR? Or by allowing such small images to be sufficient? I think you can look to the past for the answer there.<br /><br />Pioneer 10 didn't even have a camera on it. The scientists didn't care about getting pictures. They wanted their measurements. The pics of Jupiter were built through some legedermaine not unlike what is happening with the DISR images. On Huygens, a scan platform isn't necessary because the thing was in so much motion, the camera got to point in all sorts of directions. Pretty darn elegant solution!<br /><br />I feel like there is also a fundamental difference in the ESA approach, one that harkens back to the days of Pioneer 10. The science is more important than the pretty pictures.<br /><br />Science and education in the US lag far behind many of our European counterparts. I have to wonder if we haven't lost something, catering to a publi

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"The side imager they used for the surface photo was only 0.2 degrees per pixel..." -- SlappyMcB</font><br /><br />On page 116 of your link:<br /><i>"We have chosen a maximum angular resolution of 0.06 degrees/pixel, similar to that of the naked human eye."</i> (I suppose they are referring to the downward, hi-res imager.)<br /><br />I have to say again that you seem fixated on the ground level image. You are fixing on one tree and missing the whole forrest. Many of the most stunning, geologicaly significant views of the Titan landscape are taken with that hi-res imager. <br /><br />Of course, you're right, the panoramas are actually better than what one would see with the naked eye. The eye would not see as easily through any haze or be as sensitive to the low light level. The FOV of one image is much narrower that the eye's, but the panoramas constructed with many images equal or exceed the FOV of the eye.<br /><br />You must be referring to the limited field of view once Huygens landed and no longer rotated to provide a panarama. I too would love to see a ground level 360 degree panarama of the landing site. How short sighted of the probe designers not to place it on a lazy susan so it would continue rotating after landing! (I'm only 90 percent joking.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

I don't remember if this has been posted already, but there is a test image on SDC showing the image quality possible from the DISR instrument. <b>*IF*</b> it had worked perfectly.

 

[centsworth_II]

As far as I can tell, the Huygens image system <b>did</b> work perfectly. Titan just <b>didn't cooperate</b> with a CLEAR, BRIGHT sunny, CALM, windless day. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

Point. I meant to say "if everything had worked perfectly".

 

[vogon13]

Well, as I see it, Huygens photographed so many hectares with so many pixels. Adjust your distance from your display device so that you just barely resolve pixel elements in composite view. Enjoy panorama. I do home theater installs and I usually try to scale size of monitor to display resolution to seating distance of whomever is signing check for my bill. It would seem that this criteria is achieved for Huygens. Thank you for letting me participate. <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>

 

[centsworth_II]

Thanks for your viewpoint. When viewed appropriately, the Huygens panaramas are stunning and give plenty of useful scientific information concerning general land formations and processes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crono21]

I dont know about you guys.. But even though the land isnt very exciting.. Im still thrilled about the fact that were there! Think about it the pictures are coming from one of the moons of Saturn! You might think im lame, but i just think thats exciting in itself. Imagine where will go next!!

 

[JonClarke]

How can a methane hydrologic cycle complete with channels, dried up lake beds and shorelines NOT be exciting? How can the implications of an extremely active ice world not be exciting as well? The Huygen descent images are among the most exciting every received from another world. Not neccessarily beautiful, but exciting and interesting.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[crono21]

I agree.. Anytime we go to a new world.. I think its one of the most exciting things we do.. We're expanding our horizons.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[astrophoto]

Implications of internal heat sources and water ice are very exciting to me!

 

[JonClarke]

No to mention the complete absence of primordial argon. It suggests that something happened to Titan's nobel gas elements, stripping them completely away. Extreely strong heating perhaps. But then, why is Titan still volatile rich?<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>