NASA's $1 billion Jupiter Probe Taking Unreal Photos of the Gas Planet

a reply to: Barcs

You do understand by "real" I mean they are not actual representative pictures of Jupiter's appearance right? I've viewed Jupiter through a telescope powerful enough to see the bands and the eye clearly and Jupiter looks nothing like this.

And if you have a link to something other than pictures NASA has revealed then I am all ears mate.

a reply to: Outlier13
Here you go: www.nasa.gov...

It's got to be one of the funniest comments that all NASA did over these decades was produce pictures. Thanks for a good laugh, mate!

The reality is quite the opposite: the vast majority of equipment on NASA's spacecraft and rovers had nothing to do with imagery but with measuring various physical parametres, such as magnetic fields, spectroscopy, temperatures, etc. On Juno spacecraft, the camera was installed as an afterthought, for edcation and public outreach.

You do understand by "real" I mean they are not actual representative pictures of Jupiter's appearance right? I've viewed Jupiter through a telescope powerful enough to see the bands and the eye clearly and Jupiter looks nothing like this.

They are close enough. There are many Juno images that have not been enhanced, and are thus very close to what a human eye would see:



Besides, you aren't able to see Jupiter's blue polar regions through a telescope. The distance and angular resolution also play a role in how much detail you can see. For example, Saturn appears very smooth and featurless through a telescope, but Cassini's closeups reveal intricate swirly pattersn and cells on Saturn:



~~~

For everybody else reading this post, check out more amazing (processed) images of Jupiter at Flickr

a reply to: wildespace

Hey mate don't take my word for it. Look up a local astronomer in your local astronomy club. Find the one with the most powerful telescope and go check it out for yourself. Jupiter in no way what so ever looks even remotely close to what is depicted in these pictures.

It's simple. If NASA has to fake its images to the public and attempts to pass them off as authentic then how believable is anything that comes from them? And I still hold to my original statement which you have yet to disprove. What aside from photographs has NASA produced since it's inception?

Don't give me rhetoric about equipment they have created for the purposes of research. What has hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars been spent on? You're telling me you genuinely believe NASA has spent this money so they can show people like you "pretty pictures" of our solar system?

Wow.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Barcs

You do understand by "real" I mean they are not actual representative pictures of Jupiter's appearance right? I've viewed Jupiter through a telescope powerful enough to see the bands and the eye clearly and Jupiter looks nothing like this.

And if you have a link to something other than pictures NASA has revealed then I am all ears mate.

You have have you what size was that then ?

Also you do know that your eyes will not see what a camera can so for example look at the images on the link below non of them from NASA all taken by amatuer Astronomers.

Planet images

a reply to: Outlier13

Your obviously just a NASA hater and do you think you live on a flat Earth as well as for what amatuers can do look at this link.

Images

Or from the Astrobin site look at link below for their image of the day, you can click on an image and see equipment and exposure details then I suggest you compre with images of same objects from NASA

Image of the day

Now if you have done that what do you have to say

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: salty_wagyu

Since then, dozens of people have processed the black-and-white files into gorgeous, calendar-ready color pictures.

So these are not the actual colours then?

They are actual colours, but have been enhanced for better clarity and saturation. Jupiter looks more bland in the unprocessed images.

I think what others would like to know is if we were there, how would Jupiter appear / 'look like' to our Visible Spectrum eyeballs?

I take it you have never made the effort to go look through a telescope well Jupiter gets around 1/27th of the Sun light that we get on Earth so guess what it will look bland and faint.

NASA produces colours from various filters depending on what it wants to see/show and that is always explained you will see what you term as visible spectrum if you make the effort, colours can be enhanced to increase the brightness/saturation to give an idea how they would look under good conditions it doesn't mean they are false or faked.

Have a look at this video taken at night which compares what your eyes would see and what a very good quality camera can see. The camera can increase it's sensitivity so that you can see the colours in the dark so do you consider those colours as false

a reply to: wmd_2008

I take it you have never made the effort to go look through a telescope

I have observed Jupiter thru my 8" Celestron, numerous times with no augmentation.

If I were there it would appear the same as it does in my viewfinder. I know this, was asking for others.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wmd_2008

I take it you have never made the effort to go look through a telescope

I have observed Jupiter thru my 8" Celestron, numerous times with no augmentation.

If I were there it would appear the same as it does in my viewfinder. I know this, was asking for others.

Would it, what you see through the scope is limited by the aperture and seeing conditions and your eyes.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I forgot to ask you this , completely unrelated , your username WMD are you in the WMD graffiti crew ?

a reply to: carewemust

What you'r referring to here is the Cassini instrument package (satellite) from the Cassini mission:

September 15, 2017: End of Mission as Cassini begins Final Entry into Saturn's Atmosphere.

They crashed the entire instrument into the planet to prevent possible contamination of Saturn's moons.

a reply to: Outlier13

