Green Martian valley?, page 7

Originally posted by The_Investor
The big answer to your question is bureaucracy - NASA has a shoe-string Budget

That is certainly what their press releases would have us believe but not all of us take such information at face value.

you may think they could do a lot with 15 Billion USD but they have tens of thousands of high paid employees (50k - 150k salaries) contractors, bills, utilities, rents,

So basically they can't find the money to use the best imaging technology and equipment because they have highly paid staff that eats up the money? One wonders how they can afford massively wasteful programs such as the shuttle given this 'reality'.

and their ever so expensive manned space program.

So why do they keep doing it if it's by now very widely admitted that it was the wrong choice at the wrong time?

The following comes from a post i made last month.

"Why cancel the heaviest lift vehicle you have thus insuring problems for later science missions? The Shuttle is far more inefficient than the Saturn's were and we should not be so easily fooled by these official pronouncements of the reasons for the cancellation of the APOLLO program and it's infrastructure.

Second, to paraphrase Dr. George Mueller at a NASA history conference held in Washington in recent years, we “got the shuttle we have today from the ‘Bureau of the Budget Design Bureau’” that NASA did not want and that was not cheaper than Saturn 5.

www.space.com...

Could have had Walmarts on the Moon i tell you!

www.transterrestrial.com...

And the possibly cheaper alternatives or general disagreements which then turn into almost agreement...

www.space.com...

selenianboondocks.blogspot.com...

"

So basically it's not for lack of money but because the NASA , military, administrators is doing it's best to ensure that there is no money left for such programs.

What's left is the machinery that goes places such as Mars.

Actually they spend far less on that equipment than they do have left and it's clear that they do not really want to find anything and have been doing their best to avoid doing so since the 70's when they managed to find a face they did not want to.

The limitations of technology are not always 1970s, in fact 1970s film would do more for true color imagery than all the high-tech digital photographs currently. But no one is going to send a film camera there to take pictures.

I suppose that's the case because it's unlikely to come back ... Fact is film would really ruin their day as those would have to be destroyed for the most part while digital data can be altered from the get go. Many investigators have exposed their tampering with official science data in the past so unless you are as unaware of that reality as this one i wont bother with more links at this time.

Color calibration decays over time as the electronics change and so constant recalibration is required, on an orbital platform they do not do this so over time the colors are going to be slightly skewed anyway...this may not have an effect yet on cameras such as on the MOC.

So the fact that the ESA were taking pictures showing clear green from the start were some kind of engineering error as there was no time for it to decay? Why did the original ESA picture simply state that it was

High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC)

The HRSC is imaging the entire planet in full colour, 3D and with a resolution of about 10 metres. Selected areas will be imaged at 2-metre resolution. One of the camera's greatest strengths will be the unprecedented pointing accuracy achieved by combining images at the two different resolutions. Another will be the 3D imaging which will reveal the topography of Mars in full colour.

"As the 2-metre resolution image is nested in a 10-metre resolution swath, we will know precisely where we are looking. The 2-metre resolution channel will allow us to pick out great detail on the surface," says Gerhard Neukum, HRSC Principal Investigator from Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.

www.esa.int...

They were not saying that the green had anything to do with equipment issues either...

The "green" as you interpret it is distortion from many sources including compression and just basic data aquisition from Mars.

Where does the ESA say that?

There could be any number of elements adding to the "green" of what may be more black or ruddy in color and this could be as simple as bad calibration by whoever aquired these sets of photos.

It's all well and good if you want to explain away what you do not want to believe but i do expect sources as your opinions do not count much in my book.

Stellar