New Hubble Portrait of Mars , Cloudy , Icy but Beautiful

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: gortex

Au Contrair. Just give us a couple of centuries.

I take it then, (after tha Del boy resume) that the perceived multi generations already on Mars in the very near future will be taken off the planet and 'repatriated' back to Earth or kept on a mothership in deep space before the, 'Big Bang' and that all the established surface infrastructure by that time, including nuclear, will be toast after, 'the wave' .
Obviously, the first generation/s will live and die in relative confinement, as will the later generations be in relative confinement at least by 2016 comjecture, until Mars is, 'terraformed'.
I would suggest then, that the vast majority of Mars pioneers should be the best brains on offer at today's values...well has to be given the immediate time frame, no point in sending a bunch of ejits who don't know what's going to happen in a couple of hundred years or less..is there?

a reply to: gortex

Somewhere there is an Artist very proud of his work. Wake up and smell the roses. NASA equals LIE.!!!!

the atmosphere seems to be a lot more vibrant now than in the pictures from 1999.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Does your irrational and baseless mistrust of NASA extend to India's space agency as well?

www.space.com...

originally posted by: wildespace
For the record, the Very Large Telescope in Chile has 4 times the resolution of the Hubble Telescope (8 meters versus 2). Granted, it's not positioned in space to avoid atmospheric disturbances, but it manages to counter them using a sophisticated system of adaptive optics and interferometry.
VLT could probably produce a better image of Mars than the Hubble.

You can now officially call me the resident party-pooper!

Has the Chile telescope been too busy? It could snap a few photos of Mars and then get right back to E.T. hunting, or whatever. Perhaps the many earthquakes and tremors in Chile have taken their toll on this delicate instrument?

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: gortex

NASA sure has pulled out the stops in the treatment of these images. The blue is more vivid, the brown/red has more shades, even a little more blue to white of the clouds covering the brown surface and it could almost be looking at Earth with Africa peeking through. 'Only' missing in the illusion is the deep blue where there is no land, just water. Don't you just wish?

It's not strictly a true-colour image. The Hubble used four filters for this, including violet and UV.

This image is a composite of separate exposures acquired by the WFC3/UVIS instrument. Several filters were used to sample various wavelengths. The color results from assigning different hues (colors) to each monochromatic (grayscale) image associated with an individual filter. In this case, the assigned colors are:
F275W (275nm) purple
F410M (410nm) blue
F502N (502nm) green
F673N (673nm) red

I think the clouds appear so bright and vivid here because they reflect lots of UV back from the Sun.

~~~

In case anyone's interested, here's the official proposal for taking this image: www.stsci.edu...

We propose to observe Mars near opposition, which occurs on 22 May 2016, to obtain WFC3/UVIS multi-color imaging. Mars will be near the Earth evenly illuminated by the Sun, which is ideal for our observations. It will also be easily visible to the public in the nighttime sky. At opposition, Mars will be at a distance of 0.51 AU, and its disk will subtend a diameter of 18.4 arcsec. Within our one HST orbit, we will sweep through a set of four WFC3 filters (F275W, F410M, F502N, F673N) several times each, and include a small dither shift, to mitigate cosmic rays and detector artifacts. Mars will easily fit within the 1K subarray, which will minimize CTE effects and allow us to obtain over 20 exposures per orbit. We hedge a bit with exposure timess for each filter, since it is difficult to know in advance which Mars features might be prominent at the time of the observation (e.g. polar caps, clouds). Exposure times will generally be short, but some may saturate in spots, and we also use post-flash for some of the shotest exposures. We obtained approval to specify BLADE=A for all exposures to mitigate shutter-driven vibrations. The Hubble Heritage team imaged Mars at opposition in 2007 with WFPC2 (HST program 11361). We used filters F410M, F502N, and F673N. In this proposal we have included a wide UV filter (F275W) which also does not require very long exposures times and could reveal interesting Martian cloud structure. Opposition will be near the end of the aphelion cloud belt season, which was originally discovered using HST. We would like to schedule this observation a week or so before the opposition date, so the public release can coincide with the opposition.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It's natural Mars, no intervention from us.

And you would know this for certain? Non intervention by us? Non intervention by, anyone?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: gortex

NASA sure has pulled out the stops in the treatment of these images. The blue is more vivid, the brown/red has more shades, even a little more blue to white of the clouds covering the brown surface and it could almost be looking at Earth with Africa peeking through. 'Only' missing in the illusion is the deep blue where there is no land, just water. Don't you just wish?

It's not strictly a true-colour image. The Hubble used four filters for this, including violet and UV.

This image is a composite of separate exposures acquired by the WFC3/UVIS instrument. Several filters were used to sample various wavelengths. The color results from assigning different hues (colors) to each monochromatic (grayscale) image associated with an individual filter. In this case, the assigned colors are:
F275W (275nm) purple
F410M (410nm) blue
F502N (502nm) green
F673N (673nm) red

I think the clouds appear so bright and vivid here because they reflect lots of UV back from the Sun.

