I can't. It is wrong, I apologies, and I apologies for the time it took you to complete the calculations, and I appreciate what you have demonstrated.

I was trying to find a plausible scenario that fits the data ESA has released. They said the descent took ~ 2.5 hours, and the wind velocity near ground level was 5 m/s. They have changed the wind speed, they have twice changed the distance estimates of the photographs they have released. They clearly do not have a handle on the descent data yet, and I don't fault them for that - it must be very difficult to untangle, and they need to take the time they need to get it right.

I am certain we are all looking the impact crater caused by Huygens heat shield, that caused high-velocity stress fracturing in a substance that was correctly characterized by the penetration probe.

Try what I did, only you don't have to use rocket scientists, I found it works almost as will with IS technicans and such. Remove all captions, put the composite image on the floor and ask them to guess what it is.

I heard everything from a bomb site in Iraq, to the crash site of the Gemini probe (which is quite similar, but much more violent). Without prompting, any one who would venture a guess, guessed it was some kind of explostion. Score: Explosion of some kind: 6 Impact crater:3
can't decide: 14, Alluvial streamlets and a lake or lake bed: 0.

There is little to be gained in pushing this thread any further until we hear more from ESA - Specifically we need the Earth based Doppler data, and every other descent parameter: Velocity, altitude at which the main parachute deployed, heating rate, gas pressure profile, peak stagnation pressure, landing location vrs. projected window, and so on.

The Attitude, Huygens leaning "10-20" degrees during entry is consistent with the higher than expected attitudes experienced landing Spirit and Oppotunity on Mars (7 degrees, rather than 1-3 with a 3 sigma of 4). This is consistent with, in fact necessary for the 'gravitational force' of Titan being much greater than expected. I expect to see many more numbers this far out-of-family, but we all have to wait and see 8-[

__________________
jwj

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

So, this double / tripple gravity, will only change the attitude of entry!?


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

I spit coffee everywhere when I read this! Thanks Jerr, you've made my day again!

And it would make excellent 'B' Sci-Fi, not for the cable channel, but in a back alley video store rented on Beta tapes! :wink:

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

It's sad.

I'm posting this here so I can see if it changes... but, it is sad...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Actually it is probably my 60th, but I wish I would have stayed with the first one. We tried really hard to find one that worked with the time and wind speed constraints that were first announced by ESA. For 'my cosmology', as you have proven, there is not one. They are going to have to change the interpretations of the images, this is a impact crater, so let's wait and see what else changes as well :wink:

No, If I knew exactly what I am doing, I wouldn't make so many mistakes. But I am having a great time

Thanks again, all. Thank You - Cassini and Huygens, Wonderful show =D>

__________________
jwj

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

Jerry, I'll repost this here, since we're off the old threads and you never responded:

If that evidence has not convinced you, please consider this: if Huygens was being accelerated as much as you claim, how did NASA/ESA get any data at all?

Source: Wikipedia entry for Huygens

Given that fact, would not your extreme acceleration of Huygens result in an unexpectedly large Doppler shift of its radio signals? If Huygens had fallen as quickly as you say, NASA/ESA's trajectory adjustment would have been for naught, and the signal would have shifted enough that Cassini would have failed to properly decode the signal.

If your theory were correct, we would have received nothing but garbage signals from Cassini/Huygens during the probe's descent, especially as it rapidly approached the ground.

Instead, the best pictures were actually received once the probe pierced the cloud cover and continued falling to the ground.

How do you account for the fact that we received a clear signal all the way to the ground, given this?

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Very good question =D> As I understand it, the old trajectory had Cassini flying towards Titan, and it was this Doppler compression that created the bandwidth crisis. Ironically, if Huygens descended at the rate I still think it did, they may not have had a problem. As you posted, the solution put Cassini at a more-or-less right angle to the flight ofuy the probe, so the frequency differential was (obviously) not a problem: at a right angle, the rate of decline through the atmosphere has a minimal effect on the doppler shift, especially since Huygens spent most of the transmission window on the ground.

The best picture were shot while Huygens was less than fifty meters above the ground, taking pictures of stress cracks in frozen mud, just before she got her bell rung by the heat shield.

__________________
jwj

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

Jerry are you now saying that 20+ frames for the panoramic mosaic were taken in 3.7 seconds? That would be a frame time of .185s/frame ESA figures say those frames were shot between 12,000m and 8000m so I'm taking 1/3 of your 50m to complete one revolution at a decent speed of 4.5m/s, (back of envelope figures - do your own math if you like).

Also if the craft were rotating at 3.7s per revolution (16.2 RPM) can you explain how Huygens (wt=350kg, over 1/3 tonne!) didn't shear off it's landing gear and topple over on landing? That angular momentum would have to go somewhere.

You can't even compete with 'O' level Applied Mechanics, never mind Newton and Einstien. Give it up now before you embarass yourself further.

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

Any attention to him is good. It wouldn't matter if we actually knew him, in person. I'm sure he's very talkative and would probably be disarming. It just sucks thinking he's suckered his family into believing this garbage, much less the 'scientists' and 'engineers' who've incorrectly identified this image (rorshach style, I think someone alreaedy mentioned.)

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Can't you understand that the heatshield was gone hours ago hundreds of miles above and must have come down in a completely different place? What's the problem with understanding this?
Look at Opportunity, who just investigated its heatshield, which landed a few kilometers away from the rover's landing site. And it was released much lower and due to the thin atmosphere the dispersion between lander and heatshield wasn't that big as we now have the case on Titan.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

You are correct, if the Heatshield released at the altitude it was supposed to be released at, and not at 100-200 meters:

Two things: The probe was suppose to slow to less than 5 m/s well before before deploying the small parachute at 109km. Last time I checked, 109 km was still considered "upper atmosphere" so slowwing to "a little over 50m/s" is a little ambigous. What was her terminal velocity on the big parachute and and what altitude was it jettisoned? You have radar, you have Doppler, these are not the days of strip charts and slide rules? What was the descent profile of the Spirit and Opportunity missions, and why hasn't it been fully released?

There are no altitudes listed for the parachute deployment, the heat shield deployment, the start of the panarama, the landing time was first listed as firm, then as probable, and now omitted from the discussions. So far, we only know that the results are "interesting". Where is the Doppler data duplicated on from channel B? Where is the Earth based Doppler data? At what altitude was the heat shield released?

And we all wonder what happens next.

__________________
jwj

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

Huygens descent profile

and from ESA 18 Jan 2005

you can even watch the movie (Flash req.) on that second link!

I found those link in less than 2 minutes by Yahoo search 'huygens descent profile'. I assume Google would do as well.

So, where's the big secret Jerry?

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

That does not follow. The "solution {that} put Cassini at a more-or-less right angle" assumes that Huygens follows a trajectory based on a constant G gravity. If, instead, the probe fell faster, then the solution would have failed, Huygens would have fallen behind Cassini's movement, and we would have a stretched Doppler instead of a compressed one. There would no longer be a right-angle to compensate for the shift.

Stretched or compressed, it seems clear that the amount of Doppler is the problem. And it seems to me that your variable G with a faster descent would have introduced a higher Doppler than ESA/NASA had corrected for.

[-X

Repetition does not make a statement true.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Where did you get this number from? Have you cross-checked it?

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

You do realize that 5 m/s is about 18kph?

How is the probe supposed to slow down to that speed without something to slow it down? Please include a link when posting information like this. Your data is becoming very, very weak.

The Huygens probe had two parachutes, a large one and a small one. The probe switched parachutes partway through the descent (from the large to the small) so that the probe would reach the surface before the batteries ran out.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Thank you, that is very helpful. The information we have from ESA is that the ground-sensing radar locked in on the surface at ~40km, and that has given us a scaling factor (besides the near zero at the bottom). This gives us a sane number for the data compression cycles and it makes good sense.

The ground radar was suppose to start as soon as the heat shield was deployed, followed by a thirty second delay before the imaging cameras were turned on. This constrains the images to a maximum altitude of &lt; 40km, well below the ~150 km listed by ESA on their scrolling pictures. (I haven’t looked at the images for a while, they may have changed this.) It also leaves 37 seconds, not 3.7 seconds to acquire aerial shots during the descent. That is a sampling rate of ~ 2/second, and I think that is reasonable.

Thank you, but the first reference is to the planned sequence, not the actual, and does not provide enough detail. The second reference provides even less detail:

The radar data released contains only 37 seconds of descent information, after the secondary parachute was deployed. That is why it is very important for me to know if this is real-time data. Does any know if there is more information released about the radar imaging data, and if there is, where to get it?
I wish I could, and yes, it may be incorrect. The correct number is probably ~50m/s, as they have printed - I wish they would have listed the elevation at which this velocity was achieved, and how long Huygens 'drifted' under the main parachute at terminal velocity. The document I was getting the planned sequence of events from (http://www.rssd.esa.int/sb/huygens/d...7/tomask_1.pdf) has been pulled from the network, So I can’t provide a reference you to my source, sorry. If anyone knows where to find this level of detail, either planned or as executed, I would appreciate it.. The chart profile I have in hand (but cannot reference) shows a terminal velocity of ~ 5-10 m/s at ~ 18 k/m, and since the wind velocity was ~1.5 km horizontal on the surface, the rate should have decreased slightly from 18 km on down to the ground.

