Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Titan pictures so low quality?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 7:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
stitched pictures.

Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Uperkins wrote:
> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.
>
> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

The Huygen's DISR's highest resolution CCD is 160 x 256.

This is the DISR public website:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso

The 3-camera system was designed in the late 1980s, and had to
survive the rigors of the radiation environment of space
since launch, then work in a very cold environment
(something like -350 F), after about an 8-year journey.
Will your camera do that? The main limits to the design
are it must be very light, use radiation hard electronics,
and the data return during the 2+ hour mission is quite
limited. Data space is taken up by multiple scientific
instruments.

The camera works by taking many small snapshots that will be
mosaicked together. Check out these tests:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso/test_images.htm

So we will see more interesting images.
It is a great success!

Roger
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.
>
> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

One word covers it. Distance.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Uperkins wrote:
> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.
>
> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

Consider that the pictures took quite a while just to get back to earth
at the speed of light, and that the signal strength wasn't all that
great when they were transmitted, and that they have not been processed
as yet, and I think they look pretty darn good!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy Benner wrote:
> "Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>
>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>stitched pictures.
>>
>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>
> One word covers it. Distance.
>
>
Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:33:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.
>
> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have a
mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it froze
beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180 degrees
below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image files in
favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
they'd have for transmission.
This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...

As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.

I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably amazing.
Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a probe
that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen chemicals...all
the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for thunder...through
atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams it's
images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a direction
facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one say???
It just blows me away.
-Mrk
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:45:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ff2798@yahoo.com (Uperkins) wrote in news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915
@posting.google.com:

> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.

You can get high-quality pics while you are more than 1.2 billion
kilometers from your camera?

Do tell.

> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

And take post-processing from many hours of data when the high-gain antenna
can be spared from other tasks. Be patient.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:54:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:19:09 -0500, "Rudy Benner"
<bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote:

>
>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>> stitched pictures.
>>
>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>One word covers it. Distance.

and a second one Bandwidth.



******************************************************

"ich sprechen von euerm nicht,
ich sprechen vom ende de eulen
ich sprechen von butt und val...
ich speche nicht mehr von euch,
planern der spurlosen tat...
ich spechen von dem was nich spricht,
von den sprachlosen zeugen..."

Hans Magnus Enzensberger
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>
>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>stitched pictures.
>>
>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>
> When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have a
> mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it froze
> beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180 degrees
> below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
> prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image files in
> favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
> they'd have for transmission.
> This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
>
> As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
> functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
>
> I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably amazing.
> Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a probe
> that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen chemicals...all
> the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for thunder...through
> atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams it's
> images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a direction
> facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
>
> A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one say???
> It just blows me away.
> -Mrk
>
>
At this point, the crowning achievement in unmanned space exploration.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:52:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Uperkins wrote:
>
>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>> stitched pictures.
>>
>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>
> The Huygen's DISR's highest resolution CCD is 160 x 256.
>
> This is the DISR public website:
>
> http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso
>
> The 3-camera system was designed in the late 1980s, and had to
> survive the rigors of the radiation environment of space
> since launch, then work in a very cold environment
> (something like -350 F), after about an 8-year journey.
> Will your camera do that? The main limits to the design
> are it must be very light, use radiation hard electronics,
> and the data return during the 2+ hour mission is quite
> limited. Data space is taken up by multiple scientific
> instruments.

It must also use very little power... imagine a digicam that has to take
hundreds of pictures after an 8-year journey at -350... on a single AAA
battery.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 9:57:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com>,
ff2798@yahoo.com (Uperkins) wrote:

> I don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those
> bad stitched pictures.

Remember equipment sent into space is usually way, *way* behind the times
even at launch date, let alone when these craft reach their destinations.
That's due to (a) the time it takes to put these projects together and (b)
the fact that the technology has to be as near to 100% reliable as
possible. They can't just leave a camera-sized hole in the design and say
"we'll put whatever's the best available in there just before launch".

