Slashdot Mirror
Earth and Moon From an Alien's Perspective
krygny writes "NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft (whose extended mission is called EPOXI) has created a video of the moon transiting Earth as seen from 31 million miles away. Scientists are using the video to develop techniques to study alien worlds. 'Our video shows some specific features that are important for observations of Earth-like planets orbiting other stars,' said Drake Deming of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center... 'A "sun glint'" can be seen in the movie, caused by light reflected from Earth's oceans, and similar glints to be observed from extrasolar planets could indicate alien oceans. Also, we used infrared light instead of the normal red light to make the color composite images, and that makes the land masses much more visible.'" Here are links to the two videos, one red-green-blue and the other infrared-green-blue.
Perhaps I am, but 31,000,000 miles doesn't seem that far away from an astronomical perspective - in fact it seems pretty darn close. A single light-year is about 5,878,625,373,183.61 miles (from Wiki), so 31M miles is roughly 1/190,000 of a light year.
The nearest star is ~4.2 light years away, so our potential alien visitor would have to travel a very long way towards us (and in that case why not come the last 0.0001% of the journey!) before this was a useful property.
Now I realise you can only take a video from as far away as your spacecraft really is, but I'd expect to see extrapolations to realistic distances before you start to claim things like "Making a video of Earth from so far away helps the search for other life-bearing planets in the Universe". - that's a bold claim, after all. I'm sure there's a standard line somewhere about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence to back them up...
I dunno, perhaps I'm just a grumpy old physicist, but there's all sorts of effects that only come into play at astonomical-scale distances (and the relativistic-scale speeds that commonly occurs between bodies that far apart), I guess I'd like to have seen more data and less hand-waving.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I wish Sagan could be here to see this.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
I was going to post the usual attempt at witty snarkiness, but then I actually watched the video... seeing the Moon actually moving around the Earth like that, it actually made my heart skip a beat. Seeing us that way with my own eyes someday, as unlikely as it may be, is something I really long for.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
That's cool but then again, I'm a sucker for any movie I'm actually in.
..I can see my house from there!
Huh? Did he just say that habitable planets must have large moons? (I've heard a similar argument before - something about two widely spaced bodies keeping the big one from wobbling too much.)
...harmless
Whoops, reached my limit for "That's no moon" comments in a single day. No no, don't get up. I'll show myself out.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Also, we used infrared light instead of the normal red light to make the color composite images, and that makes the land masses much more visible.
Sigh...everything's gotta be special effects these days...
Have you read my blog lately?
The importance isn't the image itself. It's how the image changes with time, including the rotation of the earth changes the reflected light and the position of the moon.
There are certain things we can guess, but in trying to build a model of how to observe other Earth-like planets from a distance, an actual observation, even from a much shorter distance, can improve the technology many times over.
In the end, when we look for extra-solar planets, we aren't looking for pretty images, we're looking for funny effects that are observable from a nearly singular point of light: regular variances in intensity, spectrum, polarization, etc..
Likewise, if someday we could do a similar study from one of our probes that's managed to get out of the solar system, that would improve the model another order of magnitude, accounting for other variables in the observation.
I saw Sunshine and I know what you mean, but this is different. This is REAL. That is what the Earth and the Moon actually look like, it's not a CG simulation.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
.mov is QuickTime, which is old and not proprietary; I have a book here describing the format. However, that's just the container format; it's the codecs commonly used within QT these days that are proprietary.
And according to mplayer, the codecs used here are mp4v for video, and aac for audio. In other words, (tada!) MPEG.
When we look up at the moon, it moon looks like a pretty bright, reflective object. But in images containing both the earth and moon, you can see that the moon looks positively dim and dingy compared to the cloud-covered portions of Earth.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
VLC will play them.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Sound is a pressure wave...so yeah, it is loud near the Sun. This was discussed on The Universe (History Channel).
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Yup, but to me (and damn near 100% of everyone else), you're really close to nothing. Outside of this planet, you're even closer to nothing.
Hence, insignificance.
