3 ms·

Simultaneity would be pointless, because the next pixel over, from any given probe, would be from (earth-) weeks later. It would pick up samples from each plane

by ncmncm 4y ago

Simultaneity would be pointless, because the next pixel over, from any given probe, would be from (earth-) weeks later. It would pick up samples from each planetary day in between, too, but each would almost completely overlap the previous day's, stepping out until the probe has gone enough distance to be sampling a separate bit of surface. Some information might be teased out of the overlapping pixels, but they would all be from different days. It would be bad luck to choose a Venus-analog to map.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nomel 4y ago
> Simultaneity would be pointless I might have some fundamental misunderstanding, because I don't understand how this could be. > stepping out until the probe has gone enough distance to be sampling a separate bit of surface. Why not have a probe already at that distance, so it's gathering something of that surface? My assumption here (knowing very little of gravitational lensing) is that the gravitational lens still has the concept of an "image surface", where a translation in that image surfaces can be mapped to some translation in the projection of the thing being viewed. Are you saying that if I put two probes up, with some appropriate spacing between, they can't collect different stripes of the same surface, at the same time?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Same time for the probes is easy. Same time for the planet is harder. But if the probes are recording continuously and sending it all back, you can probably identify points that are simultaneous on two tracks, after the fact. But that gives you just a scattering of points on that day. The next pixel over, for each probe, will be for a different planetary day. Your image, stitched together from all the lines returned by all the probes, is an image smeared over at least as many days as pixels in each line.

3 ms·

Simultaneity would be pointless, because the next pixel over, from any given probe, would be from (earth-) weeks later. It would pick up samples from each plane

by ncmncm 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nomel 4y ago
> Simultaneity would be pointless I might have some fundamental misunderstanding, because I don't understand how this could be. > stepping out until the probe has gone enough distance to be sampling a separate bit of surface. Why not have a probe already at that distance, so it's gathering something of that surface? My assumption here (knowing very little of gravitational lensing) is that the gravitational lens still has the concept of an "image surface", where a translation in that image surfaces can be mapped to some translation in the projection of the thing being viewed. Are you saying that if I put two probes up, with some appropriate spacing between, they can't collect different stripes of the same surface, at the same time?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Same time for the probes is easy. Same time for the planet is harder. But if the probes are recording continuously and sending it all back, you can probably identify points that are simultaneous on two tracks, after the fact. But that gives you just a scattering of points on that day. The next pixel over, for each probe, will be for a different planetary day. Your image, stitched together from all the lines returned by all the probes, is an image smeared over at least as many days as pixels in each line.