I know you are frustrated with my persistence, but we all have to be patient. As I posted on the ‘potential threat’ thread, there are real inconsistencies between the planned mission and the results. No, it does not mean I am right, but aside from the announced time that the mission ended, there is not one other piece of released data I am aware of that is definitive. Thank you again for your analysis and questions. They are both very helpful

__________________
jwj

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

Not extreme acceleration. The atmosphere does thicken, and what the probe had to do to survive was to reach mach 1.5 so that the main parachute deployed at an altitude greater than ~10 km, and then be near the surface with the three meter parachute deployed. If the probe spent any time at all (More than a minute) under the final, 3 meter parachute, the velocity should have been much greater on impact. Since the radar data we have in hand only has an indication of ~37 seconds under the second parachute, it is possible the main parachute was very close to the surface before the final parachute deployed. This would be, by any estimates, an amazing coincidence if this is what happened and allowed Huygens to survive.

__________________
jwj

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

...For a short time, both parachutes were suppose to be deployed, and I think it was during this stable configuration at ~ 109km that the first set of panoramic images was obtained. I had this 'suspended' descent rate at ~5m/sec, but it may have been planned at 40-50 m/sec, which at that altitude should have produced a fairly stable set of images. Yes, they could be lost in the clouds, but there are only a handful of images that are cloudy on all three cameras, indicating there were not many pictures taken at high altitude (if any).

__________________
jwj

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

But the data indicate that's simply not the case. This has already been posted elsewhere (by kucharek if memory serves**):

At the most recent press conference, Jean-Pierre Lebreton also confirmed that Huygens touched down at ~5 m/s. There will be additional data released in the future courtesy of the VLBI as it's analyzed and compiled.

** = edited to add: and additionally here by frogesque -- I didn't realize the other thread was still alive.

Wolverine

Yes the other thread is still alive, Jerry likes to switch threads and duck any issues when it suits him. I've called him on this. I posted that link on the other thread because he had stated that the landing time had not been revealed whereas in fact it has been given to the second. There has also been a lot of nonsence about descent profiles and 'chute deployment times.

Huygens hit methane clouds during descent and had a bit of a bumpy ride for a period (ever flown in an airoplane Jerry?). Because of that bumpy ride and rocking on the 'chute Jerry imagines the descent was all wrong and at the wrong angle and photographs that were taken between 12,000m and 8,000m and then scaled to construct a panoramic mosaic were, according to Jerry, taken at about 50m.

Every time he is shown evidence that his imaginations are incorrect he cries out that he wants more specific data from ESA and that they don't have a clue about their own results that they are interpreting and releasing as soon as the ESA team have digested that data and confirmed it. The data received from Huygens will keep folk busy for months and years as papers are written and published in peer journals. Jerry however thinks he can hand wave magic figures out of marsh gas and 'prove' that his own wild ideas are a new working structure for the universe (ignoring Newton and Einstein) when in fact he doesen't seem to have even a simple grasp of the elementary equations of linear motion never mind orbital mechanics.

I've carefully read the FAQs as they pertain to this board and whilst I can find no specific breach of the board rules I do feel the time has come for Jerry to explain why he is so wedded to such an improbable concept that has been proven to be wrong.

Jerry, just in case you have forgotten Huygens not only scored a bullseye on the target (Titan) but achieved a soft landing as near as could be planned to speed and schedule on a moon that had little prior surface and atmospheric data and a surface that was relatively opaque from space due to nitrogen/methane orange fog at high altitude. Also, in case you have forgotten, you said it would miss Titan because of your wild ideas about Titan's gravity. This board does not need discuss it further, you proved yourself wrong. Please accept that fact.

I also refer you to my signature

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

Looks like this question has conveniently been ignored so far. I guess we "understand" now.

__________________
"It worked in the movie!"
"Well it ain't workin' now, Frank!"
"You mean the movie LIED?"
- Return of the Living Dead

Seems quite a reasonable request to me. The gravimetrically-dense lady not only finished singing some time ago, but by this point has already begun work performing a different opera.

This is making less sense by the minute. Are you now saying that your variable G did not result in gravity "2 to 3 times expected," but simply that the parachutes opened late? And yet, the landing was not as hard as you say it should have been?

Or are you saying that the primary chute negated your increased gravity, and it was only when the probe relied solely on the secondary that it dropped faster?

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

The high altitude parachute had a surface area of just under 10 meters. Huygens road this down to a terminal velocity of &lt; 1m/s in very lower Titan atmosphere. That is why almost all the pictures are blurry closeups, you can even see the landing light in most of the ground shots, and it was turned on at 700, AFTER the optical images were supposed to be suspended on the down facing camara and the bandwidth dedicated to spectral data.

The final 3m parachute deployed within one minute of striking Titan. This is clear in the radar audio: Listen to the ground radar:

Time zero: Ground Radar searches for and locks in on Titan. after this there are about three pings spaced well apart. (Some of the sound tracks have omitted this signal)

12 Seconds: The scribbles in the ground radar are the heat shield being release.

~25 Seconds: The small parachute is deployed while Huygens is still suspended under the main chute and drops ~ 10 meters. The tension and the additional bouyancy actual elevate Hughens about a meter after the quick descent, and the descent rate drops. The heat shield is also dropped at this time, and it reflects some ot the radar signature.

