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.

 

Mars Reconaissance Orbiter: Primary mission imaging begins!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Looks like they are imaging all previous landers.

Both Vikings are up there now, as well as Spirit Rover.

gotta find that Polar Lander now..




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
They are planning on Hi Rez images of the entire surface of the planet. They are also doing deep scans to "see" what's underneath the surface. It will eventually be assembled into something much like Google Earth to make access easy for everyone. Nothing to hide. Thus far ALL of the image data from both rovers is being made available. The ESA also releases their data. If there be little green men, you will see their gardens and pets.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Well like with all technology, as time progresses, our technology improves.


They had better technology than what they in fact sent on the missions and if you would go back and read some material on the specifications you would notice that they tended to use 'off the shelf' stuff when they could have used specialized purpose built equipment that would have given far greater resolution and general quality. What we get to see is not what they saw and most certainly not what we could have seen had we sent the best equipment of the day.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Just an alert..
A nice package of images was added to the MRO website on Dec 20.
Lots to look at.

here is a quick link to the page.
MRO primary mission page

Enjoy!


jra

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
They had better technology than what they in fact sent on the missions and if you would go back and read some material on the specifications you would notice that they tended to use 'off the shelf' stuff when they could have used specialized purpose built equipment that would have given far greater resolution and general quality.


Oh I have no doubt that they don't always send the best equipment, but generally that's because that stuff would be too big, heavy, expensive or all of the above.

I believe there are a lot more restrictions when sending things to Mars. The larger the probe, the more fuel it will need to help slow itself down once at Mars. The larger the probe with more fuel on it, the larger the rocket will have to be to get it up into orbit. With a larger probe, using the best equipment, needing a larger rocket to get off the ground, the more money one is going to have to spend on building it and launching it. See where I'm going with this?

MRO is currently the largest probe to be sent to Mars with the largest camera to be sent to another other Planet. The MRO doesn't even compare to the size of spy satellites. Just look at the size of this one that was launched in the late '80s (note the little guy in the bottom left for scale). The newer spy satellites are thought to be even larger, weighing as much as 20 tons. Compare that to MRO's weight of 2,180 kg (4,806 lb) with fuel.

My point is, you can't expect them to send the best stuff possible, because it's more than likely not very practical due to size, weight and cost. So like I said, as time goes by technology improves and to add, also gets smaller.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Just a question, but what are the blues and greens I see in some of the pictures, are those actual colors or are they added for distinction?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterJedi
Just a question, but what are the blues and greens I see in some of the pictures, are those actual colors or are they added for distinction?


I'm not sure which specific shots you mean, but your right - the ones with the blues and greens are usually false-color used because the added contrast makes it easy to distinguish features.

BTW, technically ALL Mars photos (MRO, rovers, etc) and even your digital camera are "false" color. All digital camera sensors are color blind (including NASA's). The camera views the image through different filters, splitting the image into wavelegths of different intensities. These filtered image intensities are then translated by the camera's computer chip and put together into what the computer thinks is the "best guess" is as to the true color.

So in other words, ALL digital camara's "true color" images are just it's computer chips "best guess" at what the color should be.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm not sure which specific shots you mean, but your right - the ones with the blues and greens are usually false-color used because the added contrast makes it easy to distinguish features.


So why have they only started realising such images now? They never needed 'contrast' before?


BTW, technically ALL Mars photos (MRO, rovers, etc) and even your digital camera are "false" color. All digital camera sensors are color blind (including NASA's). The camera views the image through different filters, splitting the image into wavelegths of different intensities. These filtered image intensities are then translated by the camera's computer chip and put together into what the computer thinks is the "best guess" is as to the true color.


This is correct but i think your failing to mention that they understand very well how to construct images to best reflect what a human eye under the same conditions would have observed. Why does NASA refuse to consistently give us 'true colour' as we would observe it?


So in other words, ALL digital camara's "true color" images are just it's computer chips "best guess" at what the color should be.


It's not 'guessing' at all ( they have models and they can certainly make it VERY close to accurate ) and i don't like the fact that your suggesting as much here.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So why have they only started realising such images now? They never needed 'contrast' before?


I remember viking back in 1976. There were many true color and false images showing contrast that came out of that mission. The voyager program had false color images of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune that showed some very wild colors. They also had many true-color images.



This is correct but i think your failing to mention that they understand very well how to construct images to best reflect what a human eye under the same conditions would have observed. Why does NASA refuse to consistently give us 'true colour' as we would observe it?


Most of the mars images I have seen (go on the NASA website) has both true and false color versions of the same image.


It's not 'guessing' at all ( they have models and they can certainly make it VERY close to accurate ) and i don't like the fact that your suggesting as much here.


"Guess" may have been too strong a word. But it is true that ALL digital camera's (even yours) are color blind and their computer chip must make a "determination" of what it "thinks" the true color is based on intensities of filtered light...NOT based on the color of the light. And yes, digital cameras are very good at "determining" the correct color.

I'm pretty sure that MARCI (the color imager on the MRO) takes a series of photos of the same location through different filters, then puts those images together. But it, too, must compare the intensities of light through the varios filters, then make an "educated guess" (or as educated as a computer can be) as to the true colors it is imaging.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
But it is true that ALL digital camera's (even yours) are color blind and their computer chip must make a "determination" of what it "thinks" the true color is based on intensities of filtered light...NOT based on the color of the light. And yes, digital cameras are very good at "determining" the correct color.
Not exactly. Your standard digital cameras use clusters of RGB sensors. They measure the intensity of light at those three specific wavelengths. The light isn't "filtered" before it hits the CCD or CMOS sensor. The sensors are just tuned to produce a charge when they are excited by light of a specific range of wavelengths. The problem with this is that because each pixel is made up of a red, green, and blue value, it actually takes 3 sensors to produce a single pixel in your image. This is how consumer digital cameras work.

But imagine if instead of that, you put a physical filter in front of the sensor and then took the picture. First a red filter, then a green filter, then a blue filter. You'd basically triple your sensitivity because each sensor deals with light that has already been filtered to a specific wavelength. You'd then combine those 3 images to produce a visible color image. But this also gives you the flexibility to filter for colors other than red, green, and blue. This can give you increased contrast, bring out details that might be hidden in an RGB image, or even show images of things in the non-visible part of the spectrum. This is how many of NASAs cameras work.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Has anyone spotted anything anomalous in any of the photos yet? Just curious, I've DLed 3 of the big ones so far and am going over them whenever I have time.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I am downloading them all, as fast as I can free some disk space, 1.2GB images is a little too much for my computer.

Thinking of it, I probably will never see those 1GB images, I don't think my computer can handle it.

As for anomalies, I did not had the time to even look for them, the only thing I noticed was that some of the first images posted (in TIFF or PNG format) are not the same that are now on the site in JP2 format.

Fortunately, I had already those images in my computer.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Anyone seen a pic of the martian lakes yet?

These hi-res images should let us see the 'lychens' right?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Oh I have no doubt that they don't always send the best equipment, but generally that's because that stuff would be too big, heavy, expensive or all of the above.


Do you know this or do you assume this and if so why are the most important ( in terms of what would most encourage the tax payer to allocate more funds) scientific instruments so often missing from the original if not final instrument? 'Heavy', 'expensive' and 'too big' are all largely subjective issues as one single instrument that does it's work properly could easily increase NASA funds; it's not that they need more more funds or more missions but that they waste what they they do get on things that no one but the military industrial complex cares about.



I believe there are a lot more restrictions when sending things to Mars.


A belief that obviously suits your point of view but other than that what in terms of technology can really hols us back if we wanted to do it? You think the NASA budget , when properly employed, could not afford many more scientific missions a year had they cared to focus on that?



The larger the probe, the more fuel it will need to help slow itself down once at Mars. The larger the probe with more fuel on it, the larger the rocket will have to be to get it up into orbit. With a larger probe, using the best equipment, needing a larger rocket to get off the ground, the more money one is going to have to spend on building it and launching it. See where I'm going with this?


Just the same old arguments; military missions putting the space shuttle in orbit to do absolutely mostly nothing of use eats up billions but when it comes to designing equipment for interplanetary exploration everything is 'too difficult' and 'expensive' . I don't buy it and neither should you.


