
NASA’s Juno Spacecraft Sends First In-orbit View - srikar
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s-juno-spacecraft-sends-first-in-orbit-view
======
KnightOfWords
Glad Juno has made it and appears to be working OK. Not the most amazing
image, better ones are routinely taken by amateurs from earth, but the
crescent can only be seen by going there as Jupiter lies outside our orbit.
We'll see much closer views from Juno when it's moved to a closer orbit in
October.

I came across this on Reddit the other day, taken with a smartphone and 8"
telescope:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/4kegyv/sm...](https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/4kegyv/smartphone_jupiter_w_grs/)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>Stacked 400 best in Autostackert

This isn't a photo. It a photoshop fiction of 400 different photos blended
together. There's a big difference between that and a single frame from a
spacecraft. Comparing the two seems silly.

~~~
KnightOfWords
Hardly fictional, it's a pretty accurate representation of what Jupiter
actually looks like. The main reason for using this technique is because our
turbulent atmosphere blurs any image. Taking a video allows only a small
percentage of the clearest frames to be combined. A spacecraft doesn't have
this problem. The technique is called lucky imaging:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging)

Stacking improves signal-to-noise ratio but does not introduce details that
aren't present. A stacked image can be more accurate than a single frame as
camera artifacts are reduced.

~~~
zodPod
Really well said! Also, before reading your explanation, I was a little hazy
on how the image stacking thing worked. Now I understand a lot better. It's
like averaging to get all of the details to the forefront without the
oddities!

~~~
KnightOfWords
Glad you found it useful. If you haven't come across him before, this guy
takes some of the best planetary images:
[http://www.damianpeach.com/index.htm](http://www.damianpeach.com/index.htm)

------
tomlock
Here's a non-paywall link about the photo if anyone wants it:
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/juno-nasa-
spacecraft-s...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/juno-nasa-spacecraft-
sends-back-first-images-of-jupiter/7624916)

~~~
tdy721
Wait what? If you're seeing that NASA.gov has a paywall, you need to take a
close look at your (very infected) PC...

 _I now see that the link has been edited /changed_ Carry on!

------
neals
Are we going to get amazing Pluto-like images, like that chilling closeup?
They really impressed me A LOT. Or is Jupiter close enough for us to already
know enough about its surface?

~~~
jessriedel
Jupiter either doesn't have a solid surface, or it lies _very_ deep inside
(like 4/5ths of the way to the center). So there isn't any surface to see,
just clouds.

Juno will be passing within 3,000 miles of the tops of Jupiter's clouds. Since
Jupiter's radius is 43,000 miles, it will fill the entire frame. The only
question is how high-quality the camera is.

The camera is for public relations only (no science) and I don't know the
resolution. But this photo was taken from 2.7M miles, so you can expect the
resolution to get roughly 9 thousand times better.

EDIT:

> Jupiter itself will only appear to be 75 pixels across from JunoCam when
> Juno reaches the furthest point of its orbit around the planet. At its
> closest approaches JunoCam could achieve 15 km/pixel resolution from 4300
> km, while Hubble has taken images of up to 119 km/pixel from 600 million
> km....The camera uses a Kodak image sensor, the KODAK KAI-2020, capable of
> color imaging at 1600 x 1200 pixels. It has a field of view of 18 x 3.4
> degrees with three filters to provide color imaging.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam)

~~~
chaitanya
> At its closest approaches JunoCam could achieve 15 km/pixel resolution from
> 4300 km

In comparison, the highest resolution photos of Pluto from New Horizons
achieved 80 meters per pixel from a closest approach of 12500 km. Its amazing
how good the camera was on New Horizons.

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-best-close-up-
of-p...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-best-close-up-of-plutos-
surface)

~~~
jessriedel
No doubt New Horizon's camera was phenomenal for the mission, but I'm actually
not sure how good it was compared to something you could do with a terrestrial
lens. (There are lots of compromises when you go to space.) Juno's camera is
very modest by design: It's a wide-field of view and only a few megapixels, so
basically a cell-phone camera.

~~~
jonknee
> It's a wide-field of view and only a few megapixels, so basically a cell-
> phone camera.

It's not similar to a cell phone camera at all. Cell phone cameras are usually
much higher resolution (current iPhone is 8 megapixels vs the 2 for Juno), but
with a much smaller sensor (iPhone cam has a 1.5µm pixel size vs 7.4µm for
Juno).

~~~
jessriedel
Um, so the best cell phone camera on the market is within a factor of 2 in
linear resolution? I think that qualifies as "basically".

