NASA to send life-hunting drone to Saturn moon

https://e3.365dm.com/19/06/1600x900/...20190628105030

NASA's 'Dragonfly' probe is scheduled to launch in 2026, landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan eight years later.

NASA is sending a rotorcraft to Saturn's ice moon Titan to continue its search for the "building blocks of life".

The new mission could "revolutionise what we know about life in the universe", the US space agency said.

The Dragonfly has eight rotors and "flies like a large drone".

It will take off on "multiple sorties" and "examine sites around Saturn's icy moon". It is due to launch in 2026 and arrive in 2034.

Titan is considered important because it is thought to be an "analogue to the very early Earth", NASA added. It may therefore give clues about how life arose here.

https://news.sky.com/video/nasa-plan...-moon-11750590

looking for life in 2034 !

With so much deception and fakery from NASA, it's hard to get excited about anything they purport doing. How much is real? To quote or paraphrase the Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement ".

I want to believe these missions are real, as they are of great interest to me.

Such contradictions everywhere.. "We went to the Moon", "We threw away all of the technology that got us to the Moon"... "We are going to Mars", and everyone is now forming communities to better be equipped to handle such a trip..

Yet Nasa wants us to believe that were sending all of these drones, and satellites out into space to capture images. Yet all we ever get back is CGI images.. Even the photo of the Moon rotating around the Earth claimed to be an actual image, was CGI. I feel like I am stuck in a maze, and rather than getting closer to the exit, someone is just adding more paths to the maze as I wander through it. It's frustrating at best.

I love the way they will show an image of a location such as the one provided here for the article. It sets the tone of what we should be able to expect when we get the "Actual images" from Titan. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they recirculate it in a few years as the actual landing.

Perhaps I am becoming jaded about such things, but finding truth these days is becoming more difficult, rather than easier. With those supposedly the authority in such things themselves, steering people sideways.

It would be nice if more people that had the truth about such things would actually come forward and start talking.

Saying something is CGI (computer-generate imagery) is not helpful. Virtually every picture from every modern camera does this. They all have vast computer processing algorithms and circuitry to compute colors, exposures, HDR and many many effects. Every pixel is generated by using computers. Satellite imagery is even more difficult as light is not as abundant in the outer planets, especially on Titan, so ALL images undergo very heavy post processing and stitching and after manually choosing a "pleasing" image only then the images or animations are released. If you look at the "raw" images, they will be most unspectacular and even less pleasing or informative.

Here is an example of a raw image straight from one of the sensor of Cassini's camera (there are many sensors - images are always post process and composited) for Titan.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/.../N00289209.jpg

Not very pleasing or informative right

Quote:

---

Posted by Intranuclear

Saying something is CGI (computer-generate imagery) is not helpful. Virtually every picture from every modern camera does this. They all have vast computer processing algorithms and circuitry to compute colors, exposures, HDR and many many effects. Every pixel is generated by using computers. Satellite imagery is even more difficult as light is not as abundant in the outer planets, especially on Titan, so ALL images undergo very heavy post processing and stitching and after manually choosing a "pleasing" image only then the images or animations are released. If you look at the "raw" images, they will be most unspectacular and even less pleasing or informative.

Here is an example of a raw image straight from one of the sensor of Cassini's camera (there are many sensors - images are always post process and composited) for Titan.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/.../N00289209.jpg

Not very pleasing or informative right

---

Yeah its a hard thing to explain to people ... But you are 100% correct. It is true that pretty much all images of earth from space are composites, or extreme fish-eye views. The reasoning is super simple to someone, like myself, who has a firm grasp of photography, videography, light physics, and perspective, as well as satellite orbit distances etc. Obviously I can't teach all that to everyone who doesn't understand why almost all images of the earth are composites, or to falt-earthers delight, use fisheye lenses.

Here's a VR video of what earth looks like from space in low earth orbit (LEO): One can click and drag the image to see around. It should be understandable from this video why composites or a an extremely wide angle lens (sometimes called a fisheye lens) is absolutely required to get all earth in one image ...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=53PvDEkgbno

Not all the photos of Mars are CGI, but some are radar height-maps and satellite texture maps combined together, the way google earth has to do it on earth -- the same is done with the moon sometimes ... and for the same reasons.

But I digress from the thread topic ...

Thanks DeDukshyn for the video. It's wonderful.

Quote:

---

Posted by Intranuclear

Saying something is CGI (computer-generate imagery) is not helpful. Virtually every picture from every modern camera does this.

---

Context is everything.
Sure, most images we see today were generated from a computer's camera (or a camera equipped with computer technology), thus CGI.

The term 'CGI' however has taken on a whole new meaning of its own today.
The term is frequently used as a short-hand form of 'CGI fakery'.

In the context of Denise's post, I believe this is what she is simply alluding to.

Quote:

---

Posted by DaveToo

Quote:

---

Posted by Intranuclear

Saying something is CGI (computer-generate imagery) is not helpful. Virtually every picture from every modern camera does this.

---

Context is everything.
Sure, most images we see today were generated from a computer's camera (or a camera equipped with computer technology), thus CGI.

The term 'CGI' however has taken on a whole new meaning of its own today.
The term is frequently used as a short-hand form of 'CGI fakery'.

In the context of Denise's post, I believe this is what she is simply alluding to.

---

Thank You ...That is exactly what I meant..

Perhaps NASAs deception and trickery is rooted more so in public imagination. There will always be those who dispute conventional interpretations while exaggerating scientific debates out of all proportion. It doesn't how much is or isn't "real" if nothing is taken at face value..at what point do you stop believing?