Slashdot Mirror


Amateurs Beat Space Agencies To Titan Pictures

loconet writes "Nature.com is reporting that a group of enthusiastic amateurs managed to process raw images of Titan from the Huygens probe faster that any of the giant space agencies in charge of the mission. Terragen, a freeware program that converts the basic brightness data in aerial pictures into a topographical map, to generate the ground-level vista was used."

7 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Without quality control... by topham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Without quality control it's usually possible to beat a company, or organization to the punch.

    (And doesn't mean it is necessarily inferior in quality either).

    But it is a little unfair.

  2. No surprise there... by chris09876 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm impressed with them..., but it's not a surprise really. With the raw data images being released as soon as they were made available, anyone who was interested enough could begin processing them immediately. I doubt NASA/ESA thought it was a race. But still, great job for them! They probably did it for a fraction of the cost that the big agencies needed to process the images ;-) So much beaurocracy..

    1. Re:No surprise there... by TiredGamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not quite right. Remember a lot of scientists' careers ride on the precision of processing here, whereas these amateur guys aren't going to lose face. There's a lot more here than pretty picture, and in science speed can lead to errors.

      --
      No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
    2. Re:No surprise there... by kiltedtaco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They probably also have a fraction of the scientific validity. Dealing with these images is not easy. I assure you the scientists who were working on the mission are just as anxious to look at the data they collected as these other people. But pretty pictures, which are about all these people have created, are crap for scientific purposes.

      I've never dealt with images like they're using. And I won't. But I have dealt with astronomical spectroscopy, and I know that without the right calibration images, without knowing the details of the instrument, and the exact conditions of the exposure, your results are useless.

      Will these images get by a peer-review journal? Not a chance in hell. Extracting meaning from these data is a challenging and long undertaking, and I sure don't trust a "casual astronomer" to do it.

  3. Faster == better ? by RWerp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:
    Liekens does caution that not all of the pictures will be scientifically reliable, something that ESA and NASA obviously have to take care over.

    "We're impressed with their ability and enthusiasm, and looked at their images with great interest," says Bashar Rizk, part of the Huygens imaging team from the University of Arizona, Tucson.

    A key paragraph. Does fater always means better? Before we jump on the NASA/ESA bashing bandwagon, we should remember that both are renowned scientific institutions that gain reputation not by doing everything as fast as possible, but as accurately and precisely as possible.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  4. Re:Open source space program, anyone? by brian.glanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Distributed contributions' are turning many industries on their heads; think of music and more lately the creep into entertainment at large, for example, Napster on.

    Science, even space science, has not been exempt from these sweeping changes even as those guarding the capitalistic infrastructure are, frankly, more intelligent and capable than those guarding 'entertainment' have been. It ought not to be that I need pay US$thousands to simply read scientific articles in the Journal of _______. The Internet exists because scientists pushed ahead (in the military's wake) in the name of information sharing. In protecting their overpaid publishers' investors, fat Universities and other players minting on controlled access to knowledge, the scientists have to some extent let us all down.

    I'd very well expect more significant contributions from 'amateurs' and including the crowd here, were the general quest for knowledge less constrained by capitalism. We have all the tools at our fingertips, literally, to undo more of the corporatism we can refer to roughly as 'closed source'. It's up to the real players though, the scientists themselves, to do as they have done here. Way to go, ESA. Viva la revolucion.

    BG

  5. Re:Amateurs? by dark_requiem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These guys are amateurs. They admit that they're not trying to compete for scientific accuracy with the major space organizations, and that they have taken creative licence with the coloring of these images, and that the details may be inaccurate. If they were trying to do a professional job of processing these images, with an emphasis on accuracy, then they would be doing a professional job, and you would refer to them as professionals. Since they are taking creative licence with the images, and admit to the distinct possiblity of inaccuracies, they are considered amateurs.