~~~

In case anyone's interested, here's the official proposal for taking this image: www.stsci.edu...

We propose to observe Mars near opposition, which occurs on 22 May 2016, to obtain WFC3/UVIS multi-color imaging. Mars will be near the Earth evenly illuminated by the Sun, which is ideal for our observations. It will also be easily visible to the public in the nighttime sky. At opposition, Mars will be at a distance of 0.51 AU, and its disk will subtend a diameter of 18.4 arcsec. Within our one HST orbit, we will sweep through a set of four WFC3 filters (F275W, F410M, F502N, F673N) several times each, and include a small dither shift, to mitigate cosmic rays and detector artifacts. Mars will easily fit within the 1K subarray, which will minimize CTE effects and allow us to obtain over 20 exposures per orbit. We hedge a bit with exposure timess for each filter, since it is difficult to know in advance which Mars features might be prominent at the time of the observation (e.g. polar caps, clouds). Exposure times will generally be short, but some may saturate in spots, and we also use post-flash for some of the shotest exposures. We obtained approval to specify BLADE=A for all exposures to mitigate shutter-driven vibrations. The Hubble Heritage team imaged Mars at opposition in 2007 with WFPC2 (HST program 11361). We used filters F410M, F502N, and F673N. In this proposal we have included a wide UV filter (F275W) which also does not require very long exposures times and could reveal interesting Martian cloud structure. Opposition will be near the end of the aphelion cloud belt season, which was originally discovered using HST. We would like to schedule this observation a week or so before the opposition date, so the public release can coincide with the opposition.

Yes, I understood that, that's why I said treatment.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Aliensun

No-one has said you can't, it's just you can't get high resolution close ups with it. Using Hubble to get high resolution images of nearby objects is like trying to watch your living room TV through binoculars.

Here's a Hubble close up that can see the foot prints on the moon from Apollo..
www.dailygalaxy.com...

Oops, this is LROC.. Still a cute little pic

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
That is from LROC, not Hubble.
Apollo 14
www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aliensun

I remember when the officials said that the Hubble could not image Mars or the Moon.

I don't remember that. In fact there are a couple of Hubble image of the Moon in an article from 2005.

Now, the U.S. is planning another pioneering journey, this time to the moon and beyond. To prepare, NASA scientists are using the Hubble Space Telescope to hunt for resources, such as oxygen, that are essential for people to survive and to sustain their existence on the lunar surface. Hubble's preliminary observations and results are promising.

www.nasa.gov...

Mars:1999


Or, to simplify:
heritage.stsci.edu...

I don't know what was said about HST being able to image Mars or not, but i do remember NASA claiming that they couldn't image our moon.

This was in response to calls from those who think there are relics of structures etc on our moon, and thought Hubble could do a good job of showing these ruins and so on.

I remember the NASA replies of the late 90's, early 2000's consisting of "Hubble cannot image Lunar, as the albedo or reflectivity of the moons surface, would damage Hubble's sensitive imaging subsystems as it is too bright.

This went on for a number of years, until it was correctly pointed out that NASA regularly calibrated those exact same 'delicate' Hubble subsystems by pointing it at Earth's clouds...clouds that have a MUCH higher reflectivity and were MUCH brighter than the moon...so much for a high albedo being damaging to Hubbles systems!

Naturally, the point was raised that if HST can routinely calibrate it's systems using earth's bright clouds, clouds much brighter than that of the lunar surface reflecting sunlight..why was this story being circulated that HST couldn't image the moon due to it's brightness?

Then curiously, NASA reveal 5 or 6 images of Lunar, taken by Hubble...the albedo apparently not a problem any longer.

I don't have links to this information, and i'm not about to search through gigs of my stored data to find it, but i do clearly remember it being stated officially by NASA that Hubble couldn't image the moon due to it's bright surface being damaging to Hubble's optics...for whatever reason. I would imagine that by now, NASA has erased all of it's own references to these statements, damage control and so on...but perhaps Internet archival sites would still have copies of old NASA documents and webpages that show that particular BS.

