My Assistant
First Glimpse |
Jan 17 2005, 12:06 AM
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
Luna, Feb 3 1966
![]() Luna 9 image first published by the Daily Express. Mars, December 2 1971 ![]() Mars 3 fragment. Venus, October 22 1975 ![]() The single Venera 9 pan. Titan, January 14 2005 ![]() As seen by the DISR Side-Looking Imager. [Mars 3 and Venera 9 images enhanced by Ted Stryk] We await the arrivals of Hayabusa at asteroid (25143) Itokawa and Rosetta's Philae lander at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Bepi Colombo's Mercury Surface Element has been cancelled. |
|
|
|
![]() |
Jan 17 2005, 12:34 AM
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1281 Joined: 18-December 04 From: San Diego, CA Member No.: 124 |
Would this one count?
![]() NEAR on Eros Not technically a lander, but.... -------------------- Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 12:38 AM
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
I'm going to be picky and exclude that one. Anything which returns images of the surface of a body from a distance <100m can be added.
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 01:28 AM
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Well, actually, NEAR did land but was unable to take pictures after landing. It did get some great gamma ray data though. The image is comparable to a lander image. And might I add (at least as photographs go) Earth: 1827.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 01:35 AM
Post
#5
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1281 Joined: 18-December 04 From: San Diego, CA Member No.: 124 |
Do I have to delete the picture now?
-------------------- Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 01:37 AM
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
OK, I relent, the NEAR images are in.
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 01:41 AM
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Don Davis did a great reconstruction of a surface view of Eros. I will ask him for permission to post it here.
Ted -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 02:48 AM
Post
#8
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 3242 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 |
QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jan 16 2005, 06:28 PM) Well, actually, NEAR did land but was unable to take pictures after landing. It did get some great gamma ray data though. The image is comparable to a lander image. And might I add (at least as photographs go) Earth: 1827. cool!! I have never seen that. Where was that taken? -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 03:06 AM
Post
#9
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/niepce.htm
It is a view out of Niepce's studio window in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, France. While his photographic process, called Heliography, did not compare in quality to later processes such as the process developed by Daguerre, it was none-the-less the first to sucessfully permanently record an image, and this was the first image he took. -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 03:10 AM
Post
#10
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
I just heard from Don Davis and he has graciously granted me permisson to post his image. Using the last few frames from descent, it gives one an idea of how this little patch of Eros real estate might look from the surface.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 04:23 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 194 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 10 |
Here is an attempt to darken and desaturate the Titan surface image to more approximate the scene under realistic dim lighting.
http://www.donaldedavis.com/2005%20new/TITANDD.jpg Don Davis |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 08:30 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Founder ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Chairman Posts: 14457 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE (SFJCody @ Jan 17 2005, 01:37 AM) OK, I relent, the NEAR images are in. Nahh - see - I dont think it should be. Yes - we've seen it from an altitude of what, 20 metres or something - BUT - most importantly - we havnt seen a view of the horizon from the surface. I think that's the important part. That Eros view could have been taken from 500km with a big enough camera. It's just another piece to stitch into a map. The moment you are on the surface and looking at the horizon - then, you are no longer looking at a map - you are looking at a PLACE Doug |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 02:06 PM
Post
#13
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Yes, but it does give on the feeling of being there, at least when reprojected. And perhaps if united with a shape model and more images, it could be projected from lower and with a horizon. Our landing sites are so few and far between on other worlds, especially besides certain areas of the near side of the moon, though even those are rare. It would be nice, given the increasing amount of high resolution imagery we have, to see what other "landing sites" could be rendered. Of course, it doesn't match a real landing, especially because you totally lose the undersides of things, unless you use an extremely high resolution camera and point at the limb of a world (In fact, it is for this reason that the artists putting out images showing jagged mountains on the moon in the 1950s should have known better: Look at the lunar limb, and you see nothing of the sort - the ridges are much smoother (probably due to being pummeled for so long). Here is my original post I put in the barren wasteland of the MGS board:
"In another forum, a discussion broke out concerning images that could be used to render artificial surface panoramas. Don Davis had done this with NEAR descent imagery. Other suggested items were the very high resolution coverage of Europa and Io by Galileo. And I remember some discussion in this forum about doing this with MRO imagery. But it occured to me, has anyone tried this with MGS, particularly with the cproto imagery. And by now MGS has overlapped some areas enough that there would be good stereo coverage, so one would not have to depend on photoclinometry or MOLA data. Unfortunately, to do such a thing is far beyond my capabilities at this point. But does anyone know of anyone trying this? It seems a good way to get an idea of what some areas of Mars look like on the surface besides the few places we have sent landers." With Io and Europa, all I can imagine that could be done is similar to the NEAR patch, as coverage is so limited. But with MGS there is much, much more, and it would be good practice for MRO. -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 02:55 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Founder ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Chairman Posts: 14457 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I still dont consider NEAR to be views from a landing site. It's just not what it is. The view straight down from 20 metres altitude is little different to zooming in from 20,000 miles. There is a discreet and quantifiable difference between an orbit that just happened to intesect the surface and end - and landing. If you consider NEAR views from the surface of another planet - then so were the imacting lunar probes of the early 60's.
There's a very distinct line in my mind between taking photographs (however clear) and then landing - and landing, then taking a photograph. Landing must come before picture - if you are to take photographs of 'a place' - otherwise, you are taking pictures for a map. Yes - Near was the first landing on a small body - but it could not and did not take pictures from the surface of a small body. Pictures from the surface of the Moon, Mars, Venus and Titan have been taken - but not an asteroid yet. Ditto - Deep Impact's impactor probe will not be taking pictures from the surface of a comet. Pictures from very close - but not FROm the surface - and to be honest, I see no difference between that, and NEAR - even though NEAR survived the landing. You can reproject MGS imagery to make it feel like you've landed in 100,000 different places - that doesnt make it 100,000 landers Doug |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2005, 03:39 PM
Post
#15
|
|
![]() Interplanetary Dumpster Diver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4408 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Still, there is something about seeing a world on a human scale...even if from above. Also, there is a major difference between NEAR and Deep Impact: NEAR returned important data after landing, if not imagery. Imagery is not a requirement for a lander...Veneras 7 and 8 certainly landed on Venus, but did not image the surface. NEAR is in that category with the PVO Day Probe: An unintentional lander that returned data from the surface.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th December 2024 - 10:50 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. |
|