- 220 KB
- 2.1 MB
Of
course, the scenes
aren't
the same.
In the upper scene, it was something
like about
40-60
feet to the shore in view and the waves around a foot tall with the
camera
a foot above sea level, hopefully not too dissimilar to Huygens. Some
clouds
can be seen drifting along. The waves build and break as whitecaps
against
the rising beach, different from where they strike a sudden obstacle
and
break into spray in Huygens's scene. On Titan, there appear to be
whitish
floating things bobbing up and down in the waves (also seen in the
descent
images), but no seagulls flew by.
In the tide pool, there are some
reflections off of
the
rock face behind the puddle and a few bits of floating gunk, plus there
were some raindrops, all making the surface more evident. I couldn't
duplicate
the slight, slow swells of Titan as there was too much gravity at this
particular tide pool. It being Earth daylight, no lamp lit up the
foreground.
The camera was on a dry rock, and likewise there's no necessity to
believe
Huygens had to be immersed in the nearby liquid to show the scene it
does.
There's less signs of vegetation, but a leptocottus armatus* swam
through.
The solid parts of my scenes don't
move, whereas
either
what Huygens landed on undulates and flexes gently in the waves or
there
were some hefty heat waves making it appear so. (Not impossible - after
all, Huygens was hot after it entered the atmosphere, and it had
heaters
on board.)
Notwithstanding the differences, a
similar general
impression
of wavering of the features under the motions of very shallow liquid is
obtained in both animations. The submerged foreground features are less
clear than the not submerged ones behind and there are some reflections
towards the far side.
*aka
Pacific
sculpin,
bullhead
Note: An animation of the MRI and HRI
images after
landing
is visually less interesting than the SLI. However, something happens
to
the window of the MRI 3 or 4 times, each time shrinking the bright blob
on the lower right. Hit by waves perhaps? And twice droplets of liquid
can be seen which drip off (or otherwise disappear). The HRI lens
window
appears to get hit by something once, much changing the view. If they
are
submerged, these events may be occurring on the insides of the windows
via leaks. (If Huygens is on dry ground, what is happening?)
In this final "Huygens anniversary
images"
installment,
here are three shots of shallow liquid from above, simulating, albeit
on
a tiny scale, the sort of view angles of Huygens's HRI imager during
the
descent.
The triply processed images show that
while the
liquid
is plainly there in the original color shots, it becomes less evident
if
the contrast is increased, and almost invisible if made monochrome.
With
the Huygens shots, we only have the latter. In the bottom right image,
the waterline is visible, but tracing its course, and recognizing
that's
what it is without first suspecting liquid, might be tricky.
The reader will please forgive me for
hammering
pretty
hard on these visual points as people continue to believe that Titan's
seas are dry, largely through non recognition of the ubiquitous liquid
in the Huygens images.
Idle
Speculations
on the ACCELEROMETER DATA AT LANDING
"Additionally, the
area
of [un]stable data points immediately following the initial impact
(8,870.1
- 8,870.3 s) may be due to a small bounce of the probe or to some
structure
vibrations."
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/fig_tab/nature04314_F9.html)
This is the sort of finding I was
expecting, after
hearing
of the gentle "creme brulee" landing.
I am beginning to view the landing
area (if not the
whole
world) as a saturated bog of organic sludge that has built up by the
tide
flows to virtually the surface level at many points, with the flow then
channeling mainly through deeper areas. (The Louisiana wetlands comes
to
mind.) Given the expectation of atmospheric haze particles drifting
down
to the surface from the upper atmosphere, such an organic sludge could
perhaps exist even if there was no life on Titan.
Both
ACC-I
and
the
(parallel)
HASI ACC PZR X sensor registered a small precursor peak of a few meters
per second squared in amplitude. One possibility is that it may be due
to impact of the probe's foredome with an isolated protuberance such as
an "ice cobble"; resting on the surface."
