AVIATR - Titan Airplane Mission Concept, Proposed unmanned aerial exploration of Titan |
AVIATR - Titan Airplane Mission Concept, Proposed unmanned aerial exploration of Titan |
Apr 16 2010, 12:20 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2785 Joined: 10-November 06 From: Pasadena, CA Member No.: 1345 |
The AVIATR mission concept is an unmanned aerial vehicle that would fly over Titan’s surface. It’s nominal one year mission would enable detailed high-resolution images of Titan’s diverse landscapes for better comparison to Earth’s geological processes. Selected regions could be imaged at resolutions near 30 cm/pixel, equivalent to current HiRise imaging of Mars. In addition, atmospheric sampling would allow a profile of Titan’s thick lower atmosphere and how it relates to Earth’s atmospheric processes and weather systems.
Further details of the AVIATR mission concept were presented at the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference 2010 and at Titan Through Time 2010. See: Barnes et al. LPSC 41 (2010) Abstract 2551. “AVIATR: Aerial Vehicle for In-situ and Airborne Titan Reconnaissance.” Freely available here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/2551.pdf And also: http://www.info.uidaho.edu/documents/2010%...18467&doc=1 -------------------- Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
|
|
|
Jul 12 2010, 08:58 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
Forgive my ignorance, but shouldn't the resolution just be a simple calculation from the field of view, the distance to Titan, and the dimension of the camera in pixels? I realize SAR isn't quite the same as a simple picture, but can it be THAT different?
The discussion of how accurate things need to be reminds me of something a senior astronomy major told me when I was a freshman at Caltech back in the 1970s: Mathematicians insist on exact answers. Pi is NOT 3.1416 Chemists and Engineers generally settle for a few parts per thousand error. Physicists are happy to get the order of magnitude right. Except Astro-Physicists, who just want to get the order of magnitude of the order of magnitude right. And Computer Scientists only need to know if it's zero or not. --Greg :-) |
|
|
Jul 12 2010, 11:21 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 131 Joined: 30-August 06 From: Moscow, Idaho Member No.: 1086 |
Forgive my ignorance, but shouldn't the resolution just be a simple calculation from the field of view, the distance to Titan, and the dimension of the camera in pixels? I realize SAR isn't quite the same as a simple picture, but can it be THAT different? Short answer: yes. The real problem, though, and one that is quite common, is that what you're describing is the pixel scale. It is not the resolution. Resolution is the smallest thing that you can resolve, which is always larger than a pixel. In fact the theoretical minimum is 2 pixels. Experience with HiRISE is that about 3 pixels is what it really takes to resolve an object. Take Cassini ISS looking at Titan, for instance. You can do the calculation that you describe, and calculate the pixel scale. But no matter how small the pixels are, you can't achieve a true resolution better than 1 km. The atmospheric haze scatters too much to do any better. Which is why, even with Ralph's discussion, I am still convinced that with 300m properly-sampled RADAR "pixels", the RESOLUTION is ~750m. - Jason |
|
|
Jul 13 2010, 12:46 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 613 Joined: 23-February 07 From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD Member No.: 1764 |
Which is why, even with Ralph's discussion, I am still convinced that with 300m properly-sampled RADAR "pixels", the RESOLUTION is ~750m. The definition of the SAR resolution from Doppler bandwidth etc (giving 300m) is physically equivalent to that which defines the resolution of an optical telescope as ~1.3lambda/D. I stand by my original number. The pixels are 175m, which as you say is irrelevant. The real problem, though, and one that is quite common, is that what you're describing is the pixel scale. It is not the resolution. Resolution is the smallest thing that you can resolve, which is always larger than a pixel. In fact the theoretical minimum is 2 pixels. Experience with HiRISE is that about 3 pixels is what it really takes to resolve an object. On this Jason and I might agree. The original definition of resolution is all about the diffraction patterns of point objects overlapping - so to separate 2 objects X apart, you need a resolution of 'better than X' and really a pixel scale of better than X/3 (so you see some dark space between your two bright points). But you can still do science at much less than the pixel scale (e.g. fitting a point spread function, so you can determine the position of an object to not only much less than the resolution, but also much lower than the pixel scale - 1/10 of a pixel is not uncommon). But this sort of thing (and 'super-resolution' techniques) rely on well-characterized point spread functions, and high signal to noise data. Which brings me back to my original point that 'useful' resolution depends what you are trying to do and on the signal/noise. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 04:57 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |