Mars: First color image from HI-RISE camera

Wow. How many millions or billions of dollars were spent to get a picture of a rock?

Why is this important?

Think of how much good could have been done if we spent that money on cancer research or something instead of on a mars probe.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by craig732
Wow. How many millions or billions of dollars were spent to get a picture of a rock?

Why is this important?

Think of how much good could have been done if we spent that money on cancer research or something instead of on a mars probe.

Just my opinion.

It is important for the same reason it was important for Columbus to discover the new world. Exploration of space will eventually save humanity weather it be from the Sun running out of fuel, the earth overheating or iceage, not yet developed disease and viruses that can wipe out humanity, asteroid and comets or a Supervolcano. Don't forget the world is still packed with more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe it out more than once.

Humanity must explore our solar system and eventually colonize those planets, moons and asteroids that can be made habitable by man.

If all of mankind thought like you do we would all still be swimming around in a mud pool somewhere and would have never developed into the robust intelligent long lived civilization that we may become if we do not destroy ourselves.

It may never be possible for humans to leave our solar system if technology stops developing but it is already withen our means to colonize mars and many of the asteroids and moons in our solar system should we be sufficeintly motivated.

The threat of an asteroid impact is very very real. We have only dicovered about half of the potentialy earth shattering asteroids that may slam into our planet to date.

External Source

NASA cannot rule out completely that this one will not hit us in 2036. Sometimes asteroids cross between the earth and moon and are only known about days or hours before it happens.

It is just a matter of time before a city buster roid hits earth the type we wont see comming.

Reasearch and discover of habital areas of our solar system is the one really big reason we need to spend money on exploring space and learning how to live in it.

All types of exploration have brought humanity great rewards.

Our planet is also running out of Oil and we need to find another abundant fuel that also wont destroy our atmosphere (oxygen that we breath to live) to continue living the way we do now such as helium 3 found in abundance on the moon but not on the earth.

External Source

Not to mention the "oh my gosh look what we did" feeling humans get out of breaking new ground in exploration. Do not minimalize this issue as humans get bored easily and end up killing each other in wars. Space exploration can bring humanity together by the awe created by our amazing advancements and discoveries.

Cancer has more than enough money being thrown at it as well as many other killer diseases. Money does not make a vaccine, time and research do and all dangerous diseases have enough funding already. We just have to be patient but cures will come. Earth is becomming way overpopulated as it is. I am not supporting letting people die but if we cure everything and begin to live forever some form of crowd control will be nessasary. Could that be a space bus to mars? Who knows.

We wont have time to develope a means to escape our planet should one of the above catastrophies occur so we need to lay the ground work for our grandchildrens future.

Please support the space program for our continued existance and for the sheer fun and excitment of it.


[edit on 27-9-2006 by Xeven]

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Xeven]

How come noone here said anything about the green tone in the pictures? Green Mars in a picture from NASA!!!!! Is that a proof of life? (...just trolling...)
No..it's just a combination of filters and color reconstruction.

Originally posted by craig732
Wow. How many millions or billions of dollars were spent to get a picture of a rock?

Why is this important?

Think of how much good could have been done if we spent that money on cancer research or something instead of on a mars probe.

Just my opinion.

It's my sad duty to inform you that the mega-pharmaceutical companies and the Medical Assoc. don't want to cure of cancer or give you a simple cheap effective treatment because there's no money it for them. So why give them billions more to bribe more politicians to give them favorable treatment like plantiff award limits when their faulty products like Vioxx kill and injure people?

The technology base that we're using to communicate with was developed originally for the space program. How many people will the weather or communication satellites save in the future warning of hurricanes and cyclones? You or someone you love will be saved by medical research from the space program sooner or later if it hasn't happened already.
If we human beings are going to preserve the world and therefore ourselves, we have to think about extending life on at least extraterrestial scale on a minumum, extrasolar would be alot better. Make Room,Make Room.

In roughly (very) in the middle there's what looks like a raised area - can anyone say what all the green colour around there is?

The point I would like to make is that we as a race have not learned how to take care of this planet.

Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time, money, and resources fixing all the problems we have on this planet before we go out and screw up another one?

Originally posted by craig732
Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time, money, and resources fixing all the problems we have on this planet before we go out and screw up another one?

We'd be here forever if we tried to fix all our problems. Plus, some technologies that are developed for the space program become availible to everyone else after. I'd imagine that colonies on other planets would want or need to be as efficient as possible and recycle and reuse as much as possible. There is no reason why those technologies can't be used back here on Earth. Here's a site with a list of spinoffs that came from things NASA originally developed. www.thespaceplace.com...

Originally posted by Nova
In roughly (very) in the middle there's what looks like a raised area - can anyone say what all the green colour around there is?

See my post above...

No..it's just a combination of filters and color reconstruction.

Oh cool - sorry I missed that...