This gentle deceleration that
"gradually" built up
from
zero just before the probe actually struck the ground may be due to the
foredome striking the very shallow liquid methane on the surface, whose
depth can thus be estimated (very, very approximately) as:
height
of
liquid = time of transit (initial small deceleration reading until
strong
solid impact reading) * velocity
= .01 to .015 seconds * 4.60
meters/second
= .046 to .069 meters or 4.6 to
6.9 cm - 2 or 3 inches.
Of
course, with such
shallow
liquid, one spot might be twice as deep as another right next to it,
depending
on the texture of the surface, so a precise result is perhaps somewhat
academic. The reading could perhaps also be explained by a cushion of
stiff
leaves just above ground level. Both leaves (not, I believe, ice
cobbles)
and liquid seem evident in the surface animations. However, either way,
one wouldn't really expect the force to taper off again as it does
before
the main impact.
In a possible "bounce" after the
impact, a
surprising
negative G force of short duration is seen at one point, actually
stronger
than Titan's gravity, as if somehow, the surface had got a grip on
Huygens
and wouldn't let it bounce up. This could be explained by something
holding
the penetrometer from rising (seems unlikely), or general momentary
suction
from liquid or saturated sludge as Huygens tried to lift out in a
bounce
(more likely). However, this bounce, and another major difference, was
measured by just one of two accelerometers (ACC PZR-X). The other
(ACC-I)
claimed there was no bounce at all.
(These differences should warn us
that
interpretation
of individual instrument readings, like individual "face on Mars"
scenes
in an image, are not infallible. If either accelerometer had not been
present,
the other would probably have been taken as being definitive. Of
course,
I'm thinking of the SSP results, some of which are said to
"conclusively"
rule out liquid, somewhat at odds with the GCMS surface liquid findings
as well as the liquid visible in the images - as plainly as contrast
enhanced
monochrome images can show it. And (ahem) some of my own earlier
Huygens
image feature interpretations. But I digress.)
The timing of almost three seconds
from initial
impact
to stability of readings, as well as the gentleness of the forces, is
indicative
of a landing on a surface that was by no means solid (like sand with
rocks
or mud or clay), but rather something having some definite, if small,
elastic
aspect to it that rebounded and appeared to cause sideways motion as
well.
A soil of marine 'sludge' could perhaps cause this result. An
interesting
experiment might be to take a "Huygens" equivalent and drop it with
equivalent
force here onto various surfaces and see what would cause similar
readings,
including peat bogs and shallow swamps. The seeming surface undulations
over time visible in the animations were not detected by the
accelerometers,
so either these were gentle in the extreme and hence the feeble
readings
were hidden in random background noise, or perhaps they were "mirage"
heat
waves caused by Huygens itself and not real motion. The instruments
were
sensitive enough to tentatively detect a gradual change in tilt of
Huygens
of about 1/2 a degree over the 70 minutes of transmission and to
suggest
that Titan's radius may be 3Km greater than the published figure of
2575Km.
My comments on statements about the landing site,
taken from various news clippings [immediately after the landing].
"When
the probe
landed,
it was not with a thud, or a splash, but a 'splat'. It landed in
Titanian
'mud'. I think the biggest surprise is that we survived landing and
that
we lasted so long," said DISR team member Charles See. There wasn't
even
a glitch at impact. That landing was a lot friendlier than we had
anticipated,"
The term
"splat" is
based
on the accelerometer readings. This is not inconsistent with the very
shallow
liquid seen in the view from the ground. So splat yes, mud no. The
landing
was cushioned by the belly hitting a few inches of liquid methane,
probably
about the same time as the 12 cm accelerometer probe struck the stone
and
then sliced into the sand or gravel as elsewhere stated.
"In
addition
to
the
soft
landing, material that appears to have accumulated on the camera lens
in
the final images suggests the weight of the 705 pound probe may have
pulled
it into the muddy surface."
It looks more like something was
in front of the lens
and has partly moved aside in the later images.