NASA made a rod for it's own back with this HST / Lunar imaging thing. It doesn't do much for the public's perception of the agencies honesty. The obvious conclusion being, if they can lie about HST and it's capabilities...what else are they routinely lying to the public about..and are those lies centred on obscuring what was discovered on the moon that TPTB don't want the public seeing?

a reply to: MysterX

Hubble moon images from 1999

hubblesite.org...

There's my link showing NASA was taking images of the moon using Hubble, be great if you produced yours where NASA said they couldn't.

Chine, Japan and India have images of the moon in far greater detail than Hubble ever could, so if you have some beef with NASA go look at those.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Already clearly stated that i cannot be bothered to hunt out the info...to be honest, i don't care enough about such things NASA may or may not be hiding...i'll leave that rather fruitless endevour to others.

The fact NASA had already imaged the moon, but were claiming otherwise WAS partly the point i was making mate.

Being a Brit, i don't have any particular beef with NASA, none of my taxes paid for any of it...i was ONLY posting what i clearly remember NASA saying about it at the time, as ever you can draw your own conclusions or ignore it as you choose.

a reply to: MysterX

As a Brit I also don't care about NASA, however you made a claim stating that NASA said it couldn't image the Moon in the late 1990's and I do care about accuracy and truth.

I could actually be bothered to check that and found photos of the moon taken by Hubble in the late 1990s.

What you remember NASA saying they could do and what NASA actually did are two different things. If you want to prove that you aren't going senile in your old age, I'd check through all the stuff you think you have stored.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: MysterX

As a Brit I also don't care about NASA, however you made a claim stating that NASA said it couldn't image the Moon in the late 1990's and I do care about accuracy and truth.

I could actually be bothered to check that and found photos of the moon taken by Hubble in the late 1990s.

What you remember NASA saying they could do and what NASA actually did are two different things. If you want to prove that you aren't going senile in your old age, I'd check through all the stuff you think you have stored.

And his claim is common knowledge and the entire affair has been discussed for many years and years. What is so difficult for you about that? Get over it and go on to the next..

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You claim to care about accuracy, yet twice have completely ignored what i've said about my motivations for posting.

You sure you're not more concerned with rubbing noses in the preverbial crap, than accuracy?

Already answered your point about the 1999 HST Lunar images...seriously mate, you're quite selective in what you read.

Think about it...if we muse that NASA were indeed lying about the capabilities of HST in Lunar imaging during the late 90's and early 2000's, and not simply brushing off 'conspiracy nuts' with weak excuses...don't you think that lie could be suppressed retrospectively by publishing HST images of the Lunar surface at a later date?

As for your opinions on my senility, i couldn't give a toss one way or the other.

a reply to: MysterX

Claiming that they were published retrospectively and them actually being published retrospectively are two different things. You're developing a nice circular argument for yourself there with an easy get out clause: "if the evidence proves me wrong it's because they went back and changed the evidence".

Hubble didn't start working properly until 1993, and the camera that took the photos I linked to wasn't installed until 1997.

You claimed:

I remember the NASA replies of the late 90's, early 2000's consisting of "Hubble cannot image Lunar, as the albedo or reflectivity of the moons surface, would damage Hubble's sensitive imaging subsystems as it is too bright.

but the photos I posted from 1999 refute that and actually rely on that reflectivity (read the link I posted).

I'm stating that NASA never said Hubble couldn't image the moon with Hubble and provided data to show that they photographed it, and did so at a time when you said they claimed otherwise. Your response to that seems to be "can't be bothered" and "because I said so". Whatever.

I'l repeat my earlier point: there is no point using Hubble to observe the moon, it isn't the right tool for the job.

So Mars has clouds, I just did not know that the Mars atmosphere, which I thought was one hundredths of earth's, could support clouds, seeing as clouds are water vapour, where did that come from?
Am I right in thinking Mars has more atmosphere and water than I was led to believe?
Is some sort of scam going on?

I think the confusion about Hubble's capabilities stems form BS like this from Hoagland

www.enterprisemission.com...

It's worth noting that the 1999 images are not from a standard camera, but from the instrument installed in 1997.

It may well be that the instruments on Hubble could not image the moon initially because they are calibrated to deal with low light levels from distant objects, not very bright close ones like the moon. Anyone who has looked at the moon through a telescope knows just how bright it is.

I'm still looking for a direct properly sourced quote from NASA about Hubble imaging the moon.

a reply to: pikestaff

Clouds don't have to be water vapour.