7 ms·
First Science Results from NASA’s Juno Mission
- zmgehlke 9y agoBeautiful. I find images of Jupiter absolutely stunning, and that the dynamics behind the auroras is sophisticated (ie, something complex happening above the core) is even more interesting. I can't wait for Juno to bring us even more results!
- newtonmeters 9y agoDo you know what kind of gas produces the blue we see on the South Pole?
- andreapaiola 9y agoMaybe methane and ammonia, like neptune...
- jansho 9y agoDo you know if these images have been colour-enhanced, like those photos of glowing nebulae? http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Nebulae/Horsehead/FullSizeJpg/Horsehead.jpg http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Nebulae/Horsehead/FullSizeJpg/...
- anon1253 9y agoEnhanced color isn't exactly right. Most nebula images are done with Narrow Band filters that only let a specific wavelength through. Typically those of Hydrogen alpha, sulfur II and oxygen III emissions. This gives three monochrome channels of data that you can combine however you please to RGB. Or supplement with even more data from broadband R, G, B or luminance filters. Not sure about the Horsehead image, could be a HaRGB or even Near infrared composite. In the case of Juno there are 4 filters: R, G, B and a methane filter (~840nm narrow band). The data you can map to RGB arbitrairly, usually with a linear combination. It's just as much art as science
- jansho 9y agoThanks. But excuse my dumminess, just need to get this right: so the three channels of data can be converted into RGB to give the "shades" to make a photo ... but you can pick a dominant colour filter, like blue, green or in the Horsehead's case, pink? I am mesmerised by Juno's photos but wondering if it's true to the human eye (like as if we are there.) The photo caption hints otherwise [1] but I'm not sure if my understanding is correct! [1] Multiple images taken with the JunoCam instrument on three separate orbits were combined to show all areas in daylight, enhanced color, and stereographic projection.
- DougWebb 9y agoBasically, each narrow-band filter gives you a grey-scale image. You can assign whatever color you like to each of them, and then mix them to get a color image. If you have filters for the Red, Green, and Blue wavelengths, and then apply Red, Green, and Blue colors of the same wavelength to the images before mixing them, that'll get you as close to a true-color image as possible. (That's essentially what's going on in your camera, for capturing an image and then displaying it to you.) Red, Green, and Blue are used because their wavelengths match the wavelengths that the cells in our retinas are sensitive to. That allows cameras to approximate human vision. But scientists use lots of other wavelengths too in order to see specific things more clearly, like Juno's methane filter. Every chemical gives off specific wavelengths of light when it releases energy, so filters that are tuned to those wavelengths make it easier to detect those chemicals. (I'm simplifying a bit here.) The false-color images you see from these missions are designed to combine multiple filters (that aren't RGB) and mix them using contrasting colors so that you can still see highlights from each of the filters.
- woliveirajr 9y agoA simple explanation: converting IR-images to "human-color" images. [1] Your eyes don't see the Infrared, so you apply some conversion where the infrared scale is converted to some color scale, and you know that where you see more red (for example) means that you're seeing where the infrared was stronger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography
- bdamm 9y agoThe failure of its main engine is going to turn out to be a blessing as fabulous new Jupiter photography every 53 days could be a nice regular treat for us space boffins.
- raverbashing 9y agoI hadn't heard about this failure, this explains a bit about it https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/02/juno-dives-over-jupiters-cloud-tops-with-main-engine-still-offline/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/02/juno-dives-over-jupite...
- idlewords 9y agoThe lifetime cost of this mission is $1.1B. For the price of a space shuttle program, we could get 200 of these. ISS is worth 100 of these. If we're really serious about space exploration, robot probes and telescopes give by far the biggest bang for the buck, and they go where no human being can ever go. That Jupiter flyby would cook you like an egg.
- adrianN 9y agoRobotic missions won't make us a multiplanetary society though (neither does the space shuttle...). I think that's important too.
- Baeocystin 9y agoI am 100% certain it will be robots that construct the first habitats for any future Mars or Moon inhabitants. As much as I want an interplanetary future for humanity, the case for concentrating on robotic exploration is just too strong to not have them be the primary focus of development for now. Not to the exclusion of humanity, mind you. But to do the work to get to the point where we can confidently send people on a mission that isn't either temporary or suicide.
- adrianN 9y agoSure, robots are important, but it's not robots circling around Jupiter that we need to build. We're already pretty good at that. There doesn't seem to be any serious money for developing robots that help with the construction of habitats for humans.
- Baeocystin 9y agoNot directly for those purposes, sure. But it isn't much of a skip to see future derivatives of mil-sponsored research like Boston Dynamic's Atlas and Big Dog being put to use as workers in hostile environments, both here on Earth and in space. The civilian space program would never have gotten as far as it has without massive transfer from the military spending on boosters, after all, so the direction of transfer has precedent.