Here's the profile from the ESA newsrelease:

That's as good as it gets for now. Most of the monitoring instruments on the probe will be used to get a compositional profile for the atmosphere.

If you're really interested in tracking the probes descent, go here. The acoustic radar blips can be converted into a profile by taking the speed of light (unless you are going to argue that the speed of light isn't the same on Titan).

Really?

I posted the Mars Exploration Rovers Entry, Descent, and Landing Trajectory Analysis last week. This document shows the predicted EDL values and the actual values they've been able to reconstruct so far.

There are 16 reconstructed values for Spirit, of which only 1 value was outside the predicted range. There are 15 reconstructed values for Opportunity, of which 3 were out of range. Two of those three were only slightly over predicted.

Here is what the authors say:
Further on:

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Jerry,
Just in case you do not know, 3-σ is +/- 0.15%! If you want to argue with that, you are truely quibbling!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Astronomy, this is absolutely unbelievable! Thank YOU =D> Is this real time? If it is, do you know what this means? There is a sudden, dramatic increase in the rate 25 seconds into the playback. After this, the pinging rate continues to accelerate right up to the end. If the "sudden increase" was when the small, fast descent parachute deployed, the second parachute was only deployed for 38 seconds! It should have been deployed for for at least 109 km, and the rate of descent should have been at a nearly constant 5 m/s for at least 36 minutes, (from 109km) not 38 second! And these bleeps are clearly accelerating at a non-linear rate!

If this interpretation is correct, Huygens figured out she was descending much too fast, calculated when to deploy the small parachute and released third and final parachute at about 140 meters. This is the rapid sequence 12.5 seconds into this series as the main chute tethers away from Huygens, and then springs taunt again. The main parachute stays on for another 12.5 seconds, and you can tell because the time between the radar pulses is measurably slower while the both the main and final parachute are deployed. Then the main parachute is jettisoned, at an altitude of only about 100 meters. From a descent rate of near 0.1m/s, Huygens plunged, accelerating rapidly for the last 38 seconds to a final velocity of 4.5m/s.

Obviously we need someone other than jerry to interpret this data before anyone will believe it. I get to be wrong, as always, because I am left guessing at two critical parameters: Is this real time, and does it mark the entire descent of the small parachute?

The caption says this is during 'the last few kilometers', and the events at 12.5 seconds and 25 seconds are clearly what would be expected if a second parachute is deployed, releasing the main parachute onto a drag line. (The time between pulses from 12.5 to 25 seconds is slower than during the first 12 seconds, indicating the presence of both parachutes.) Then the main parachute is cut, and Huygens falls 'almost' like a rock.

It would certainly explain the orange rocks, because you can have a lot of iron in a moon as dense as Mars!

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I'm not sure, i think i read this was puzzeld together of a lot of smaller clips, i might be wrong though

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

It means that you are apparently not interested enough of the mission to even check things yourself.
You are asking if ~1min audio clip is real time recording of an event that took ~1.5 hours? :roll:
And all the fuss about the parachutes is just as "accurate".
The proper order of doing things is : Read, Think, Post. You seem to have forgotten the first two.

...Not when you are trying to put together a scientific interpretation of NASA or ESA release data. They did not include in the posting the Doppler frequency, the angle of the radar relative to the ground, the time signature ect ect ect:

So I am stuck with 'the last few kilometers' and the fact that it is continuous (the acoustic data was spliced together), and includes the termination sequence on landing. Since they were expecting to impact at ~5m/s, a seventy second sequence should correspond to the last ~400 meters, not several kilometers. So I am stuck asking if anyone can confirm it is real time, but even more so, does anyone have a better or different interpretation?

FWIW, I spent more than three hours trying to piece that together, and an hour on the phone with other physicists.

Yes you did, thank you and I combed through that data last week looking for something, anything that would allow me to estimate the acceleration of gravity on Mars - and every one of the parameters that would be useful to this end are missing from the paper! Including all the mach numbers, the heating rate (vr prediction) the peak stagnation pressure, total heat load, altitude at which the heat sheild jetisoned, dynamic pressure, sensed acceleration, and time from entry or parachute deployment to 'bouncedown'

How long does it take to reconstruct the peak pressure and sensed acceleration? How long does it take a rocket scientist to pinpoint the time of landfall? Are they camping on this data because, like the Viking data, they cannot recreate a plausible physical scenario?

(Although the time of landing would be a constraining parameter for estimating the gravity of Mars, for Huygens, the time of landfall is almost meaninless, since the second parachute was a timed, or programmed release after the deployment of the first parachute.)

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

So you have Lunatik's and John T's phone numbers?

OK, that's enough. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

...We just figured out the little blip at the first was the 'Front shield' being deployed. In the sequence, this occurs just before the final parachute deployment. The probe appeared to have been falling much faster just before the shield was released - there appears to be some echos bouncing off the shield as it falls. So either the time in this radar sequence has gaps in it, or the ending sequence was very tightly compressed.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

OK, How do you only get half the data, and all of the principle components? I can understand half resolution, but an intermittant sequence that captures all the key elements, including the ending?

