by NoelC » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:34 pm
I suspect the image was assembled digitally, without excessive regard to the position in the moon in the frames other than those where it is partially occulted. It may not have even been possible to discern the features of the moon in most of the Saturn exposures.
On another topic, related to this same image set...
Both the Moon and Saturn are sunlit, right?
Is Saturn showing up in the non-normalized images so much dimmer than the moon because it is just much farther away from the sun than is the Moon? I have always been under the impression that the surface brightness of two things equally bright will be the same at any distance; the further object will just look smaller. So this implies Saturn is less brightly lit, which makes sense.
I know the Moon isn't very reflective; it's reflectivity has been compared to an asphalt roadway. And Saturn's rings ARE supposed to be quite reflective, being comprised of ice crystals.
I think I've answered my own question here.
-Noel
I suspect the image was assembled digitally, without excessive regard to the position in the moon in the frames other than those where it is partially occulted. It may not have even been possible to discern the features of the moon in most of the Saturn exposures.
On another topic, related to this same image set...
Both the Moon and Saturn are sunlit, right?
Is Saturn showing up in the non-normalized images so much dimmer than the moon because it is just much farther away from the sun than is the Moon? I have always been under the impression that the surface brightness of two things equally bright will be the same at any distance; the further object will just look smaller. So this implies Saturn is less brightly lit, which makes sense.
I know the Moon isn't very reflective; it's reflectivity has been compared to an asphalt roadway. And Saturn's rings ARE supposed to be quite reflective, being comprised of ice crystals.
I think I've answered my own question here.
-Noel