[X] My Assistant

[SFJCody]

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.

[lyford]

Would this one count?

NEAR on Eros

Not technically a lander, but....

[SFJCody]

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.

[tedstryk]

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.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[lyford]

Do I have to delete the picture now?

[SFJCody]

OK, I relent, the NEAR images are in.

[tedstryk]

Don Davis did a great reconstruction of a surface view of Eros. I will ask him for permission to post it here.

Ted

[volcanopele]

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?

[tedstryk]

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.

[tedstryk]

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.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[DDAVIS]

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

[djellison]

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 That's different

Doug

[tedstryk]

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.

[djellison]

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 Nor does reprojecting NEAR imagery - however cool and pretty it is - make it one lander.

Doug

[tedstryk]

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.

[djellison]

MRO will be doing that, and arguably, MOC has already been doing that

There is a paradigm shift between looking down very very closely ( which can, arguably, be done from any altitiude given enough optical power ) - and looking 'out' from a point.

Doug

[tedstryk]

For Mars and the moon yes, but views like MOC returns regularly and that will soon be bested by MRO are rare for other worlds, although we should get some good ones of the Saturnian icy satellites.

[djellison]

I think the thing I'm trying to split is pictures OF a place, from pictures FROM a place - there is a specific difference to me - and no ammount of cunning and brilliant trickery will render it otherwise.

Doug

[lyford]

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.

I actually agree with you Doug, even though it was I that opened up this whole can of pxels by posting the NEAR pic. I (mis)interpreted the thread to be about first landings, which NEAR was.

So, I will recant:

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful posters, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid Thread; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Board, or to the Moderator and ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Board. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises, protestations, and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands. 

Hmmm, that sounded familiar....

Perhaps another topic should be "first glance" which then could include NEAR and the great Mariner Mars pic and then the first pics from Pioneer and the Voyager grand tours...

Not sure which forum to start it under, or even if this board is ready for such emotional nostalgia.
Still on a high from Huygens!

And hello to DDAVIS, I have enjoyed your work for years!

[tedstryk]

I they are two different types of accomplishments...seeing a world on a human scale, and then to actually see the world from a human perspective.

[OWW]

I they are two different types of accomplishments...seeing a world on a human scale, and then to actually see the world from a human perspective.

Ok... But what about the Venera pictures? Those weren't exactly human perspective. You could see a tiny bit of sky, but that can hardly be called a panorama. So, human scale or something inbetween?

Also, my understanding was that the Hayabusa mission is not going to touch down on the asteroid. Only hovering above the surface long enough to take a sample. Enough for human perspective?

[tedstryk]

Hayabusa release a "hopper" (built to replace the canceled NASA rover) and, after its hover phase, will touch down to obtain a sample, and both the main spacecraft and the hopper have cameras. The Venera images are limited but do show a portion of what one would see standing on the surface. I tried to reconstruct it in several attempts.

http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/c.jpg
http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/v13cc.JPG
http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/v9c.jpg

And certainly, these are images taken FROM the Venusian surface. Now, whether the NEAR images or Venera images give on a better fealing of what one's surroundings would be like standing on their respective worlds is subject to debate.

[SFJCody]

Soft-landers that returned image[s] from the surface of new worlds:

Luna 9 [Soviet]
Mars 3 [Soviet]
Venera 9 [Soviet]
Huygens [European]

The near-future:

Hayabusa [Japanese]
Philae [European]

Consider also:

Phobos 1 & 2 [Soviet, failed]

Bodies that might be targets for soft-landers within the next 60 years:

Mercury
More small bodies (a representative set of asteroid 'types', long and short period comets, centaurs)
Phobos / Deimos
Io (tough) / Europa / Ganymede / Callisto (easy?)
Enceladus / Iapetus
Triton
Pluto or other large KBO

[OWW]

Should the Mars 3 image really be included? I thought it is nothing more than an interpretation of the 20 seconds worth of data Mars 3 managed to send. While Mars 3 is the first successful lander, I think the credits for the first image of the Martian surface should go to Viking1:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00381

Especially in light of Doug's insistance on the 'Human perspective' and all...

[tedstryk]

Although by Doug's criterion, that picture doesn't show the horizon

Also, I have difficulty giving the Europeans full credit on this. I mean, For Mars 3, Venera 9, and Luna 9, these were entirely Soviet efforts, from building to launch to receiving and relaying the data (except for Luna 9 which didn't need to be relayed). Viking 1, which gave us the first true view other than the first noisy 70 lines of an image at best from Mars 3 of the Martian surface, was U.S. launched and tracked and relayed. Huygens used a U.S. launch, a U.S. relay, a U.S. camera, and a U.S. recieving antenna on the ground. These items were also U.S. funded. I would have to give the credit as (ESA/NASA)