...Or did Huygens fall twice as fast as expected, and return half as many images because the mission had to be terminated early? The science teams could not image the scenario I have painted, so now I have to speculate again: Huygens fell fast, reaching the surface in half the expected time, but at ~200 meters, Huygens knew she was in trouble and completed the termination sequence early. Since everything was retransmitted, and they did not believe the radar - thought it was garbled, the ground troops think that they don't have a real time line...But they did recognize the sounds of the mission touch down sequence, and declared victory, simply guessing at the termination time. Possible? It is a dam good thing we have the Earth based Doppler data to help sort this all out!

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

They are "camping" on the data becase it's their data. Those who conceived, designed, built and paid for the mission expect to get first shot at the data! NASA's policy is that all data is propietary for one year. After that, even if the data is released, there is no requirement that NASA put it on the public pages.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Ummm... no. Not even close. If you had done any actual research on the probe, you would have found out that one of the two communications channels had failed due to a programming error. As such, ESA had only received half of the total amount of data they were expecting. They received all the important bits because most of the data was set to be broadcast on both channels. That has absolutely nothing to do with the probe's rate of descent.

[quote="Jerry"]And now I have the PROOF! This rather large set of pictures is worth waiting for, if you have high speed: Look at the folder labeled "CAMTOP"

The very first image in the folder is the pano, meaning panoramic. This was suppose to be the first picture taken after the final 3 meter parachute deployed at 110-140 kilometers, it is the panoramic picture, but it is the same picture as almost two thirds of the images recorded on on the surface of Titan: The most important set of orange pebbles ever photographed. You have to look at it carefully - My wife picked it out - the panarama was not a panarama because the camera could not spin on the tether - It was firmly on the surface of Titan.

When the Panorama Picture was taken, Huygens was already on the ground because the law of gravity is wrong. It took the probe on the order of one hour to completely traverse the atmosphere, The 30 meter parachute jettisoning the heat shield less than 200 meters above the surface. Huygens spent thirty eight seconds descending on the 10 meter parachute, then took the panaramic photograph that was suppose to be taken while swiveling on a parachute at 100 kilometers, and then took 400-600 pictures of the same rocks, because the camera logic said it was still descending.

A new era in physics will finally emerged =D> Thank you Huygens, thank you Cassini, no thank you, ESA administrators who are still mumbling about lost data, who did not know how to interpret the data, so they made a bad guess about the time Huygens hit the moon, and dampe the spirit about the marvelous performance of their wonderful craft! -

Edited for Politeness

.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I wish that were true, but if you look in the reference I posted above, you will fine the full thousand images - True 650 of them are on the ground, but that is because Huygens spent twice as much of the allotted time for the mission sitting on the ground as she did in the air.

I do not understand the mentality of the ESA - I can understand why they might be embarrassed and confused - but they must be honest.

And for any of you conspiracy theorists out there: This is why you are wrong: No agency with any depth or size can pull off a misdirection of the truth of any magnitude - the ground-based Doppler data will prove this in spades, just as the panoramic pictures of the ground, that were suppose to be taken just after the last parachute deployed at ~100km, and the Doppler data historically recording this sequence live - already have.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I wish I had the energy to headbutt the wall.

This definitely belongs in Against the Mainstream!

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Actually there are 367 raw images. You've downloaded the set of data in which the pictures from the 3 cameras have been seperated (as the filename mentions) by the guy who's hosting them on that site.

I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. The panoramic is simply a composite.

Tether? Maybe you can point out where the tether is? Huygens

No, the picture taken from above was not the one you're referring to. It was this one: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...d/Picture3.jpg

That's not what happened either. It's not a good idea to jump to conclusions like this.

I think that this kind of baseless accusation is not only unwarranted, it would probably get you the Buzz Aldrin punch in the jaw if you were to say it to the scientists' faces.

Oh so ESA lied now? They had only one data channel. They only got back half the images they wanted. They said it themselves that there are holes in the timeline due to these images lost. How much simpler can it get Jerry? The craft performed within their predicted tolerances or it wouldn't have landed at all. That has been made CLEAR to you. It wouldn't have even got to Titan! It's all denial with you Jerry, because you can't admit when you were wrong...and that's sad.

__________________
"The bread's hollowed out --- the veggies go on forever --- and --- oh my God! --- it's full of meat!" - Maksutov

There are 997 images there - Many, in fact most of the Cam_Mid and Cam_Top images are nearly identical, so you could argue that they are just duplicates, but if you look carefully at the cam_bot images, most of them are slightly different, either from dust settling, light changes, or the ability of the camera to move. In any case, how can the images be lost due to a 'bad channel' when they clearly exist? The images are there, they are just disappointing, and ESA does not want to admit it. Check it out - The data is there! How can it not exist.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Do the math Jerry. The camera pointed down, 180 degrees and 45 degrees. So that is three images taken at the same time that counts as one set. So those 997 images? Divide it by 3. You now get 332 image sets...approximately what they got.....grasping at straws Jerry...grasping at straws....just can't admit you got this one wrong. Well no vindication is coming for you. At this point you can't convince anyone.

