Bear Bibeault wrote:Party pooper. The visible light spectrum is b-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ring!
Ferdinand Victorinus wrote:What is the meaning of that heart formation? Is it some message from the aliens?
![]()
Adam Scheller wrote:By the way... did you know that New Horizons uses the PlayStation's CPU?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/15/7551365/playstation-cpu-powers-new-horizons-pluto-probe/in/8724384
Jesper de Jong wrote:
Amazing that with such slow CPUs they can make the spacecraft do so much.
Guillermo Ishi wrote: I just want a view that looks something like it would if I was there, as uninspiring as that might be in the mind of Nasa...
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
chris webster wrote:
Guillermo Ishi wrote: I just want a view that looks something like it would if I was there, as uninspiring as that might be in the mind of Nasa...
One problem with that idea is that Pluto is 40 times further from the sun than the Earth is, do it receives 1/1600 as much light from the sun. I suspect a pair of human eyes with poor night vision and no nocturnal colour vision wouldn't be seeing very much at all.
Anyway, I see nothing wrong with most of the NASA astro images I've seen - they're a lot better and more revealing than the grey blobs I see through my backyard telescope!
Guillermo Ishi wrote:But I think what I'm asking for is technically impossible. That closeup of the surface is probably a composite of a dozen exposures with big raster lines and terrible noise with very little discernible detail. So it's probably 90% artist's rendition. Not trolling the Pluto probe, just sayin. Otherwise they'd publish the original feeds along side.
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Guillermo Ishi wrote:
Jesper de Jong wrote:
Amazing that with such slow CPUs they can make the spacecraft do so much.
It's only got to do what it's got to do. ...
Guillermo Ishi wrote:I just want a view that looks something like it would if I was there
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
fred rosenberger wrote:
Guillermo Ishi wrote:I just want a view that looks something like it would if I was there
My guess is that would be a field of stars with a big black circle in it. If my math is right, there's about 1 watt / square meter - roughly 1/6th the brightness of a standard night light. Think about what the moon looks like on the dark side - you can barely tell it's there, let alone make out any features.
The human eye really kind of sucks. Look at the image here showing the visible light spectrum as compared to the EM spectrum. We can only see a tiny sliver of it. the instruments on the probe can see a much broader range, giving many more details.
Guillermo Ishi wrote:The astronomer was saying that the apparent diameter decreases as you go out but that the brightness of that amount of disk stays the same. So from Pluto I guess Sun would be like a blinding star.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Guillermo Ishi wrote:The astronomer was saying that the apparent diameter decreases as you go out but that the brightness of that amount of disk stays the same. So from Pluto I guess Sun would be like a blinding star.
That makes no sense to me. If that were the case, then a flashlight viewed from a distance would be as blinding as close-up, just smaller, and we know that's not the case.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:It is a very long time since I did any physics but I think brightness is not ∝ 1 ÷ distance, but ∝ 1 ÷ distance².
Guillermo Ishi wrote:
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Guillermo Ishi wrote:The astronomer was saying that the apparent diameter decreases as you go out but that the brightness of that amount of disk stays the same. So from Pluto I guess Sun would be like a blinding star.
That makes no sense to me. If that were the case, then a flashlight viewed from a distance would be as blinding as close-up, just smaller, and we know that's not the case.
I know. Me either. I think it comes down to if the Sun is a BB at Pluto, the luminosity is something like luminosity x 1/BB, but the brightness of the BB itself is the same; a BB sized piece of the normal Sun. The statement is "The actual surface that you see is of the same brightness. its just the area in the sky that is decreasing". Also when thinking about the brightness, remember that Pluto is much, much closer to the Sun than the solar system is to any other star.
I found the article again. I saw it a long time ago. They start talking about this in the comments. I couldn't find anything about the author, except that he's Bob King and has articles in Sky and Telescope. The article itself says the light at Pluto is 240 full moons.
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/01/05/what-would-the-sun-look-like-from-jupiter-or-pluto/
Greg Charles wrote:...it also says that is eight orders of magnitude less bright than the sun from the Earth. I'm not actually sure what he means by that...
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Greg Charles wrote:
IANAA (I am not an astrophysicist), but I don't think you're representing that article correctly. Yes, it says that the apparent brightness of the sun from Pluto (at one particular point in its highly eccentric orbit) would be like 240 full moons, but it also says that is eight orders of magnitude less bright than the sun from the Earth.
Paper beats rock. Scissors beats tiny ad.
SKIP - a book about connecting industrious people with elderly land owners
https://coderanch.com/t/skip-book
|