LOL! The pictures are definitely real, the color is enhanced. That doesn't mean it's not real, it's just made to highlight the differences in color to be more aesthetically pleasing. And you are seriously comparing your view from a telescope on earth that has to look through our atmosphere and the light interference/refraction and comparing it to a satellite that's right next to the planet with HD hi res capability, with no atmospheric interference? It's not going to look exactly the same.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wmd_2008

I take it you have never made the effort to go look through a telescope

I have observed Jupiter thru my 8" Celestron, numerous times with no augmentation.

If I were there it would appear the same as it does in my viewfinder. I know this, was asking for others.

Would it, what you see through the scope is limited by the aperture and seeing conditions and your eyes.

Exactly, the simplest answer to my earlier question.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Stop being so sensitive. I'm not a NASA hater at all. I've posed a very valid question which you and the other poster cannot answer. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Look up your local astronomy club and find out when they meet. Someone in the group has the Ferrari of telescopes and can show you crystal clear images of Jupiter. See for yourself. Jupiter does not look the way NASA has presented in the photos.

Flat Earth? lol. That's the single most retarded thing a person could believe. Enough on that.

My question again is very simple. What has NASA presented the public other than photographs for the last 60 years? My question is rhetorical. My point is pretty clear.

NASA is not spending hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars simply for space photography. So the question is pretty clear. What are they actually doing? Intelligence gathering? Space manufacturing? Genetic research in zero g? Element creation in zero g? Contact with ETs? Etc.

We don't know what NASA is truly spending this money on. We can speculate all day long but in the end we will never know.

Don't allow yourself to be so easily mislead.

However, if pretty space pictures are all that satisfies you then by all means continue to believe that.

a reply to: Outlier13

First of all look here Members Astrophotography Thread

I have looked through many telescopes and I'm more than capable of taking images.



Or deal with things like light pollution

Before


After


NASA employs thousands of skilled people do you have any idea of the commitment to get a project through from start to finish, the budget for NASA is a fraction of the USA budget for 2017.

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury

Did you even bother looking at the links I have posted to compare amateur astronomers that you keep banging on about with NASA images.

Even amateurs now can take images observatories would have taken a few years ago using filters etc to make things like gas clouds more visible in images even to the extent of removing the IR filters from cameras to allow better quality images. Examples in links below if you can actually be bothered looking.

Images

Image of the day

Just because YOU don't understand the subject doesn't mean your right.

Have a look here at one of the best amateurs in the UK if not the world many of his images look like images from NASA

Damian Peach

Or how about this

Don Parker sadly no longer with us.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: wildespace

It's simple. If NASA has to fake its images to the public and attempts to pass them off as authentic then how believable is anything that comes from them?

If NASA had to fake those images, why not make them look like what you can see through a telescope?

Wow.

P.S. Did you open the link I posted? All of NASA-funded research, available to the public: www.nasa.gov...

Since you're too lazy to do a Google search for science that comes from NASA, here's just one example for you:

New Horizons Discoveries Keep Coming

New Horizons instruments have been hard at work since well before the spacecraft arrived at Pluto.

The Pluto Energetic Particle Spectrometer Science Investigation (PEPSSI) instrument has been measuring the composition and density of high energy charged particles in the Sun’s outer heliosphere. New Horizons’ Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) instrument collected solar wind observations en route from Earth to Pluto and is still collecting them out in the Kuiper Belt. New Horizons also has a dust detector, built and conceived by students on the New Horizons team, which detects impacts of particles from asteroids and comets.

Here's a NASA site dedicated to the science they have been conducting: science.nasa.gov...

Also publically available is the The Planetary Data System (PDS), an archive of data products from NASA planetary missions.

Great pictures! Just remember that NASA do indeed colourize their images to enhance speculative detail.

a reply to: wmd_2008

You do realize the Image of the Day is 100% colorized right? Or are you going to try to say this picture is actually how it "looks" in space to the human eye?



And lastly I will ask this for a 4th and final time. Point me to something other than pictures that NASA has produced over the past 60 years. You keep avoiding this.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Great pictures! Just remember that NASA do indeed colourize their images to enhance speculative detail.

Yes they do and are very up front about it also. Anyone with enough interest can find it all easy enough.

Link from the article to the raw images.

a reply to: intrptr



An 8" Celestron would see very little of the detail I'd imagine. These raw images are very nice.

originally posted by: Outlier13
And lastly I will ask this for a 4th and final time. Point me to something other than pictures that NASA has produced over the past 60 years. You keep avoiding this.

Pretty much everything we know about rocket propulsion comes from Nasa. All of our space tech and knowledge comes from them. Our ability to make rocket ships capable of landing on the moon or other planets. We have countless satellites in orbit, an entire space station, rovers on Mars, probes orbiting multiple planets and some even out of the solar system right now. Pretty much every thing we know about other planets has come from their research. Do you use GPS? Thank Nasa for that. It's clear you're just here to attack them. We know Nasa enhances their picture color, but to suggest they don't do anything except take pictures is ridiculous.