__________________
"The bread's hollowed out --- the veggies go on forever --- and --- oh my God! --- it's full of meat!" - Maksutov

There are many press releases that report that Huygens landed within the time it was expected to do so + that the impact velocity was 4.5 m/s. This is enough to disprove that Huygens was falling twice the expected rate. What more do you need?


Anyway, if this is your theory just consider for example the three-body problem. Its mathematical analysis involves the definition of the center of mass of the system, which is dependent only on the mass M of each body, not the G*M product (Center_of_Mass=(MR+mr)/(M+m)). So if your theory was correct, this mathematical analysis would have been totally wrong, as the M values would have been wrong -as you suggest. And therefore the Lagrange points would not have been where they are.

GM does not appear in all equations in orbital mechanics and dynamical astronomy. Sometimes M is independent

So there is an exchange rate. I just listened to the ESA broadcast again, and he clearly said 'we have about 350 images", and I can go along with that means triplets. I will wait until the Earth Doppler data is in, though before backing off on the time the probe made landfall. The special panoramic picture that ended up in the mud is a little hard to explain - There was a special shot planned shortly after the final parachute deployed - looking for reference....

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Why are we allowing Jerry to shift the environment of the debate to inside Titan's atmosphere?

Huygens had been coasting on a purely ballistic trajectory determined by gravity alone for three weeks since its release from Cassini. Jerry is unable to explain why Huygens arrived at Titan at all, let alone on schedule and at the precisely predicted angle of entry.

Lunatik seems to be a slightly more experienced pseudo-scientist than Jerry, so he didn't make a prediction like Jerry did (which of course turned out to be incorrect). But the same applies to him: If Titan's gravity were much different than Newtonian physics predicts, Huygens would not have hit Titan at all, let alone at the predicted time and angle.

[never mind]

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Jerry,
I haven't got involved in this simply because everyone else has done a fantastic job of showing where you were wrong. But, the above statement simply disgusts me and any respect for you I had before is gone. As ToSeek pointed out, you at least had the guts to make a prediction, but you have simply decended into silliness, while at the same time grasping at what you think are straws that can save you. To say these people (many of whom have put a lot of effort into this mission for the last 17 years) have out and out lied is beneath comtempt.

I also have to laugh at the irony of someone, who first came on here complaining about "fixes" and "patches" of the Big Bang, now coming up with some pretty silly scenarios, when the overall data doesn't match what he thinks should have happen.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Jerry, you are descending faster than the predicted (and actual) rate of the Huygens lander. Please desist from making accusations of scientists lying just because you got it wrong. Plenty of posters here have given you a lot of time and opportunity to defend your case but you have been proven to be wrong in theory and practice.

Also, please retract this statement:
It's insulting.

Huygens scored a bullseye - Game, set and match for team NASA/ESA/Newton, you didn't even get on the court.

Edit: Jerry has since amended his original post to

Thanks. Froggy

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

They do not know how to interpret the data within the constraints of the current laws of physics, and so they are interpreting it poorly.

There is not one image in that series of pictures that is more than 1km above the surface of Titan, and that is being generous. The rivers? those are patterns in the mud - that's why the "low lying or ground fog" that isn't visible in the higher sequence.

Very good point, yes, three body mechanics, as long as their is not a major body totally dominating the system can and will test this. This makes Cassini an absolutely perfect laboratory to investigate this!

Oh, and the Lagrange points - I have only perused the papers, but they have proven hard to nail down. We put up Hippocritus ~ decade ago to get good hard parallax measurements to the Magellanic Clouds. We have learned in the last five years the data is seriously comprimised because we never knew, with enough certainty, where Hippocritus was.

Edit: sleepiness

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Where does your theory come into play in measuring speeds of Huygens?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hate to chime in, but had to see where y'all were here, kicking as usual.

No need to get down and dirty into Titan's atmosphere, since the corrections for errors in probe's mass-inertia cum variable G-Titan-mass would have been executed by the Cassini team before Huygens's release. All the trajectory adjustments were executed there, while engineers made in-flight corrections, so by the time of release from Cassini everything was in place for a 65' descent into the atmosphere. Numbers, gentlemen... we need numbers.

Of course, us 'pseudo-scientists' who ask those pesky questions of reality are no doubt a nuissance to those 'true believers' who are happy with whatever answers the mainstream-academic-order feeds them. If it's in the text or in a published paper, it must be right? I suppose philosophically, we are of necessity opposed, if as pseudo-scientists we are demanding real science.
:-?

Huygens is an achievement of great engineering, not relativistic physics theory but applied physics. As mentioned before on this thread, whether or not a variable G or constant G is used for astronomical calculations of distant mass, it is immaterial since a very similar trajectory would be computed either way. ... okay, back to kicking Jerry... I'm outta here.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...