MRO is currently the largest probe to be sent to Mars with the largest camera to be sent to another other Planet. The MRO doesn't even compare to the size of spy satellites. Just look at the size of this



Most of the data volume from Surveyor will be generated by a dual-mode camera called the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). This device works like a television camera, but will takes still images instead of motion video. In narrow-angle mode, MOC's black and white, high-resolution telephoto lens will spot Martian rocks and other objects as small as 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) across from orbit. These pictures will be sharp enough to help scientists conduct detailed geological studies without setting foot on the planet.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



"It kept coming back that I really needed to be able to see things about this big," Malin said, holding an imaginary loaf of bread; "about 20 centimeters" (8 inches).

But that kind of resolution, typical of the best spy satellites, was out of the question. With declassified technology he could do about 10 times worse; Malin thought that would probably be good enough. The challenge remained the same: design a camera that could pull it off.

Malin turned to Ed Danielson, a soft-spoken Caltech engineer who had helped to create some of the most advanced robotic eyes ever sent into space. Together, they sketched out a design for an instrument that would snare objects about 6.5 feet (2 meters) across -- a 10-fold improvement over the very best handful of Viking Orbiter images. Furthermore, it would be small and lightweight. Surely, they thought, the Science Working Group would welcome it.

"They laughed at us," Malin remembers. "They called it the Garbage Can." Not only did they doubt Malin and Danielson's camera would work, they resented their effort.

www.space.com...


By comparison the MRO's HiRISE resolution is around 0.3 at 300 km....

The biggest problem was not any of the things you mentioned ( they could have managed to send a MRO type 'camera' in the 80's) but that they simply did not WANT to send camera's for reason not specified ( "we don't need to" does not count ) i can't prove either way. As if was the first MOC type camera were lost with it's orbiter after someone attempted to sabotage ( not proven but i can tell you about it if your interested) some of the equipment while on the launch pad. I'm not calling hurricane Andrew a saboteur btw.



one that was launched in the late '80s (note the little guy in the bottom left for scale). The newer spy satellites are thought to be even larger, weighing as much as 20 tons. Compare that to MRO's weight of 2,180 kg (4,806 lb) with fuel.

My point is, you can't expect them to send the best stuff possible, because it's more than likely not very practical due to size, weight and cost. So like I said, as time goes by technology improves and to add, also gets smaller.



Mars Curse

The high failure rate of America's NASA and other nations' space agencies in their attempts to explore Mars has become known as the Mars Curse. See below for a full list of launch attempts to Mars.

By the spring of 2006, of 37 launch attempts to reach the planet, only 18 have succeeded. Eleven of the missions included attempts to land on the surface, but only six transmitted data once on the surface, and of those only one was non-American (Russian), which lost contact within 20 seconds of landing. Some suggest, mostly in jest, that there is actually some force trying to prevent or punish the exploration of Mars. The Galactic Ghoul is a fictional space monster that consumes Mars probes, a term coined in 1997 by Time Magazine journalist Donald Neff.

en.wikipedia.org...


Now some may believe this high failure rate is just a accident but personally i don't think the 'ghoul' resides on Mars but at NASA HQ. We are seeing the science data we are not because of what they did but in spite of what they did for the last three decades.

Stellar

[edit on 26-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I remember viking back in 1976. There were many true color and false images showing contrast that came out of that mission.


Well i don't remember ( i was not alive at the time) seeing any 'green' in the viking pictures but since their there I'm sure you could help me with some links?


The voyager program had false color images of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune that showed some very wild colors. They also had many true-color images.


That i do remember but they hardly got close enough to many of the moons to be helpful in terms of what true colour might have revealed...



Most of the mars images I have seen (go on the NASA website) has both true and false color versions of the same image.


They have no true colour images at all and their all supposedly 'best approximations' which is a lie as they know exactly how to construct true ' as the human eye would see it' images based on the date being returned from the Mars rovers. The orbital data is obviously a bit more difficult but considering what we can see with 10 inch 'garden variety' telescopes I'm surprised NASA and the ESA can't give us more precise information and colours. Basically they are asking us to believe that they can send people to other planets but that their not sure how to resolve imaging data and i for one am no longer so easily fooled.