How does that work? I'm just curious. No need to go into massive detail if there's a link that will do the job

Here is a link from Keith Laney's site although it is for spirit and opportunity rovers but the basic ideea is the same.
Color Calibrating the Images
If you want to see cool pictures of Mars you can check his site
keithlaney.net

Edited to add data about HiRISE camera

spectral range

• 400 to 600nm - Blue-Green (BG)
  
• 550 to 850nm - Red
  
• 800 to 1000nm - Near infra-red (NIR)
  

HiRISE Requirements and Performance Characteristics

So you see, they don't use true RGB filters. Here's the HiRISE site

[edit on 28/9/06 by Apass]

Some reading material on MRO discoveries for those with open minds not afraid of change...

www.enterprisemission.com...

www.enterprisemission.com...

www.enterprisemission.com...

Stellar

We just have to wait that we get some of those 30cm per pixel photos of those regions to clear these kind of things.

Originally posted by ArMaP
We just have to wait that we get some of those 30cm per pixel photos of those regions to clear these kind of things.

Well if one is not interested in conclusions there are certainly numerous, however illogical and odd, ways of avoiding having to come to any in cases where such conclusions upset the current scientific paradigms. What exactly is so 'unclear' in your opinion?

Stellar

To me, those things look like geological formations, to the people who made that site, they look like half-buried ruins.

Thats that type of thing that I hope gets cleared with higher resolution photos, to see if they really look like ruins or if they look like geological formations.

Obviously, regardless of what they look like in high resolution photos, there will always be someone who sees ruins and someone who sees geological formations, to really clear this situations we need to be there, but even then there will always be a doubt, like in the case of the "Bosnian pyramids".

Originally posted by ArMaP
To me, those things look like geological formations, to the people who made that site, they look like half-buried ruins.

Only geologist stare at natural geological formations but all of us has seen pictures of towns or cities from above. I am surprised that this looks natural to anyone who have not spent the time it would take to find such type of structures in nature ( their rare).

Thats that type of thing that I hope gets cleared with higher resolution photos, to see if they really look like ruins or if they look like geological formations.

They already look like ruins and close ups will only make that more obvious.

Obviously, regardless of what they look like in high resolution photos, there will always be someone who sees ruins and someone who sees geological formations,

I think you will find that the more formal schooling someone has the more natural it looks to them as that the type of denial of reality you get force fed.

to really clear this situations we need to be there, but even then there will always be a doubt, like in the case of the "Bosnian pyramids".

There will always be doubts in some minds but it wont have anything to do with the relative clarity of the pictures. The more you think you know the more prone you generally are to dismiss whatever evidence would undermine that belief. I obviously know nothing at all.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Only geologist stare at natural geological formations but all of us has seen pictures of towns or cities from above. I am surprised that this looks natural to anyone who have not spent the time it would take to find such type of structures in nature ( their rare).

I like geology, maybe that explains why those things look natural to me.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I like geology, maybe that explains why those things look natural to me.

And i like biology/chemistry/physics and so forth. I am not sure i understand why liking certain topics makes one some kind of expert on them. Remember that i base what i say and think on what actual honest to god scientist in those specific areas said; not on my own personal fanciful notions of reality.

Stella

Originally posted by StellarX
I am not sure i understand why liking certain topics makes one some kind of expert on them.

It doesn't, it makes that person predisposed to see things related to what that person likes.

Its like when two people look at a landscape, if one of them likes geology he/she may look at it looking for the geologic origins of that landscape. If the other person is a real-estate agent he/she may see only an excellent place to build some houses that could be a market success.

In my case, when I see a landscape (or a marscape ), I see it from a geological point of view, and I do that everywhere I go and with all photos or movies of geological formations I see, so its normal that I only see natural geological formations on those Mars photos.

But I could be completly wrong, and in either case, I hope to see what those things really are.

Originally posted by ArMaP
It doesn't, it makes that person predisposed to see things related to what that person likes.

So you like seeing rocks so you see rocks and i like seeing ruins from some kind of previous civilization on Mars? This is interesting but one can't turn ruins into rocks without more effort than this.

Its like when two people look at a landscape, if one of them likes geology he/she may look at it looking for the geologic origins of that landscape. If the other person is a real-estate agent he/she may see only an excellent place to build some houses that could be a market success.

But I'm sure both should and would notice rectangular ruins sticking out where they do not belong, especially since both know something about the issue.

In my case, when I see a landscape (or a marscape

), I see it from a geological point of view, and I do that everywhere I go and with all photos or movies of geological formations I see, so its normal that I only see natural geological formations on those Mars photos.

I don't see how one can so easily turn ruins into 'natural formations' but i have long since stopped questioning how the skeptical ( of everything that would contest what he already believes) mind works/does not work.

But I could be completly wrong, and in either case, I hope to see what those things really are.

Well since we are human and our senses are what they are being wrong on occasion is unavoidable but one can do a great deal in reducing those odds if you try avoid being predisposed to try fit what you observed into what you believe. Time will probably make it clearer which party in this discussion is avoiding reality most efficiently.

Stellar

One of the things that makes me doubt that those are ruins is the fact that they look like holes in the ground and not like the remainings of some buildings.

Another thing is the fact that those things appear on almost all of those "bubble" like formations.