Why don't all the spacecraft...

[tygerxg2]

- Capture moving pictures?<br />- Why can't we see stars in the pictures it takes?<br />- Why do the pictures of other planet look very fake compared to pictures taken by Astronauts of Earth?<br />- Why are the resolution always horrible?<br /><br />Why can't the spacecraft take pictures of planets like http://www.sidewalk-astronomy-club.com/img/space30.jpg ?<br /><br /><br /><br />I admit it. I am a non-believer. I don't believe we have sent anything past the Moons orbit.<br /><br /><br />

 

[j05h]

Space 101:<br /><i>> - Capture moving pictures? </i><br /><br />Mostly a bandwidth issue, but the Mars Rovers can do some:<br /><br />http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20070129a/b956_bcmovie.gif<br /><br /><i>- Why can't we see stars in the pictures it takes? </i><br /><br />Exposure and other basic photography issues. The Mars rovers have imaged stars, Earth and Jupiter rising. <br /><br /><i>- Why do the pictures of other planet look very fake compared to pictures taken by Astronauts of Earth? </i><br /><br />That's the difference between digital/tube cameras and good old-fashioned film. Also, ISS and Shuttle get the latest cameras (film & digital) wereas a long-range probe is using much older (10-20 years) camera design. <br /><br /><i>- Why are the resolution always horrible? </i><br /><br />They are pretty good and getting better. Check out Hirise and some of Horton's beautiful Horticolor images:<br /><br />http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/hortonheardawho/<br /><br /><i>Why can't the spacecraft take pictures of planets like http://www.sidewalk-astronomy-club.com/img/space30.jpg ?</i><br /><br />They can:<br /><br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=2237<br />http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA06077.jpg<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm<br /><br /><i>> I admit it. I am a non-believer. I don't believe we have se</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tygerxg2]

Thank you for your replies. <br /><br />You have converted me.<br /><br />I really feel stupid to have not believed in the first place.

 

[j05h]

Don't convert or believe, test and verify instead. Logic and observation are very powerful tools. You have a firehose of information (the Net) in front of you. Welcome to SDC.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[chyten]

Moving pictures are only worthwhile if whatever you are filming is visibly moving/changing. Objects space probes photograph either do not change at all on human timescale (e.g. asteroids), or change slowly enough that you can only see it in a sped-up movie (outgassing comets, weather on Jupiter, etc.). In latter case pictures get taken minutes apart, then played like a movie.<br /><br />Approaching Saturn's moon Mimas: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos/movies/PIA07710_full_movie.gif<br /><br />When you photograph a sunlit planet or moon, if the exposure is long enough to show stars then the planet will be completely overexposed.<br /><br />I am curious: what made you think before "we had not sent anything <b>past Moon's orbit</b>"? Most "non-believers" either a) accept the existence of unmanned probes but deny manned Moon landing, or b) claim ALL spaceflight is a hoax. Yours was the first time I heard that particular claim.

 

[CalliArcale]

I like the time-lapse movie of Jupiter rotating as seen by New Horizons' LORRI instrument as it approaches the giant planet. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Obviously not realtime, since Jupiter takes 11 hours to go around, but very cool!<br /><br />SOHO time lapses are also cool looking. Those are even more accelerated, as the Sun takes almost a month to go around (in the middle, anyway; its polar regions take longer). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kurtwagner]

Then, there are the images provided by Hubble:<br /><ul><br /><li>http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic9910a.jpg<br /><li>http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0206c.jpg<br /><li>http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/opo9544a.jpg<br /><li>http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0503a.jpg<br /></li></li></li></li></ul><br />and there are lots more - which rival the imagination of Hollywood and all the lurid SF cover artists. Hubble makes us understand that we cannot truly imagine the wonders that await us out there.<br /><br />Kurt

 

[bad_drawing]

I'm glad you've come around! <br /><br />Honestly, the picture you linked as an example looks to me much more fake than most of the photos taken from recent probes. (Maybe that's because I'm an artist and am overly picky about computer graphics) Check out the links below showing jupiter as taken by Cassini when it passed by. Fantastic resolution, in my opinion. Also, if you want to see more amazing photos, check out the Cassini thread at the top of the Mission and Launches thread list. Stunning images...truly art.<br /><br />http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/vg1_ipl260668.jpg<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/images/cassini-jupiter-best-desk-1280.jpg

 

[j05h]

As another artist, I can tell you that the it's very hard to "fake" an image like the Jupiter picture bad_drawing linked. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

TygerXG2:<br />Capture moving pictures?<br /><br />Me:<br />Its been done before. One example that comes to mind is a movie clip of Jupiter taken by one of the Pioneer or Voyager probes.<br /><br />TygerXG2:<br />Why do the pictures of other planet look very fake compared to pictures taken by Astronauts of Earth?<br /><br />Me:<br />They all look pretty realistic to me but one reason may be resolution. Space probes have generally taken lower resolution images of planets up until recently. Mars Recon Orbiter has taken incredibly detailed images of Mars that are comparable to any earth image in their detail and quality.<br /><br />Keep in mind too that your looking at very different worlds. Mars lacks the cloud cover Earth has. A few clouds get imaged now and then but Mars imagery is mostly desertlike.<br /><br />Jupiter, Saturn are all cloud and with no known lithosphere, no detailed images of land and clouds are possible.<br /><br />TygerXG2:<br />Why are the resolution always horrible?<br /><br />Me:<br />The resolution of Mars imagery has improved with each mission and this can be easily verified by going to JPL and pulling up older Viking images and comparing them to newer MRO images. There have been fewer probes to other planets, an example being Jupiter. Twin Pioneer, twin Voyager, and one Galileo probe have imaged Jupiter. Pluto Express will probably image Jupiter on its flypast if it gets close enough.<br /><br />Saturn has been imaged by one Pioneer, one Voyager, and one Cassini probe and the image quality in both Jupiter and Saturns case has improved with each mission.<br /><br />TygerXG2:<br />Why can't the spacecraft take pictures of planets like http://www.sidewalk-astronomy-club.com/img/space30.jpg ?<br /><br />Me:<br />To anyone with any experience observing real planet images and the CGI (Computer Generated Image) you used as an example, the differences are obvious. The CGI, despite the best effor <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>