In this case the camera left Earth over seven years ago and was probably
designed quite a few years before that. That's quite a few generations of
digital technology!

I'm just impressed that these long distance (in time and metres) projects
ever work at all, so any picture of Titan's better than none :-) It's an
amazing achievement by all the people involved.

Andrew McP
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:07:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.
>
> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

They decided to use the Canon kit lens to cut corners. Should've gone with
the "L."
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DjaGd.9764$BP1.3006@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Jimmy Smith <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote:
>
>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>> stitched pictures.
>>
>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>They decided to use the Canon kit lens to cut corners. Should've gone with
>the "L."
>
>


And they use Verizon dialup as their ISP :-)


(Actually Verizon broadband has been very good for several of us, for
the last couple years. )



--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:54:40 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:19:09 -0500, "Rudy Benner"
><bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>> stitched pictures.
>>>
>>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>
>>One word covers it. Distance.
>
>and a second one Bandwidth.

.... and a third one... faked! <wink>
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:59:16 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Rudy Benner wrote:
>> "Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>stitched pictures.
>>>
>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>
>>
>> One word covers it. Distance.
>>
>>
>Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.

And that applies to this discussion how?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:59:16 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Rudy Benner wrote:
>>
>>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>>stitched pictures.
>>>>
>>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>>
>>>
>>>One word covers it. Distance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.
>
>
> And that applies to this discussion how?
>
If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to ask.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
[]
>
>> Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.
>
> And that applies to this discussion how?

Meaning that bandwidth, or number of pixels, from such a distance is
limited by transmitter power, antenna size at Saturn, and antenna size on
earth. The probe itself was not stabilised, so would have had only an
omni-directional antenna to send back its information, and it only had a
couple of hours max to send it. Limited information flow may produce the
"low-quality" the OP reported.

I did hear that "all the information sent back by the probe could fit onto
a single floppy disk".

BTW: more images are now available, including a panorama taken during
descent (relying on the spacecraft rotating during descent), and a
false-colour image which combines low spatial resolution spectrometer data
with the black-and-white image.

David
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:19:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> secheese wrote:
> []
>
>>>Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.
>>
>>And that applies to this discussion how?
>
>
> Meaning that bandwidth, or number of pixels, from such a distance is
> limited by transmitter power, antenna size at Saturn, and antenna size on
> earth. The probe itself was not stabilised, so would have had only an
> omni-directional antenna to send back its information, and it only had a
> couple of hours max to send it. Limited information flow may produce the
> "low-quality" the OP reported.
>
> I did hear that "all the information sent back by the probe could fit onto
> a single floppy disk".
>
> BTW: more images are now available, including a panorama taken during
> descent (relying on the spacecraft rotating during descent), and a
> false-colour image which combines low spatial resolution spectrometer data
> with the black-and-white image.
>
> David
>
>
links??
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:19:29 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Meaning that bandwidth, or number of pixels, from such a distance is
>limited by transmitter power, antenna size at Saturn, and antenna size on
>earth. The probe itself was not stabilised, so would have had only an
>omni-directional antenna to send back its information, and it only had a
>couple of hours max to send it. Limited information flow may produce the
>"low-quality" the OP reported.
>
>I did hear that "all the information sent back by the probe could fit onto
>a single floppy disk".
>
>BTW: more images are now available, including a panorama taken during
>descent (relying on the spacecraft rotating during descent), and a
>false-colour image which combines low spatial resolution spectrometer data
>with the black-and-white image.
>
>David
>

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I don't
know much about the Titan probe.
January 15, 2005 4:30:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:10ugt0pj7tsma1b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>> stitched pictures.
>>
>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
> One word covers it. Distance.
>

then why are Cassini pictures so good ?, it isn't that far from huygens to
cassini.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dylan wrote:
> "Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
> news:10ugt0pj7tsma1b@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>stitched pictures.
>>>
>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>
>>One word covers it. Distance.
>>
>
>
> then why are Cassini pictures so good ?, it isn't that far from huygens to
> cassini.
>
>
A lot of reasons. First, the Huygens probe doesn't have much of an
antenna, can't be aimed, and power requirements are kept low to maximize
use life (estimated at 3 minutes on surface). Then there is the
distance to the Cassini 'mothership', and lastly the distance to earth.
Consider also, interference, amplifier noise, etc., and you can wonder
how ANY data gets through.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
[]
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
> the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
> beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I don't
> know much about the Titan probe.