~~~
jonknee
Resolution has very little to do with it. Many images from NASA are stitched,
even the ones from New Horizons. The important part is light sensitivity (in
the correct wavelengths!) and making sure that it can work in the radiation of
Jupiter.

You can go buy a camera with the same sensor if you'd like, but they're
expensive:

[http://www.qsimaging.com/620-overview.html](http://www.qsimaging.com/620-overview.html)

I believe it's the same sensor that flew on the Curiosity mission and we all
know those photos are fantastic. They are also flight tested, invaluable for
missions like this where you only get one shot at it.

~~~
jessriedel
As you'll see if you look above, it was _you_ who brought about the size of
the sensor when critiquing my comment, which was addressing resolution.

You also seem to feel the need to defend Juno, as if I was attacking it
somehow, so I don't think this conversation can be very productive.

~~~
mturmon
Yes, I think the casual "basically a cell-phone camera" comment you made, way
above, has been taken to mean "it's a POS".

But, as you have made clear, you were just making a statement about the
combination of wide field-of-view (i.e., the optics) and the number of pixels,
which both figure in to resolution. (By contrast with the New Horizons LORRI
instrument, which had a very narrow FOV, because they did not approach Pluto
closely.)

If one takes a breath and re-reads what you wrote, this meaning is evident. On
the other hand, it's very easy to mis-interpret what you wrote.

~~~
jessriedel
Your thoughtful refereeing here is much appreciated :)

------
GonzoBytes
I am astonished that humans can do this technology. Here I am looking at these
pics a flying robot snapped from 4M+ km away from Jupiter?!

I wish they mark these pics with some pictographs regarding the scale of
things. Like something comparing the orbital distances between the moons and
Jupiter itself to that of Earth's orbital distance to the Sun or something. I
cannot comprehend 4 million kilometers (which I know is Juno's distance to
Jupiter, not the moons' orbital distance..). I have trouble wrapping my mind
around just 4 km.

~~~
ceejayoz
For scale, Io is almost the same distance from Jupiter as the Moon is from
Earth - about 400,000 kilometers.

That's about 0.3% the distance of Earth to the Sun.

For a good sense of how enormous these differences are, try the video "Riding
Light" \- [https://vimeo.com/117815404](https://vimeo.com/117815404) \-
Jupiter shows up at the 43:10 mark (Earth's at 8:17, for size comparison).

------
jsingleton
This is cool. Jupiter is easy to spot with the naked eye, as it's the second
brightest object in the night sky after Venus (obviously, excluding the moon
when lit). You can even see some of its moons with some basic optics.

To think there is a probe there now is a pretty powerful image to inspire
children. Something we couldn't do with the recent Pluto visit, as awesome as
that was.

~~~
ceejayoz
A six-inch scope in your backyard gets you this:
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/ceejayoz/26513799722/in/album-...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ceejayoz/26513799722/in/album-72157667505352545/)

My daughter's massively into space, and having a mid-size telescope (Celestron
NexStar 6SE) has been truly wonderful. There's something really different
about seeing it for yourself even if the picture isn't as good as one from a
probe.

~~~
Buttons840
I was camping under a clear sky with friends and asked, "has anyone seen
another planet with their own eyes?" and explained I meant seen any detail
through a telescope. Nobody had. I resolved start some amature astronomy then.

Any suggestions on how to start?

~~~
ceejayoz
The sidebar of
[https://www.reddit.com/r/astronomy](https://www.reddit.com/r/astronomy) has a
bunch of useful articles on getting started. Just be warned that it's one of
those hobbies that can get really expensive if you lack impulse control - "I
need a new eyepiece! And a few more inches of aperture! And a better mount!"
starts to pile up if you really enjoy it. :-D

~~~
david-given
It's also not something you can really save money on, as I have discovered,
alas --- the bottom end telescopes are _terrible_ : wobbly mounts and feeble
optics. Frequently you get shoddy magnification eyepieces that are far too
powerful for the light collection ability of the telescope and as a result you
get this tiny, smeary image that won't stay in focus and every time you try to
adjust anything you lose your target.

However, you can do great things with a good pair of binoculars (and a steady
hand). You can resolve planetary discs, pick out the moons of Jupiter, spot
Neptune and Uranus if you're good (although I never have) and exploring the
surface of the moon is endlessly fascinating. And if you're really desperate,
you can look at birds through them.

------
kchoudhu
I understand the importance of this mission, but after the Curiosity skycrane,
the Pluto flyby and the Rosetta orbiter, I'm really jonesing for something
_cool_.

