NH at Jupiter, Planning the Jupiter encounter |
NH at Jupiter, Planning the Jupiter encounter |
Jan 22 2006, 10:57 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 3-December 04 From: Boulder, Colorado, USA Member No.: 117 |
I think the Jupiter encounter deserves its own thread.
I've just been taking a first look at the Jupiter encounter geometry. You can do the same using Mark Showalter's excellent on-line ephemeris tools at the PDS rings node, which by good fortune happens to include a New Horizons ephemeris (calculated over a year ago) for our actual launch date, January 19th. We'll have an updated ephemeris soon, but this one's already good enough for planning. As Roby72 noted in the Star 48 thread, the satellites are (annoyingly) all on the opposite side of Jupiter at closest approach. We'll still get good views of all sides of Io because Io rotates in only 1.8 days and we'll be pretty close to Jupiter for that long. We'll get fairly good coverage on Europa too, for the same reason. But we won't get very close to Ganymede or Callisto. Luckily Io is our highest priority satellite target and Europa is next, so we'll do OK. |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 04:59 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
Will you be able to let us know which movies and KODAK_MMTs the team selects?
Also, I was hoping you could give us some technical details on your technique to recover the moon image data? I've got a solution: The readout time is too long on the CCD, causing potential saturation at the lowest exposure times. 1. I assume you can take 0-s frames for measuring bias on the CCD? 2. What about moving the target up/down on the CCD to vary the amount of time for the average exposure? For example, if the CCD took 100 ms to readout, a 0-s exposure with an object at the middle of the frame would give an average exposure of 50ms. And as you move the object closer to the top, the exposure length would get shorter. 3. There would a small increase in brightness as you went down the rows, but so long as you're not totally saturated at the bottom you should be able to subtract out the increase since CCDs are linear. This would even work to get photos of Jupiter, you would just have to take slices of it and mosaic the parts that don't get overexposed. Hopefully the inter-frame time isn't too long. Of course, images with multiple bright objects far apart wouldn't be possible, unless the FoV could be rotated to get the objects near the top. -------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 08:53 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I think the problem John is trying to describe is image smear during readout phase, not because the exposures are too large.
They can select a short enough exposure which won't bleach out the moons, but that exposure is short compared to the readout phase. LORRI has no shutter so light falls on the CCD continually. As a result, while the image is being readout light from the moon is still coming in and the end result of this (CCDs readout one line at a time, shifting the entire image in the process until the last image line is shifted into the A/D converter) is what I imagine will be a good image of the target with sort of a vertical motion-blur effect overlaid on it. That is the gist of the problem with imaging the Galileans -- removing the unwanted "motion-blur" effect. Obviously, the images will need to be carefully processed to remove this linear smear. What John Spencer seems to be saying is that they can actually subtract the blurred part, but only for a small, well-defined target such as a moon or Jupiter when it's still far away. I can't wait to see the results, both from the imaging perspective and image processing perspective they should be interesting indeed. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th September 2024 - 07:45 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. |