New improved titan landing picture?

[bonzelite]

lower f-numbers like f1.8, 2.8, etc... represent larger iris openings; higher f-numbers like f11, f16, etc... represent smaller iris openings.<br /> <br />so they did not need to expose the "target" (ccd's) for very long. and 0.1% is pretty dim, but not so dim that you cannot see anything. as you suggest, it is probably similar to dusk or sunset here on earth --titan being a very depressing and frigid world. i will stick with los angeles <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

imagine how dim Pluto must be. Titan does have a very thick atmosphere that severely cuts down sunlight, but Pluto is so distant that it must be similarly dim.

 

[centsworth_II]

You may be right about the intensity. But the character of the light would be very different. On Titan: Orange sky, diffuse light, faint shadows. On pluto: Black sky, sharp, black shadows. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yes. exactly. titan is atmospheric. pluto will be more like the moon in it's lighting ambience. or lack thereof.

 

[jatslo]

Pluto is likely to be like a Saturian icy moon, with less light, and great promise of icy rings (A-ring??).

 

[alexiton]

Howdy, just re-composited some pictures. Not sure if are entirely valid but look REAL interesting lol...<br /><br />http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/alexiton/index.htm <br />

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Howdy, just re-composited some pictures. Not sure if are entirely valid but look REAL interesting lol... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />i think i could take a look at your page and try and understand what you're getting at, but your text is all overlapping in wierd fonts and colors<br /><br />i have no idea what im looking at .. im just saying ...<br />.

 

[vogon13]

Been pondering Plutonian (Pluto-itic?) rings and think there might be a good reason why they aren't there.<br /><br />Due to the low surface gravity and the variable solar heating as Pluto moves around in its' elliptical orbit, Pluto's thin atmosphere will provide a drag force on any ring structure that may have ever been there. <br /><br />Drag forces and rings just don't co-exist. There won't be a large difference between the top of the atmosphere at times and the Roche limit. <br /><br />Even mapping Pluto from a low orbit will be a problem due to this (better to try this when Pluto is distant from sun)<br /><br />But, as Pluto taketh away, Pluto also gives us a break. Pluto is an ideal object to try a ballute for decel phase of any advanced probe we want to send there.<br /><br />Might allow putting a much larger probe on the surface, or into a big orbit around both Pluto and Charon perhaps.<br /><br /> <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>

 

[qso1]

And to the late 1980s while Cassini was in final planning stages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Keeping in mind it would be much dimmer on Pluto at four times Saturn/Titan distance and the Sun would be more a bright star (The brightest in Plutos sky) than an orbed Sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

it must dark as hell there. with the pluto express, new horizons, craft flying by at such an insane velocity, they're going to have only minutes to capture any images at all. so they better keep that iris way open in that darkness. or their onboard CCD's must be extra crazy sensitive --if you leave the shutter open too long, it will smear the image, and a big iris setting will kill depth of field. i'm assuming they worked this conundrum out. <br /><br />i'm assuming in the coming century, to hurl craft way the f-- out to the KBOs, they're going to have to have a sub-Plutonian staging area of probes that piggyback other probes, like stages of a rocket. the mother probe can be expressed out at insane velocities, as new horizons is, staging at Pluto ---<b>going into orbit to become an MRO type of uplink/downlink station</b>-- and then to jettison the piggy-backed probes, <i>maybe a dozen of them to visit a dozen more planets,</i> that could do TCM burns, perhaps over long durations with ion drives, to <i>slow them down</i> in order to take pictures. as well, the 2nd stage probes of the dozen may have yet <i>another probe attached to be jettisoned as a lander or orbiter</i>. moreover, it may come down to pure infra-red imaging of planets beyond Pluto. <br /><br />just a thought.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...the Sun would be more a bright star (The brightest in Plutos sky)"</font><br /><br />The sun is not visible at all in Titan's sky. The question is whether the amount of sunlight blocked by Titan's thick, smoggy atmosphere reduces sunlight on Titan's surface to a level similar to that on Pluto.<br /><br />Titan is about 10 times as far from the sun as Earth, so the sun would be 1/100 as bright, but Titan's smog cuts it further. This article states that <i>"Daylight at [Titan's] surface.....1/1000 the intensity of sunlight on Earth".</i><br /><br />If Pluto is 40 times as far from the sun as Earth, the level of sunlight at Pluto is 1/1600 that at Earth. So the real comparison, accounting for Titan's smog, is:<br /><br />sunlight on Titan's surface: 1/1000 that on earth's surface<br />sunlight on Pluto's surface: 1/1600 that on Earth's surface<br /><br />Maybe my calculations are off or I'm overlooking something, but if not... the light level on Titan's surface and Pluto's are in the same ballpark. Given the uncertainties, you could say that the light level on Titan's surface could be as much as twice that on Pluto. But it may also be that the levels could be almost the same.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