That was the stupidest movie since Red Planet [imdb.com].
http://www.sci-fi-online.50megs.com/2006_Interviews/07-08-27_brian-cox.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
"I've discovered this whole new set of people - science fan boys - that I didn't know existed, really. They're interesting. Their almost fundamentalists, in a way. They are much more pedantic than professional scientists. I just interact with professional scientists most of the time and I must say, I've said this a couple of times now, but I've found the scientists that I like to work with particularly - there's a particular type of person I enjoy working with in science - all those went to see Sunshine and loved it. They thought that the portrayal of the physicist was wonderful and the emotional impact that science can have on you - the real reason you want to be a scientist - they found that really vivid in the film and enjoyed it a lot.
But then I see scientists that I think are dull - w*nkers you could call them [laughs] - who have seen it and didn't like it. I can almost use it as a way of working out who I want to work with. I'd say: "Watch this, and tell me what you think of it". If they don't like it, then I don't want to work with them [laughs].
It's very interesting. These guys that get really pedantic are really, I think, missing the point about what science is all about. It's about precision, when you're doing it. So when you're doing research it's all about precision and attention to detail and that's the difficult bit, and that's what you learn how to do. But deciding what research field you want to do, and having really good ideas about what to go and measure, and what to try and find out, that's a creative process. I think a lot of the pedants kinda miss that.
Like you say, Sunshine is not a documentary. It's trying to just, in an hour and forty minutes, get across a feeling of what it's like - not only to be a scientist, because obviously there's much more in it than that. So, I found it interesting to watch the kind of people that get upset because the gravity is wrong."
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It seems that the moon doesn't orbit the earth around the equatorial plane but rather the ecliptic. There's a description here and a nice diagram showing the planes here
Hi, ScienceTim here, from the EPOXI team. Let me correct some misconceptions. The purpose of this experiment is to make a measurement of the Earth's spectrum at low spectroscopic resolution that allows us to simulate what an observer would detect from outside the solar system. Although we have spatial resolution in this movie, our scientific results will be obtained by adding up all the light in each of our filters in order to explore the ability to deduce properties of the Earth in unresolved data (we actually have 7 filters, not just the 4 that we show, plus a near-IR spectrometer). This information can be used to evaluate the engineering requirements for future space missions that will have the actual purpose of detecting and characterizing extrasolar terrestrial planets. Such a mission will be able to collect very few photons, so it will be required to do its job with very limited information. Why not just simulate the Earth computationally, since we know a great deal about it? We do this, of course. Converting our detailed knowledge into an accurate simulation is not straightforward, however. Radiative-transfer techniques employ a variety of approximations, depending on the situation, and those approximations may require us to know something that would not be available for an actual extrasolar planet -- as an easy example, the pressure scale height is important for some methods. The EPOXI observation, and others like it that we acquired on earlier and later dates, provide an empirical test for those models. Once we have an empirically-tested model verified, we can apply the techniques from that model to the problem of modeling the apparent spectrum of nearly-Earthlike and not-at-all Earthlike terrestrial planets. Keep in mind that this measurement is an interesting and useful exercise in the value of empirical test, but it is not the primary mission element. Currently, the primary mission element is observations of stars with known planets, to investigate these systems more deeply. We will finish in another month or so. Then we cruise for about a year, then we have a close flyby of another comet, after which the mission will be over. We have lots of good stuff coming.
The Earth's axis is tilted 23 degrees from the plane of its orbit. The Moon's orbit is much closer to the same plane as the Earth-Moon orbit of the Sun.
http://epoxi.umd.edu/4gallery/Earth-Moon_vid.shtml You can view the animated gifs in your browser.
Holy cow, it's Uwe Boll imitating Buckaroo Banzai. That explains everything.
The problem with the film isn't the ridiculous number of creative liberties taken with physics. It's the fact that of all the highly qualified, professional people who would undoubtedly volunteer in droves to save the world, the crew is made up of a bunch of unstable, narcissistic emo whiners, and the ship is designed in such a way to give them endless opportunities to fail. It's a slow horror movie, and like all bad horror movies, the suspense is driven by the stupidity of the characters.