You are correct - I suspect that the bandwidth limit was between the probe
and the mother ship. I haven't see the link budget either, so I'll follow
your lead!

David
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:32:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> secheese wrote:
> []
>
>>Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
>>the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
>>beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I don't
>>know much about the Titan probe.
>
>
> You are correct - I suspect that the bandwidth limit was between the probe
> and the mother ship. I haven't see the link budget either, so I'll follow
> your lead!
>
> David
>
>
Whatever the power, the distance is quite significant. Saturn is a LONG
way from the earth, at best.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:07:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
>> BTW: more images are now available, including a panorama taken during
>> descent (relying on the spacecraft rotating during descent), and a
>> false-colour image which combines low spatial resolution
>> spectrometer data with the black-and-white image.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> links??

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html
January 15, 2005 5:17:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lk9Gd.6557$di6.5776@fe07.lga...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> secheese wrote:
>> []
>>
>>>Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
>>>the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
>>>beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I don't
>>>know much about the Titan probe.
>>
>>
>> You are correct - I suspect that the bandwidth limit was between the
>> probe and the mother ship. I haven't see the link budget either, so I'll
>> follow your lead!
>>
>> David
> Whatever the power, the distance is quite significant. Saturn is a LONG
> way from the earth, at best.

From what I can find the data rate between cassini (at saturn) and earth is
between 14kB/s and 249kB/s, which is pretty good, that's better than modems
not too many years ago!.

http://www.ssd.rl.ac.uk/news/cassini/mission/ops.html
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobje...
January 15, 2005 5:53:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:34skb1F4dqvmfU1@individual.net...
> secheese wrote:
> []
>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
>> the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
>> beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I don't
>> know much about the Titan probe.
>
> You are correct - I suspect that the bandwidth limit was between the probe
> and the mother ship. I haven't see the link budget either, so I'll follow
> your lead!
>
> David
>

it appears to be 8kb/s between cassini and huygens from
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/huygens-mission.c...
January 15, 2005 5:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> From what I can find the data rate between cassini (at saturn) and earth
> is between 14kB/s and 249kB/s, which is pretty good, that's better than
> modems not too many years ago!.
>
> http://www.ssd.rl.ac.uk/news/cassini/mission/ops.html
> http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobje...
>



a bit more....

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/cassini/040612science.htm...
"When the largest dishes are used, data rates of up to 165,900 bits per
second are possible, allowing scientists to receive up to four gigabytes of
data per day."
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:05:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dylan wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:34skb1F4dqvmfU1@individual.net...
>> secheese wrote:
>> []
>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the probe simply has to transmit to
>>> the "mother ship" which would then relay, via a highly focused radio
>>> beam, back to Earth. I really should shaddup though, because I
>>> don't know much about the Titan probe.
>>
>> You are correct - I suspect that the bandwidth limit was between the
>> probe and the mother ship. I haven't see the link budget either, so
>> I'll follow your lead!
>>
>> David
>>
>
> it appears to be 8kb/s between cassini and huygens from
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/huygens-mission.c...

So even the "single-floppy" of data they were expecting back would take
about 30 minutes to send. Given that's about how long they were expecting
the probe to last, it's consistent. That's less than a 9600 baud modem -
anyone remember those?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:05:06 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:


>So even the "single-floppy" of data they were expecting back would take
>about 30 minutes to send. Given that's about how long they were expecting
>the probe to last, it's consistent. That's less than a 9600 baud modem -
>anyone remember those?