centsworth_II:<br />The sun is not visible at all in Titan's sky. The question is whether the amount of sunlight blocked by Titan's thick, smoggy atmosphere reduces sunlight on Titan's surface to a level similar to that on Pluto.<br /><br />Me:<br />Excellent point and the smog level quite probably does cut the light level that much further. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Depth of field, while important in composing pictures close in, won't be much of a problem with objects thousands of miles away.<br /><br />Photos taken with the Hubble of objects in our solar system have the distant stars and galaxies in the background in focus just fine.<br /><br /> <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]

Psychologically, Titan may "feel" much brighter than Pluto because even if the sufaces receive similar light levels, you would be surrounded by a lighted sky. Whereas on Pluto you would have almost absolute dark from horizon to horizon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Another good point, although the light level of the clouds to the human eye is probably like heavy overcast or thunderstorm here on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I doubt you'd be reading the newspaper by ambient light in either place.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats for sure, I can barely read it in ambient light here on Earth! LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alexiton]

Still tinkering and have almost devised usable script for huygens and cassini pictures which almost renders intelligible results. Soon hopefully have empirical connection between two distinct data sets that will validate certain notions of mine, that most people probably find delusional lol, until then though: <br /><br />http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/alexiton/panorama.htm<br /><br />Titan=revolution<br />

 

[pyoko]

How exactly was a 3-d photo taken? Were there 2 cameras? Did the probes camera move after landing? Where did this come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

Maybe it's just me, but why can't NASA put a better camera on their probes? Every single picture is always gonna be rough and grainy in visual detail. Who makes their cameras anyway? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What are you complaining about? The cameras operate under extreme limitations of power and band width in very hostile enviroments. They are the best cameras that money can buy. They return superb and invaluable images. This is true for everyone's space missions, not just NASA.<br /><br />If you don't like the current images, wait until the next mission. The technology gets better all the time. Of course for some places you will have to wait a long time, so better be grateful for the images you have.<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>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...why can't NASA put a better camera on their probes? Every single picture is always gonna be rough and grainy in visual detail."</font><br /><br />Totally agree with JonClarke's points.<br /><br />In addition, I'd point out that ESA provided the Huygens probe to Titan, not NASA. Also, I totally disagree with your assessment of the quality of the images provided by NASA spacecraft. There are always going to be some that are not good quality, but as far as I'm concerned, the vast majority are as good as it gets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[alexiton]

Well only a 1 & 2 month wait before SSP & DSIR make their respective PDS releases and thankfully annihilate my delusions. <br /><br />So, good riddance blindly evolved multi page heuristic processing scripts and rank amateur photoshop fumbling. <br /><br />Welcome spunky instrument calibrations and impervious systematic evaluation.<br /><br />Mindu, is something comforting about absurdity:<br /><br />http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/alexiton/Geomodularity.htm<br /><br />

 

[saurc]

Bit off topic, but does the Cassini spacecraft have stereoscopic vision like the mars rovers? Though I don't see what good it would do in space.