Yeah, kind of - each scan line is taken almost instantaneously (like a camera's shutter), then after a short delay the next line is taken. What you see in the next line is a question of how much the point the camera is pointing at has moved, and of any changes in what the camera is looking at.
If it's flying over a piece of ground that's not moving then the result is a straighforward picture of that piece of ground (the displacement in time is irrelevant because the object hasn't changed during the period the picture was being captured)
If it was pointing directly at the same point (or I should say line) on the ground while a (pretty big) mars rover drove past, each line would capture a different part of the rover and you'd end up with a perfectly decent picture of the rover (assuming it was moving with constant speed it wouldn't be distorted either)
There's nothing to prevent either of these pictures being perfectly focussed and not at all blurred. Taking a picture of this fly-by is more complex because both the object and the camera are moving (admittedly this depends on your frame of reference, but let's keep this as simple as possible!). This is what leads to there being two images (mirror image as the object overtakes the camera, then normal image as the camera overtakes the object) in the frame, but the principle is the same - there's no reason to expect the picture to be blurred.
It should be a mirror image, providing the aspect of the object hasn't changed between the two passes across the image.
Think of the picture a graph, the vertical axis being in space and the the horizontal being in time. The camera is spinning, so the bit of space it's looking at is moving, but the thing it's photograping is moving too. As the diagram on the NASA site explains, the object first overtakes the spinning camera, then as it moves further away and it's apparent speed slows, the camera overtakes it again.
Imagine you're on the motorway, looking out of the the side window as a truck overtakes you. First thing you see is the front, then the back of it as it goes past. It slows down and you pass it - first thing you see is the back, then the finally the front. This is why you'd expect the two images to be mirrored wrt each other.
But, if the object is rotating as well (and in fact at closest approach you'd be seeing it from the side while the further away it goes the more you'd be seeing it from behind so in the frame of reference of the camera it is rotating even if it's not rotating wrt to the ground below it) then the aspect could change and cancel out the expected mirroring.
The fact that the apparent length of the boom on the side relative to the height of the craft changes between the pictures suggests that the the craft probably has rotated, but it would have to have done so by enough that the boom appears to be on the _other_ side of the craft to account for the image. Tin hat brigade, over to you...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, kind of - each scan line is taken almost instantaneously (like a camera's shutter), then after a short delay the next line is taken. What you see in the next line is a question of how much the point the camera is pointing at has moved, and of any changes in what the camera is looking at. If it's flying over a piece of ground that's not moving then the result is a straighforward picture of that piece of ground (the displacement in time is irrelevant because the object hasn't changed during the period the picture was being captured) If it was pointing directly at the same point (or I should say line) on the ground while a (pretty big) mars rover drove past, each line would capture a different part of the rover and you'd end up with a perfectly decent picture of the rover (assuming it was moving with constant speed it wouldn't be distorted either) There's nothing to prevent either of these pictures being perfectly focussed and not at all blurred. Taking a picture of this fly-by is more complex because both the object and the camera are moving (admittedly this depends on your frame of reference, but let's keep this as simple as possible!). This is what leads to there being two images (mirror image as the object overtakes the camera, then normal image as the camera overtakes the object) in the frame, but the principle is the same - there's no reason to expect the picture to be blurred.
It should be a mirror image, providing the aspect of the object hasn't changed between the two passes across the image.
Think of the picture a graph, the vertical axis being in space and the the horizontal being in time. The camera is spinning, so the bit of space it's looking at is moving, but the thing it's photograping is moving too. As the diagram on the NASA site explains, the object first overtakes the spinning camera, then as it moves further away and it's apparent speed slows, the camera overtakes it again.
Imagine you're on the motorway, looking out of the the side window as a truck overtakes you. First thing you see is the front, then the back of it as it goes past. It slows down and you pass it - first thing you see is the back, then the finally the front. This is why you'd expect the two images to be mirrored wrt each other.
But, if the object is rotating as well (and in fact at closest approach you'd be seeing it from the side while the further away it goes the more you'd be seeing it from behind so in the frame of reference of the camera it is rotating even if it's not rotating wrt to the ground below it) then the aspect could change and cancel out the expected mirroring.
The fact that the apparent length of the boom on the side relative to the height of the craft changes between the pictures suggests that the the craft probably has rotated, but it would have to have done so by enough that the boom appears to be on the _other_ side of the craft to account for the image. Tin hat brigade, over to you...