Sure, still have a 2400 in it's original box on the other side of the home
office!
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
January 15, 2005 6:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> it appears to be 8kb/s between cassini and huygens from
>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/huygens-mission.c...
>
> So even the "single-floppy" of data they were expecting back would take
> about 30 minutes to send. Given that's about how long they were expecting
> the probe to last, it's consistent. That's less than a 9600 baud modem -
> anyone remember those?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>

I thought the reports said 4 1/2 hours were sent back ?
January 15, 2005 6:31:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:csbbir$rod$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>> it appears to be 8kb/s between cassini and huygens from
>>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/huygens-mission.c...
>>
>> So even the "single-floppy" of data they were expecting back would take
>> about 30 minutes to send. Given that's about how long they were
>> expecting the probe to last, it's consistent. That's less than a 9600
>> baud modem - anyone remember those?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>
> I thought the reports said 4 1/2 hours were sent back ?
>

The mission was planned for 153mins ( 2 hrs 33mins) of which 150 were
descent and the time on ground was 3mins to 30 mins, presumably battery
dependent.In that time they were to take 1100 pictures.

At 1100 pics in 180mins thats 6 pics / min. If transmission is 8kbits/s or
60kBytes/min then that's only 10kB/picture ?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ff2798@yahoo.com (Uperkins) wrote in news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915
@posting.google.com:

> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> stitched pictures.

As I understand it - the pictures were not processed.
They will get better.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:52:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95DFAA8278EA1klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> As I understand it - the pictures were not processed.
> They will get better.

They are also rather small. The probe was only
planed to survive some minutes and taking pretty
photos was not the main object.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:45:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>> stitched pictures.
>>
>> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>
>When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have a
>mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it froze
>beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180 degrees
>below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
>prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image files in
>favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
>they'd have for transmission.
>This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
>
>As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
>functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
>
>I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably amazing.
>Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a probe
>that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen chemicals...all
>the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for thunder...through
>atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams it's
>images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a direction
>facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
>
>A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one say???
>It just blows me away.
>-Mrk
>
I wonder what kind of battery was used that worked so well after 8 to
9 years. Rechargeable I guess, but no rechargeable I have ever had,
has lasted more than 2 years.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:45:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dh" <hemm99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejhju0t4o6sgp7t98eni419onmof52j28d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
> >> If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> >> don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> >> stitched pictures.
> >>
> >> Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> >> quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
> >
> >When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have a
> >mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it
froze
> >beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180
degrees
> >below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
> >prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image files
in
> >favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
> >they'd have for transmission.
> >This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
> >
> >As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
> >functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
> >
> >I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably amazing.
> >Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a
probe
> >that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen
chemicals...all
> >the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for
thunder...through
> >atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams
it's
> >images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a
direction
> >facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
> >
> >A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one say???
> >It just blows me away.
> >-Mrk
> >
> I wonder what kind of battery was used that worked so well after 8 to
> 9 years. Rechargeable I guess, but no rechargeable I have ever had,
> has lasted more than 2 years.

The battery didn't have to just sit for 8 years.
The satalite it was connected with had solar power, and could have
continually refreshed the battery, and kept it at appropriate temperatures.
I've got plain old Canon batteries from my old D30 that are still going
strong in my 10D now--after 5 years of constant use... I'm sure it wasn't
much of a stretch for them to best that. Remember that it wasn't in the
deep cold of space, necessarily, because of solar powered heaters, etc.
January 16, 2005 1:22:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:54:21 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>secheese wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:59:16 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rudy Benner wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>>>stitched pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One word covers it. Distance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.
>>
>>
>> And that applies to this discussion how?
>>
>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to ask.

And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
rather than being evasive.

It comes from Newton's laws and was first applied to gravity. All it
means is that the power of a signal which is radiated equally in all
directions is reduced by the square of the distance. So at twice the
distance the power is 1/4. At 4 times it is a 1/16. As the distance
increases the power drops off dramatically.

