Juno perijove 4, February 2, 2017 |
Juno perijove 4, February 2, 2017 |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2346 Joined: 7-December 12 Member No.: 6780 ![]() |
It's time to open a perijove-4 thread.
Voting is open for another two days. So, don't hesitate too long. Besides the discussion and the POIs on the mission page, you might consider John Roger's detailed discussion of several interesting features. If everything goes well, all instruments will be switched on. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2091 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 ![]() |
Say they are lucky to get any images at all, and that a camera was almost not even included! Otherwise Juno would be about as well known to the public as Ulysses was.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2519 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 ![]() |
Say they are lucky to get any images at all, and that a camera was almost not even included! That sort of argument just feeds into the notion that Junocam is somehow inferior. It's not inferior, it's just different. The driving requirement was to be able to image the full disc of Jupiter from above the pole, which led to a very wide field of view, utterly unlike the instruments that it's being compared to. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 ![]() |
It's not inferior, it's just different. The driving requirement was to be able to image the full disc of Jupiter from above the pole, which led to a very wide field of view, utterly unlike the instruments that it's being compared to. This is closely related to the phenomenon in amateur astronomy wherein vendors of (often, cheap) telescopes advertise the magnification as the most telling statistic about a telescope. Whereas, one realizes that for many objects, one actually wishes to decrease magnification, and a very smart purchase is a focal reducer which gives you a wider field of view and more light per pixel, to reduce exposure times in photography and brighter-seeming objects for direct viewing. As a teenager, I used a short focal length eyepiece with a large telescope to get an 800x magnification on Saturn. It was terrible, dim and shimmering and muddy, like looking at an amorphous shape on the bottom of a poorly-lit swimming pool. When you take a picture of your friends and family, you don't usually zoom in on their noses close enough to show the pores in their skin. More-zoomed-in is not always better. Somehow, in astronomy, people forget that. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th June 2024 - 10:40 AM |
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. |
![]() |