Saturn Cassini Photographic Animation

"Hi-Res" or "HD" were not terms used when Voyager left in the 70's.

I also am curious about the perfect alignment of the second video. That makes this completely artistic interpretation, IMO.

On a side note, Iapetus is just about the coolest looking moon I've ever seen. The current theory is that it brithaca half when a giant meteor hit and then slammed back together.

An equatorial "seam" and an enormous crater give it the look of the Death Star.



Space is an amazing thing. But it's sloppy in its perfection. Just as we are, on our blue space dot.

Well unless they take a telescope to orbit or the ISS and give it a try, we'll never know, but i'll stick with my guns and say that the rings will not be visible by eye or a regular camera or telescope.

@jra


So I'm trying to explain that NASA, as usual, is not giving us the straight goods, and the reason they don't take (ordinary) video cameras out there is that they just don't work with the type or intensity of light available in space.

Sigh... I'm not trying to come off rude or know-it-all but, in my years here lurking mostly I am astonished how many people insist on making observations without educating themselves on the mechanics first.

Firstly, the Rings of of Saturn are not entirely gas. They are rocks, pebbles, stones, house sized blocks, mists of gas, etc. They reflect light just like any other metter.

Secondly, gas does reflect light. How else would you see white clouds? How else would you see Jupiter? Thirdly, you can't see stars because they are smaller and dimmer (at this distance) than the larger and brighter planets being shot. Even "far away" like the Blue Dot photo, you still are under-exposing the stars in favor of properly exposing our solar system.

Thirdly, I work with photography and video. 8 minutes of 1080p footage averages around 2 Gigs of data. Considering how slow transfer speeds can be I can promise you that sending 2 gigs through space would not be preferable to a few photos. Especially, as someone else noted, it would look like one long still - unless you were "close" like in low moon orbit.

For example, those Cassini photos were taken over days/weeks. Not minutes or hours. Series of stills is more functional because that IS what a video is. A series of stills. 24-30 or more still shots a second. With actual video of space, you would use less than 1% of it.

I don't like or work for NASA. If I had my own space program however, you would be getting the exact same things from me as you would them. Why? Limitations on technology and budget.

If you have further questions I can explain them.

reply to post by Foxe

Firstly, the Rings of of Saturn are not entirely gas. They are rocks, pebbles, stones, house sized blocks, mists of gas, etc. They reflect light just like any other metter.

The evidence indicates that the rings are composed of particles that are mostly ice crystals, with sizes as large as centimeters or meters. The total mass in the rings is about the size of a medium mass moon, and the rings are only about 10 km thick.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Secondly, gas does reflect light.

Visible light has too long wavelengths to interact with gas atoms. You see the clouds because the water molecules and ice particles are way bigger. There isn't really a lot of info on that subject, so maybe between us we can find the authoritive documents?

How else would you see Jupiter?

By my theory Jupiter is emitting UV planewaves, from the ionisation states of the gases at Jupiter, induced by the even higher energy UV from the Sun. It seems that if the vacuum is considered a non-linear medium, then light can form self focusing beams that can travel endless distances without spreading out. To do with solitons, but I'm still wading through the science involved there. The possibility of Sunlight (using the TSI figures for Saturn) being reflected off tiny ice particles with a density of, at most, 0.01 per cubic meter, and then being visible from Earth, well, that's crazy. Taken as a whole, all the billions of photons given off by ionisation are spherical in their expansion, and so create, from our perspective, a 2D point source array, which creates the planewave fronts, which become the beams, which is what travels to earth and is converted in our atmosphere to the light we can see with our eyes, the transverse wave, of a suitable wavelength. Space based instruments with the correct optics and super sensitive CCDs can also capture the 'beams'.
Now that description may not be correct, but the idea that reflected, visible wavelength tranverse waves make Saturn or the rings visible fails almost immediately if you start trying to do calculations based on accepted science, so there must be another explanation. All we have to do is find it.

Thirdly, I work with photography and video. 8 minutes of 1080p

Yeah, the idea of a video camera way out in space is kind of pointless, as no matter how good the camera, unless you are going somewhere where there is an atmosphere to create light, there will be nothing to see out there. I'm going to dig my heels in and say that unless NASA can take a real-time video of the Moon from the ISS, which is the simplest possible test as it requires no filters or long exposures, then there is no proof that light travels in space the way we are told.

reply to post by GaryN


GaryN, check your messages, I have asked you a question there about your theory.

As for cameras in space, don't you think the scientific organisations would have initially sent regular cameras, encountered the darkness, and then documented this phenomenon in scientific papers before reconfiguring the cameras for future missions? NASA isn't the only body doing space exploration and science. If your theory were true, it would be a major topic in institutes and universities, and any astrophysicist worth their salt would know of this. We would know of this through popular science publications.

GaryN,
When I was a young man my neighbor had us all outside looking through his telescope. Big rig on a tripod. We looked at Jupiter and the main object we were looking for Halleys Comet. We also looked at Saturn and we could clearly see the rings.
Of course they were not fully defined but it was rather clear they were rings.
Pretty much looked like this

www.youtube.com...


So is your position that I did not see those rings?
I am not clear what you mean by we will never know if they can be seen?

For the record I am an EU proponent so I feel the rings are plasma in glow discharge mode. See Birklands Terella experiments.

reply to post by Dragoon01

So is your position that I did not see those rings?

My position is that it was Earths atmosphere/ionosphere that allowed you to see the planet and rings.

I am not clear what you mean by we will never know if they can be seen?

NASA will not take a 'scope, like the one you looked through, up to the ISS. I read they do have a small one used for checking on approaching supply or crew replacement craft, but have never heard of it being used to look at the stars or planets or a conjunction. Of course they would need a porthole or window to look through, but they don't even have that it seems.
It also appears that viewing the ISS exterior is Classified, as the Space-X Dragon cargo module that went up had to cover over a little porthole in its side. Wonder what don't they want us to see?

Originally posted by GaryN
Of course they would need a porthole or window to look through, but they don't even have that it seems.
It also appears that viewing the ISS exterior is Classified, as the Space-X Dragon cargo module that went up had to cover over a little porthole in its side. Wonder what don't they want us to see?

Windows are covered for added protection, when not in use. There are thousands of photos taken from the ISS and many that show stars and what not, but you would claim that the ISS is still within the Earth's ionosphere anyway, so the whole point is moot.

Have you never watched live video's or looked at the many photos of the ISS EVA's? Why do you get the impression that viewing the exterior is classified? When it's obviously anything but classified.

reply to post by jra

Have you never watched live video's or looked at the many photos of the ISS EVA's? Why do you get the impression that viewing the exterior is classified? When it's obviously anything but classified.

I've been looking for ISS EVA videos, but all I can find is from this page, and they all suck, and there is nothing since Mission 13. Where do I find the good stuff?

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by GaryN
I've been looking for ISS EVA videos, but all I can find is from this page, and they all suck, and there is nothing since Mission 13. Where do I find the good stuff?

Watching them live, when they're happening on NASA TV is the best place. The NASA TV channel on youtube uploads the mission highlights afterwards. Here's the latest one from a few months ago, when they had to fix an ammonia leak. link. I'm sure you can find more mission highlights on youtube.

reply to post by jra


Well I spent most of my Saturday night looking at youtube ISS videos,( get a life, eh?) not a hint or a mention of the Moon. Or the stars, though I realise they won't show up on video. I wonder if anyone has ever seen the Moon while watching the live video? I'm going to try and find the time for the Feb EVA, I think our Canucklehead astronaut is going out, be interesting to find out if the Moon should be visible at that time, using Celestia.