So while normal transmitters work well at the distances current
engineering can cope with, if the distance is increased by say a
million times, the power is reduced a million squared.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:22:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mako wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:54:21 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>secheese wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:59:16 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rudy Benner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>>>>stitched pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>One word covers it. Distance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Some people have never heard of the inverse square law.
>>>
>>>
>>>And that applies to this discussion how?
>>>
>>
>>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to ask.
>
>
> And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
> rather than being evasive.
>
> It comes from Newton's laws and was first applied to gravity. All it
> means is that the power of a signal which is radiated equally in all
> directions is reduced by the square of the distance. So at twice the
> distance the power is 1/4. At 4 times it is a 1/16. As the distance
> increases the power drops off dramatically.
>
> So while normal transmitters work well at the distances current
> engineering can cope with, if the distance is increased by say a
> million times, the power is reduced a million squared.

Yes, I do understand it, and have for about the last 50 years. The
point is that even with a parabolic antenna, the signal strength is
going to be pretty trivial after travelling 2200 million miles. Compare
that with the distance from the earth to the sun (93 million miles).
And it takes 8.5 minutes for light to get here from the sun. That means
that by the time the first signals got here from Titan, the probe was
history for quite some time. It is likely that after the Cassini probe
had resent the data several times to improve the signal to noise ratio,
the pictures may be clarified somewhat. Be patient.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:04:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:22:00 +0000, Mako <Mako@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>> And that applies to this discussion how?
>>>
>>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to ask.
>
>And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
>rather than being evasive.

I do understand it the Inverse Square Law; as it applies to a point
source of radiation. What I don't understand, is how it applies to a
transmitter using a parabolic highly focused beam to relay a radio
wave towards Earth.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:15:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "dh" <hemm99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ejhju0t4o6sgp7t98eni419onmof52j28d@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>>stitched pictures.
>>>>
>>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>>
>>>When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have a
>>>mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it
>
> froze
>
>>>beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180
>
> degrees
>
>>>below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
>>>prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image files
>
> in
>
>>>favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
>>>they'd have for transmission.
>>>This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
>>>
>>>As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
>>>functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
>>>
>>>I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably amazing.
>>>Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a
>
> probe
>
>>>that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen
>
> chemicals...all
>
>>>the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for
>
> thunder...through
>
>>>atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams
>
> it's
>
>>>images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a
>
> direction
>
>>>facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
>>>
>>>A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one say???
>>>It just blows me away.
>>>-Mrk
>>>
>>
>>I wonder what kind of battery was used that worked so well after 8 to
>>9 years. Rechargeable I guess, but no rechargeable I have ever had,
>>has lasted more than 2 years.
>
>
> The battery didn't have to just sit for 8 years.
> The satalite it was connected with had solar power, and could have
> continually refreshed the battery, and kept it at appropriate temperatures.
> I've got plain old Canon batteries from my old D30 that are still going
> strong in my 10D now--after 5 years of constant use... I'm sure it wasn't
> much of a stretch for them to best that. Remember that it wasn't in the
> deep cold of space, necessarily, because of solar powered heaters, etc.
>
>
Hummm. Doesn't the Cassini craft have a nuclear powered system? Seems
there was some flap about that when they used a close earth approach to
'sling shot' it toward Saturn.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:aqpGd.7022$ga4.3881@fe07.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
> > "dh" <hemm99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ejhju0t4o6sgp7t98eni419onmof52j28d@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> >>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
> >>>
> >>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
> >>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
> >>>>stitched pictures.
> >>>>
> >>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
> >>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
> >>>
> >>>When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have
a
> >>>mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it
> >
> > froze
> >
> >>>beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180
> >
> > degrees
> >
> >>>below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
> >>>prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image
files
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
> >>>they'd have for transmission.
> >>>This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
> >>>
> >>>As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
> >>>functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
> >>>
> >>>I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably
amazing.
> >>>Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a
> >
> > probe
> >
> >>>that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen
> >
> > chemicals...all
> >
> >>>the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for
> >
> > thunder...through
> >
> >>>atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams
> >
> > it's
> >
> >>>images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a
> >
> > direction
> >
> >>>facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
> >>>
> >>>A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one
say???
> >>>It just blows me away.
> >>>-Mrk
> >>>
> >>
> >>I wonder what kind of battery was used that worked so well after 8 to
> >>9 years. Rechargeable I guess, but no rechargeable I have ever had,
> >>has lasted more than 2 years.
> >
> >
> > The battery didn't have to just sit for 8 years.
> > The satalite it was connected with had solar power, and could have
> > continually refreshed the battery, and kept it at appropriate
temperatures.
> > I've got plain old Canon batteries from my old D30 that are still going
> > strong in my 10D now--after 5 years of constant use... I'm sure it
wasn't
> > much of a stretch for them to best that. Remember that it wasn't in the
> > deep cold of space, necessarily, because of solar powered heaters, etc.
> >
> >
> Hummm. Doesn't the Cassini craft have a nuclear powered system? Seems
> there was some flap about that when they used a close earth approach to
> 'sling shot' it toward Saturn.

