It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New images from an old spacecraft (Viking Orbiter)

page: 2
39
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

my god, i have no idea how he managed to do this




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: wildespace

i know but that resolution looks like something from a new probe

According to this document, Viking Orbiter camera's resolution was 1056 x 1182 pixels: arc.aiaa.org...

Also confirmed here: isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov...

That's larger than Cassini's camera resolution.
edit on 9-5-2018 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:28 AM
link   
So, life or no? (currently)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: abeverage
I find it very interesting the dense cloud covered images as a lot of 70's - 80's of Mars narrative was a dead world without much of an atmosphere. This stunner Deuteronilus Mensae or this one in Tharsis Montes would have been a shocker in 1976, actually they are very amazing and a bit shocking today...just sayin

Now that you've mentioned dynamic versus "dead" environment on Mars, I'd like to draw everybody's attention to another great bit of work by the same person: Capturing Martian Weather in Motion

He did something very clever with still images from the Mars Express camera, producing timelapse-like images of dust and clouds billowing across the martian terrain:



Dust storm over Tempe Terra, seen by Mars Express' HRSC during a pass on June 17, 2011.




Dust lifting in the canyons of Deuteronilus Mensae, seen by Mars Express’ HRSC during a pass on June 30, 2011.




Wind blowing up the slope of the 52 km wide Micoud Crater in eastern Acidalia Planitia, seen by Mars Express’ HRSC during a pass on June 30, 2011.


More images and the details of how he's done it in the link above.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Absolutely amazing! I wish I had the time and the desire again to join in on this I used to dig through the MOC archives a lot and I thinks any imaging of the Poles done like this might prove interesting...



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace


That's larger than Cassini's camera resolution.

huh?! this is quite bizzare, should it not be the other way around, because that doesnt make so much sense



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Xcathdra



Makes perfect sense!

What inaccurate trash. How can ATS allow the posting of something so blatantly false, even in jest; Pluto isn’t a planet

Dang, you made spit my coffee all over my laptop.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: wildespace
i know but that resolution looks like something from a new probe



originally posted by: wildespace
According to this document, Viking Orbiter camera's resolution was 1056 x 1182 pixels: arc.aiaa.org...

Also confirmed here: isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov...

That's larger than Cassini's camera resolution.


originally posted by: humanoidlord
huh?! this is quite bizzare, should it not be the other way around, because that doesnt make so much sense


Space probe systems are as much about the mechanical properties (i.e. size & weight) as it is about the actual capabilities. A 150 year old photographic glass plate camera has better resolution than a 15 year old digital camera, but is also much larger and heavier.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Why are there shades of brown and green. When i see brown and green in earth pics i think trees and grass.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery

the why they dint use a glass plate camera, otherwise its a waste of money and resources



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord
Two reasons.

1) Because there wasn't room for a darkroom on the spacecraft.
2) Photographic plates are too heavy for carrier pigeons.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Sorry, I had to log-off and didn't get to finish my thought. What I was going to go on to say was that the Viking Orbiter cameras were basically single-frame television vidicon tubes - 70's-style video technology modified with more scan lines for higher resolution. Vidicon tubes were a bit bulky, weighed a couple of pounds and used a fair amount of power. Cassini's imaging system used one of the first megapixel (1,000 x 1,000) CCD chips, which was MUCH smaller, lighter and frugal with power. Yeah, it didn't have quite as good resolution, but it was adequate to the task and the trade-offs were considered acceptable.

Hope this helps.




posted on May, 12 2018 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Having a look through the Viking image archive, and made this two-frame mosaic of some cool clouds, using images taken through violet filter:




posted on May, 12 2018 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

That such a funky image can be so cool is awesome. Someday my great great grand kid might see something like that from another star system.


edit on 5/12/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 1   >>

log in

join