Anyone know where a good Uranus texture can be had?

BobHegwood · Post #41by **BobHegwood** » 12.12.2007, 20:06

Hungry4info wrote:It would make a great Alt texture!

Aw... Now THAT's just not fair... :wink:

You read my mind here apparently. If I can get the texture into shape
as it it supposed to look via the infrared, I'll do just that.

Thanks very much for the suggestion though. Took me a whole DAY to
arrive at your conclusion. :lol:

Thanks, Brain-Dead

Hungry4info · Post #42by **Hungry4info** » 15.12.2007, 18:45

BobHegwood wrote:Thanks very much for the suggestion though. Took me a whole DAY to arrive at your conclusion.

I am more than happy to help :wink:

TheStressPuppy · Post #43by **TheStressPuppy** » 31.12.2007, 09:35

That is a very nice texture for your 1st attempt. Much better than anything i could pull off.

I think some of the hubble and other equatorial shots of Uranus found on the web are misleading. The ones in the links above specify that they are shot in infrared light. While others at other sites do not. So people will think they are "natural" true color views.

I dont doubt that more details are visible now that Uranus's equator is almost edge on with the sun. The thing is how much more? The weather dynamics no doubt change with seasons. Despite the distance from the sun. When voyager 2 flew by i believe it was the south pole that was almost facing the sun. Along with the photochemical smog it made even enhanced, and infrared views bland, and featureless. Hubble cant duplicate voyager 2's resolution, but bands in the "natural" views are clearly visible though very faintly. How visible they would be "if" voyager 2 were there, and snapped a picture now would be anyones guess.

I think if you added more "haze" to the texture you would be pretty close. The bands should be barely visible if at all. Then you can overlay the alternate infrared view that shows the bands clearly standing out.

In any case what you done so far is nice work.

BobHegwood · Post #44by **BobHegwood** » 31.12.2007, 12:28

Thanks, but I'm afraid that I've put it on hold for a while. My duties
elsewhere are taking all of my time at the moment. Well, that and
I can't keep my mouth shut here. :wink:

buggs_moran · Post #45by **buggs_moran** » 31.12.2007, 14:12

You don't have to keep your mouth shut Bob. The only way to vet things out is to communicate. Many people rant and rave, they never learned to communicate...

Anyway, I remembered you saying that you lost your "true" color image above and I found these

and this Nasa one, rather dingy in appearance. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Uranus_Lithograph.html

BobHegwood · Post #46by **BobHegwood** » 31.12.2007, 14:24

Hey, thanks again Buggs...

Well poop. The planet IS kinda boring ain't it? :wink:

buggs_moran · Post #47by **buggs_moran** » 31.12.2007, 14:47

BobHegwood wrote:Hey, thanks again Buggs...

Well poop. The planet IS kinda boring ain't it?

Still a thing of beauty in my eyes... As Sagan said, (paraphrasing) knowing a thing qualitatively isn't as precious as knowing it quantitatively, grasping at some of the underlying mechanics is the true beauty.

Post #48by **selden** » 31.12.2007, 14:53

Boring???

Only in visible light!

The dynamics and chemistry driving the weather and cloud patterns on Uranus and Neptune are topics of ongoing research. Of course, having to do it remotely from the Earth means that the resolution isn't as good as they'd like, even when using adaptive optics: the images of the outer planets are only about 2 arc seconds across.

(Without adaptive optics, even the best ground based telescopes have a resolution of only about 1 arc second during the best seeing, when atmospheric turbulence is at a minimum. Adaptive optics compensating for the turbulence typically improves that to about 0.1 arc second.)

I find it somewhat amusing that they only bother with generating visual images when the seeing is too poor to be able to use spectrographs.

BobHegwood · Post #49by **BobHegwood** » 31.12.2007, 15:09

What I want to know is WHY the true-color images are always the
least-priority items on any investigation into the planets and their
respective moons. I agree that the science is very interesting, but
I want to see what the damned things LOOK like.

After all, they ARE my tax dollars being used to get there.

I think I'm gonna be grumpy today...

So, what else is new? :roll:

Post #50by **selden** » 31.12.2007, 15:17

Bob,

I think it's because there's nothing new to see

Both Neptune and Uranus are blue and green blobs: the clouds are deep enough that infrared is needed to see them.

Nastytang · Post #51by **Nastytang** » 01.01.2008, 11:38

BobHegwood wrote:What I want to know is WHY the true-color images are always the
least-priority items on any investigation into the planets and their
respective moons. I agree that the science is very interesting, but
I want to see what the damned things LOOK like.

After all, they ARE my tax dollars being used to get there.

I think I'm gonna be grumpy today...

So, what else is new?

I was wondering this my self!!!

I like to see what they both look like too but i`m wondering more about Uranus