You may be right.
I remember the "flap" but don't recall which craft it concerned.
I may be off as to the source of power, but my point really was just that
heaters and other power systems could keep batteries reasonably conditioned
throughout the journey...
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:16:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:22:00 +0000, Mako <Mako@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>And that applies to this discussion how?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to ask.
>>
>>And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
>>rather than being evasive.
>
>
> I do understand it the Inverse Square Law; as it applies to a point
> source of radiation. What I don't understand, is how it applies to a
> transmitter using a parabolic highly focused beam to relay a radio
> wave towards Earth.
>
>
Distance is ALWAYS a factor. BTW, the Huygens craft doesn't have a
directional antenna...
No time, and it would have been torn off by the reentry.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:16:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:crpGd.7023$R34.5540@fe07.lga...
> secheese wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:22:00 +0000, Mako <Mako@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>And that applies to this discussion how?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to
ask.
> >>
> >>And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
> >>rather than being evasive.
> >
> >
> > I do understand it the Inverse Square Law; as it applies to a point
> > source of radiation. What I don't understand, is how it applies to a
> > transmitter using a parabolic highly focused beam to relay a radio
> > wave towards Earth.
> >
> >
> Distance is ALWAYS a factor. BTW, the Huygens craft doesn't have a
> directional antenna...
> No time, and it would have been torn off by the reentry.

The craft it beamed its info to did, though, which does have a directional
transmitter.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.

On 14 Jan 2005 16:43:26 -0800, ff2798@yahoo.com (Uperkins) wrote:

>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>stitched pictures.
>
>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.

The answer has to do with the limited lifetime of the Huygens probe.
Cassini is going to be orbiting Saturn for a long time. It can take all
of the time it needs to transmit its own pictures at high resolution.
The Huygens probe might not even have survived the landing. It needed
to transmit as much as possible during whatever time it had left.
Pictures are one of the highest bandwidth items that needed to be
transmitted. None of the other science data returned from the craft
required anything like the bandwidth required for pictures. Thus the
limited resolution pictures. The purpose of the pictures was NOT to
impress the public, but to determine what the surface of Titan looked
like. It accomplished this very well I think!

