Originally there wasn't going to be a camera on Huygens; the on-board imager is actually just part of another instrument. Any images at all are just icing on the cake IMO. The public rarely gets anything 100% right, and there are flaws in the way many worthwhile enterprises are funded. Life-saving drugs only get developed if stockholders think they'll get a dividend...planetariums get built only if they generate revenue. At the same time, we spend millions on political ceremonies while children starve. It should come as no surprise that most people, some science writers included, just don't get it, and probably never will. What makes humanity great has nothing at all to do with clever marketing or generating profits, but that's what occupies the minds of the masses. I was initially harsh on the mission, based on "press releases" and editorials, but then I tried to educate myself. Luckily as long as a person is alive there is still room for personal growth. Life is too short to worry about what an ignoramus thinks. Huygens is a remarkable engineering accomplishment and only a fool would try and marginalize any part of it in retrospect; the deed is done and it was magnificent. Looking at the images, just as they are, I am proud to be human being. My 2 cents. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I didn't think that the editorials I read at Space.com were denigrating the mission, and I agree, the results were/are/will be fabulous, with or without images. ESA just didn't do a good job of marketing the initial results, and whether we like it or not, it's the images that spark the interest and pique the curiosity for most of the population. Kim Chuck wrote: Huygens is a remarkable engineering accomplishment and only a fool would try and marginalize any part of it in retrospect; the deed is done and it was magnificent. Looking at the images, just as they are, I am proud to be human being.
Hi all, would someone else take a look at this Quicktime animation and give your opinion? It looks like motion in the mudflats of Titan, in my opinion. Maybe some tidal lapping in the background. Please read the legal information stuff, then look at the animation of landing site photos and share your thoughts. Thanks, Joe http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso/data.htm
I think that the data are simply noisy, and that the noise varies from frame to frame, giving the illusion of movement. Greg T. Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: Hi all, would someone else take a look at this Quicktime animation and give your opinion? It looks like motion in the mudflats of Titan, in my opinion. Maybe some tidal lapping in the background. Please read the legal information stuff, then look at the animation of landing site photos and share your thoughts. Thanks, Joe http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso/data.htm _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Could well be. But I'm a little puzzled why some electronic noise would persist for more than one frame. In frames 126 and 127 we see a little light "frog" show up on a rock, then disappear. It's an angled rock about halfway up the frame and about a quarter of the way in from the left. There are other examples, but that's an interesting one. -- Thanks, Joe
Answer to my own question: On second thought, I bet they are doubling photos, showing us two of each image so that the movie lasts longer. I saw in another odd blip that it was there for two frames. So there is noise on a frame, the frame is shown twice, and the noise seems to persist. -- Joe
Joe, Hhhhmmmmmmm, what if it were a frog and just jumped off between frames. Could have!? Jim Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: Could well be. But I'm a little puzzled why some electronic noise would persist for more than one frame. In frames 126 and 127 we see a little light "frog" show up on a rock, then disappear. It's an angled rock about halfway up the frame and about a quarter of the way in from the left. There are other examples, but that's an interesting one. -- Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com the Perfect You "inside and out" Insightful Seminars, Workshops & Coaching Increase SelfAwareness - Know Who You Are...REALLY! Discover the NEW "Inner You" http://www.theperfectyou.us
Joe Bauman wrote:
Hi all, would someone else take a look at this Quicktime animation and give your opinion? It looks like motion in the mudflats of Titan, in my opinion. Maybe some tidal lapping in the background. Please read the legal information stuff, then look at the animation of landing site photos and share your thoughts. Thanks, Joe
I did not see any real motion. I don't know why they would say they have a movie if there's no motion. But this is just another thing that bothers me about how the PR has been handled. BTW, those with access to NASA-TV are reminded that ESA will air their next Huygens new conference tomorrow (Friday) morning, starting at 3 am. Patrick
participants (6)
-
Chuck Hards -
Greg Taylor -
Jim Stitley -
Joe Bauman -
Kim Hyatt -
Patrick Wiggins