Voyager 1 - image of 'Pale Blue Dot'

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tebor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dot Image Voyager
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the image known as the 'Pale Blue Dot' taken by Voyager 1, focusing on why Earth appears bright from such a distance and the absence of visible stars and other celestial objects in the image. Participants explore the implications of distance, light reflection, and the nature of the photograph itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Earth's brightness is due to its size and ability to reflect light, while others speculate that the image may contain stars that are not visible due to the camera's positioning and exposure.
  • One participant notes that the apparent absence of stars could be attributed to the odds of capturing a bright star within the small field of view of the image, estimating a low probability based on the number of stars brighter than a certain magnitude.
  • Another participant points out that the image is a composite of three different photographs taken with color filters, which may contribute to the perception of light streaks being misidentified as asteroid belts.
  • There is a discussion about the technical aspects of measuring angles in degrees and square degrees, with participants clarifying how these measurements relate to the apparent size of celestial objects like the moon.
  • Some participants express confusion about the context of the image, including the distinction between Voyager 1's 'Pale Blue Dot' and other images taken by different missions, such as Cassini.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the visibility of stars in the image and the interpretation of light streaks. There is no consensus on the reasons for the absence of other celestial objects, and multiple competing explanations are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about the distance of Voyager 1 from Earth and the conditions under which the image was taken, including potential effects of light refraction and the composite nature of the photograph. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical estimations related to the probability of capturing stars in the image.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying astrophysics, photography in space exploration, or the historical context of the Voyager missions.

Tebor
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Please could someone explain why Earth looks to bright when it is so far away? Also, why can't we see any other objects (other planets and stars) in the image?

Thank you.
 
Space news on Phys.org
We are bright because we are relatively big and we reflect and refract a good amount of light..
Space is pretty big so it's not hard to imagine that there was no other body in our solor system besides those asteroid belts in the shot.
I think the picture is probably littered with stars.
 
Last edited:
How do you add pictures on here? Do I need to upload it to imageshack or something and paste the url?
 
MullaTheMech,

Thank you. I was confused because apparently by that point at had been past all of the planets... But they could have just turned the camera round to picture the others and then they're out of shot at the end - I hadn't thought of that! :)
 
Well it seems I was wrong. What looked like asteroid belts to me was just light from the sun (Wikipedia). Said that the streaks came from taking the picture too close to the sun, so probably just refracted light through the lens. Google search also told me that this is 3 different pictures put back together in 3 different color filters: violet blue and green. Which would make this picture totally filled with stars. It would be odd to see that many belts in one picture I think.
 
In terms of why there are no stars in the image, we can do an estimate. Based on the distance from Earth at the time the image was taken (about 40 AU, according to this Wikipedia article), I estimate the Earth would have been about magnitude +4. From the image in that Wiki article, we can calculate the image scale of the photograph, and the whole image is about 0.5 degree across, or 0.25 square degrees. This is about the size of the full moon. There are about 500 stars in the sky brighter than magnitude +4, and the entire sky is about 40,000 square degrees. So the odds of one of these m<4.0 stars landing in an image of 0.25 square degrees is
500*0.25/40000 = 0.3%. Voyager is currently in Ophiuchus, so assuming it was in Ophiuchus at the time the image was taken (I think this is a good assumption), then it was pointing roughly back at the constellation Gemini. Attached is a map of Gemini, and the small red box is the approximate size of the Pale Blue Dot image. You can see that the odds of a 4th magnitude star being in the image is quite small.
 

Attachments

1461510790671.jpg

So I did more googling and found more stuff including another thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/index.php?threads/475985/
It seems the internet is mixing up a photo from cassini and voyager one saying on some sites that the pale blue dot is Earth with saturns rings in frame. Which is cassini's photo and not voyagers.

There were other photos taken by voyager, 60 of them called Family Portrait.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html

The photos of the 6 planets taken is here.
family_portraits.jpg
 
0.25^2 degrees(or is it 0.25 degrees^2)? Can you tell me about this unit in this context please. Is this used from a point of view like: the moon has a diameter of 0.5 degrees from a viewer on earth?
 
MullaTheMech said:
0.25^2 degrees(or is it 0.25 degrees^2)? Can you tell me about this unit in this context please. Is this used from a point of view like: the moon has a diameter of 0.5 degrees from a viewer on earth?

Yes, that's right. So the moon covers about 0.25 square degrees, which we would write as 0.25 degrees^2. Of course the moon is round, not square, but we're just making a rough estimate. The whole sky has an area of 4*π square radians, which is 4*π*(180/π)^2 = 41,253 square degrees.
 
  • #10
You guys are excellent. Thank you! It's strange to think how small a space that picture represents, and how small we look inside that space. We are tiny.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
678
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K