Gary
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:18:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:crpGd.7023$R34.5540@fe07.lga...
>
>>secheese wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:22:00 +0000, Mako <Mako@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>And that applies to this discussion how?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you would check into the inverse square law, you wouldn't have to
>
> ask.
>
>>>>And if you actually understood it you would be able to explain it
>>>>rather than being evasive.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do understand it the Inverse Square Law; as it applies to a point
>>>source of radiation. What I don't understand, is how it applies to a
>>>transmitter using a parabolic highly focused beam to relay a radio
>>>wave towards Earth.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Distance is ALWAYS a factor. BTW, the Huygens craft doesn't have a
>>directional antenna...
>>No time, and it would have been torn off by the reentry.
>
>
> The craft it beamed its info to did, though, which does have a directional
> transmitter.
>
>
Yes, it does. What has that to do with the Huygens probe, however? In
any case, both probe and the 'mother ship' are a VERY long way from here.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:aqpGd.7022$ga4.3881@fe07.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"dh" <hemm99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ejhju0t4o6sgp7t98eni419onmof52j28d@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>>>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Uperkins" <ff2798@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:15c2ca77.0501141643.736b5915@posting.google.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If I can take great high res pictures with my tiny digital camera I
>>>>>>don't understand why i similar camera sent to Titan gets those bad
>>>>>>stitched pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same with first fuzzy pictures of the Moon back in 1969 while high
>>>>>>quality ones had been made since the beginning of the century.
>>>>>
>>>>>When they planned that landing (on Titan), they thought they would have
>
> a
>
>>>>>mere couple of MINUTES before the lander stopped functioning before it
>>>
>>>froze
>>>
>>>
>>>>>beyond transmission ability(nearly 300 degrees F below zero...or 180
>>>
>>>degrees
>>>
>>>
>>>>>below in C), and/or before it disappeared beyond the horizon. This
>>>>>prediction would logically lead them to limiting the size of image
>
> files
>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>favor of zapping as many as they could in the few moments they thought
>>>>>they'd have for transmission.
>>>>>This is just me thinking about it, but it makes sense...
>>>>>
>>>>>As it turned out, they ended up with about an hour and a half of
>>>>>functionality after the landing before it dropped beyond the horizon.
>>>>>
>>>>>I find this whold exercise absolutely astounding and unspeakably
>
> amazing.
>
>>>>>Here we are...2,200 million miles away...letting a satalite deploy a
>>>
>>>probe
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that successfully lands through 300MPH winds full of frozen
>>>
>>>chemicals...all
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the while the thing is measuring stuff and listening for
>>>
>>>thunder...through
>>>
>>>
>>>>>atmosphere that is utterly frozen...and yet the lander survives, beams
>>>
>>>it's
>>>
>>>
>>>>>images to the satalite...which then turns itself completely in a
>>>
>>>direction
>>>
>>>
>>>>>facing Earth...and sends us images within minutes!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>A-M-A-Z-I-N-G is the most understated word, but what else can one
>
> say???
>
>>>>>It just blows me away.
>>>>>-Mrk
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wonder what kind of battery was used that worked so well after 8 to
>>>>9 years. Rechargeable I guess, but no rechargeable I have ever had,
>>>>has lasted more than 2 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>The battery didn't have to just sit for 8 years.
>>>The satalite it was connected with had solar power, and could have
>>>continually refreshed the battery, and kept it at appropriate
>
> temperatures.
>
>>>I've got plain old Canon batteries from my old D30 that are still going
>>>strong in my 10D now--after 5 years of constant use... I'm sure it
>
> wasn't
>
>>>much of a stretch for them to best that. Remember that it wasn't in the
>>>deep cold of space, necessarily, because of solar powered heaters, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hummm. Doesn't the Cassini craft have a nuclear powered system? Seems
>>there was some flap about that when they used a close earth approach to
>>'sling shot' it toward Saturn.
>
>
> You may be right.
> I remember the "flap" but don't recall which craft it concerned.
> I may be off as to the source of power, but my point really was just that
> heaters and other power systems could keep batteries reasonably conditioned
> throughout the journey...
>
>
Yes, but in the harsh environment of deep space, it is surprising that
batteries still worked. Or perhaps it has a fuel cell... REally don't
know.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 16, 2005 2:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you think you can do better ... Why don't you head off to Titan and take
better pictures ;) 
!