28 Seconds: the heat shield deflects off of Huygens and rings her bell good: This drastically changes the swinging period, adding a rock to it.

~36 Seconds: The heat shield puts another blimp in the radar. Touchdown is 63 seconds after the initial deployement.

Once on Titan, the ground camera was turned back on, resulting in a whole bunch of pictures that only change when something white settled up against Huygen. It is so cool: I think you can see, in the ~45deg high resolution camera slowly crystalizing vapor (methane?) about the edges of the lens, after the landing light faded -

Sorry, I can't for obvious reasons: These are personal opinion, which clearly at the moment, belongs on the ATM board. (As I stated somewhere in this long dialog that I jumped to the mainstream to get the best supportive or nullifying argruments available.)

As it turns out, Huygens did not need my help - she had a built in survival mode that allowed her to look at the accelerations, descent rate and so forth, and bring herself in. I look forward to shaking the hands of those who wrote the algorythms. They were designed to address such issues as wind speed and who knows what, but they were broadly based enough to complete the mission...minus a few hundred suspended arials photographs.

These are personal opinions built on new physics, and it would be wrong and career-limiting to try to sell them under a corporate logo, or even from a university without peer review. We can discuss them all we want though, on the BABB - Thank you Phil!

__________________
jwj

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

This is clear in the radar audio: Listen to the ground radar:

Um...you didn't know that the radar soundbite is a compressed version of the total data? As in they sampled only a number of the echos for their soundbite. It's only representative as PART of the decent....not the entire thing. That way they don't have to release a 2 hour soundbite. As the esa website says:

"This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan."

I don't know how it can be much plainer....but it's hard to argue with one that only cares about HIS interpretation.

Once on Titan, the ground camera was turned back on, resulting in a whole bunch of pictures that only change when something white settled up against Huygen. It is so cool: I think you can see, in the ~45deg high resolution camera slowly crystalizing vapor (methane?) about the edges of the lens, after the landing light faded -

I've never seen speculation so so wrong....given that there are mosaics that compare landmarks from high altitude with those of lower altitude images.

http://spacenews.dancebeat.info/imag...ite_mosaic.jpg

http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/titan.html

As it turns out, Huygens did not need my help - she had a built in survival mode that allowed her to look at the accelerations, descent rate and so forth, and bring herself in. I look forward to shaking the hands of those who wrote the algorythms. They were designed to address such issues as wind speed and who knows what, but they were broadly based enough to complete the mission...minus a few hundred suspended arials photographs.

These are personal opinions built on new physics

What new physics? You haven't showed us any new physics! Maybe its issues with you Jerry; where your ego is so bloated that bruising it with what is clearly overwelming evidence against your crazy little notions will somehow destroy everything you've worked for. Hey I've got news for you....you're wrong...you were never right....and the more you post the more I believe that you're entire "reality" is nothing more than a fantasy of a guy who's world would crumble if he's wrong. And you can never be wrong can you Jerry. It would actually be funny if you weren't so serious with these stories you create.

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

Well, the mark of a true scientist is that questions that are posed to a true scientist are never answered. Pretty sure the number of unanswered questions to the original poster now number in double (if not triple) digits. Just for larfs perhaps someone should go through and count them. Then they'll know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

The OPer got to be like a mistracking CD or DVD (we used to say "broken record") quite a while back. I think we could leave this thread and come back in a few years, and feel as if we'd never left.

By the way, the sig is great. Never mix metaphors, you know, and avoid clichés like the plague. Heck, Lrrr would never do that!

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

If there is a broken record on these threads, it is the constant posting of useless name calling and juvenile accusations that is not furthering the discussion at all. Rather, it is making it very hard to get a good sense as to what questions are even being asked.

Quote below is from http://spacenews.dancebeat.info concerning the first link.

&lt;quote>"Please remember these images are not done by professionals with extensive scientific background."&lt;/quote>

Does any one know if this image has been verified by anyone with extensive scientific background?

By the way, the sig is great. Never mix metaphors, you know, and avoid clichés like the plague.

Hehe...thanks! It's from one of the best tv shows to ever grace the phosphorus screen.

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

Toothmonkey. If you can't follow the discussion its your own problem. If you fail to see everyone elses reasoning....its your own problem.

The link is just hosting the same mosaic that was hosted on a few sites.

Here is another mosaic link:

http://spacescience.ca/titan/points_...to_mosaics.jpg

Look at it for a second and tell me you don't see the landmark similarities. If I wouldn't know any better I'd say your Jerry trying to save face by creating an ally. But that's just my hypothesis :roll:

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