What else is in the pipeline?

~~~
sophacles
This brings to mind a moment in the movie _Apollo 13_ , where one of the
supporting characters says something to the effect of: "Leave it to NASA to
make a moon landing boring".

I think it says a lot of great things about NASA that people consider putting
a satellite in orbit around Jupiter to be routine. Further great things from
the fact that they really want NASA to stop being "boring" and invent some
crazy new thing and push the boundaries of what humans think is realistically
possible _again_ \- after all its been like a _whole year_ since they blew our
minds last time.

All for the low price of ~.03 militaries. (Not including the fact that NASA
does some stuff for the military...)

~~~
ianai
I propose the unit of militaries as a new standard measurement.

~~~
mediocrejoker
The problem is that 0.03 militaries is 30 millimilitaries.

Or maybe that's not a problem.

~~~
twic
30 microtaries.

------
csl
I'm always wondering if such images are in false color. Does anyone know about
this one?

~~~
Sanddancer
JunoCam's full color --
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam)

------
mixedmath
> On later orbits, Juno will continue photographing the poles, but where else
> the camera will focus will be open to a popular vote by the public.

NASA has been pretty active in public outreach. The article indicates that
Juno takes something like 4 photos an hour. I wonder whether it will be 1
photo for the public to 3 photos for science, or totally different?

~~~
flippyhead
Yeah I hand't realized they did this. Pretty cool! I hope the boaty mcboatface
people don't get wind of it. They might crash it into the big red spot!

------
cornholio
I understand JunoCam is a public outreach tool. But if it provides much worse
resolution than Hubble from inside Jupiter's orbit, it's basically useless
even for that. I don't know if the cam is the problem or the transmission
bandwidth, one thing is clear, when serios science starts there will be much
less bandwidth available to send sharp and cool photos.

That's what you get from a solar powered probe. We waste billions of dollars
and unique opportunities because some people have gotten in their minds that
RTG power is evil and dangerous. NASA even canceled the ASRG, based on the
Stirling engine, which was 5 times more efficient in terms of radioactive
material and would have allowed powering probes for the whole solar system.
Imagine a Pluto rover !

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>gotten in their minds that RTG power is evil and dangerous

RTG usage is curbed due to NASA's low supply of plutonium-238. Until more is
made it makes sense to design for solar powered systems. Also these are risky
missions with high pricetags and erring on the side of caution using well
known technologies isn't some big conspiracy. Its to avoid high-profile fails.
We can try new and risky stuff in lower profile missions.

Heck, Curiosity was launched just a few years ago and has 11lbs of plutonium
powering its RTG. I hardly see a conspiracy here. Also RTGs add weight and
cost to projects. If you don't need one, you probably shouldn't be using one -
even ignoring their rarity. Missions like Juno get significant weight savings
using solar.

>I don't know if the cam is the problem or the transmission bandwidth,

The quality of the photo has to do with the distance from Jupiter. It has
nothing to do with "power." This is a spacecraft, not a gaming PC. Yes more
power would mean a higher bitrate, but the bitrate it uses is good enough for
the mission.

~~~
mikeash
Juno is the first use of solar panels for a probe going that far out. You're
right that they want to err on the side of caution using well-known technology
to minimize risk. But you're missing the fact that RTGs _are_ that well-known
risk-minimized technology.

If solar panels saved weight, they would have been used on past missions like
Galileo. Better solar panel technology will eventually shift the balance, but
we're not there yet. Juno's panels weigh 340kg. Galileo's two RTGs, which
produced about the same amount of power at Jupiter, weighed 57kg each.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I was referring to the new stirling engine RTG. According to wikipedia, NASA
doesn't see it being used in a mission for another decade or two due to
further testing and certification.

I wasn't aware solar was so heavy. Thanks for the info.

~~~
mikeash
Inverse square is a harsh mistress. With only 4% the insolation at Jupiter as
you get at Earth, you need a _lot_ of panels.

Stirling RTGs sound very interesting but I'd be really worried about
reliability. Definitely needs lots of work and testing to be confident in it!

------
wigster
seems very blurry. Hopefully sharper ones to come.

~~~
rimantas
But don't expect any images better than Galileo sent. Camera was not a
priority for Juno.

~~~
andyjohnson0
There is some basic info on the vehicle and its payload at [1]. "The
spacecraft will also carry a color camera, called JunoCam, to provide the
public with the first detailed glimpse of Jupiter's poles." \- so like you
say, not a priority. More on JunoCam at [2].

[1]
[https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.htm...](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JunoCam)

------
e12e
From NASA (no paywall, more info on mission):

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s-juno-spacecraft-
send...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s-juno-spacecraft-sends-first-
in-orbit-view)

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we updated the link from
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/science/juno-sends-
first-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/science/juno-sends-first-image-
back-while-orbiting-jupiter.html).