"Guess" may have been too strong a word.


So strong that you had me worried about your motivation in choosing it...


But it is true that ALL digital camera's (even yours) are color blind and their computer chip must make a "determination" of what it "thinks" the true color is based on intensities of filtered light...NOT based on the color of the light. And yes, digital cameras are very good at "determining" the correct color.


Thanks for agreeing with me in more technical, but redundant, terms.



I'm pretty sure that MARCI (the color imager on the MRO) takes a series of photos of the same location through different filters, then puts those images together. But it, too, must compare the intensities of light through the varios filters, then make an "educated guess" (or as educated as a computer can be) as to the true colors it is imaging.


I think the earlier response to your question illustrated that their technique in fact eased the difficulties normally associated with commercial equipment? Well that's what i understood from reading that, feel free to point out any errors...

Stellar



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
If you look at the Yardangs in the Medusae Fossae Formation the upper left hand corner (maybe scroll down a little from there) you will see a blue splotch. It caught my eye as it looked like a pond or something


jra

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Do you know this or do you assume this and if so why are the most important ( in terms of what would most encourage the tax payer to allocate more funds) scientific instruments so often missing from the original if not final instrument? 'Heavy', 'expensive' and 'too big' are all largely subjective issues as one single instrument that does it's work properly could easily increase NASA funds; it's not that they need more more funds or more missions but that they waste what they they do get on things that no one but the military industrial complex cares about.


What scientific instruments are missing from the finial instrument? I really don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry. And a probe being too big/heavy isn't subjective in my opinion. And what exactly does the military have to do with this? (in reference to interplanetary probes).


A belief that obviously suits your point of view but other than that what in terms of technology can really hols us back if we wanted to do it? You think the NASA budget , when properly employed, could not afford many more scientific missions a year had they cared to focus on that?


If NASA had the budget that the 'War on Terror' has, then maybe, but you can only launch probes to Mars every 26 months or so and it's only open for about a month roughly. It also depends on the rocket, and the payload (its size, mass, etc). The more energy a rocket can put on it's payload, the wider the launch window, thus why interplanetary probes tend to be small and light, so that the rocket can deliver more velocity towards its payload. It all comes down to physics really.


Just the same old arguments; military missions putting the space shuttle in orbit to do absolutely mostly nothing of use eats up billions but when it comes to designing equipment for interplanetary exploration everything is 'too difficult' and 'expensive' . I don't buy it and neither should you.


What don't you find believable about those 'same old arguments'? And what military shuttle missions are you referring to? There have been only two as far as I can tell. And what does that have to do with interplanetary exploration?


The biggest problem was not any of the things you mentioned ( they could have managed to send a MRO type 'camera' in the 80's) but that they simply did not WANT to send camera's for reason not specified ( "we don't need to" does not count ) i can't prove either way. As if was the first MOC type camera were lost with it's orbiter after someone attempted to sabotage ( not proven but i can tell you about it if your interested) some of the equipment while on the launch pad. I'm not calling hurricane Andrew a saboteur btw.


"but that they simply did not WANT to send camera's for reason not specified".... huh? And again, I'm not really following what you're saying here in this quote at all, sorry.


Now some may believe this high failure rate is just a accident but personally i don't think the 'ghoul' resides on Mars but at NASA HQ. We are seeing the science data we are not because of what they did but in spite of what they did for the last three decades.


Why do you think every mission to another planet should be a 100% success? Why do you think that when accidents happen that it's a sign of a sabotage or a cover-up or what have you? We've only been sending probes to other planets for 50 years at most. That's not a long time at all. Of course there are going to be lots of problems in the beginning. Can you claim to do better? How good would you be at what is basically throwing a dart at a target millions of miles away?

Out of the 17 missions NASA has sent to Mars, only 5 have failed. I'd say those are still pretty good odds. Most of the failed missions are from the former USSR. Here's a list of all Mars missions www.seds.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
What scientific instruments are missing from the finial instrument?


For nearly thirty years ( since viking) NASA probes lacked the means to establish if there was in fact life on Mars. How you can consider this to be due to 'weight' and 'price' issues is completely beyond me.


I really don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.


I am trying to say that equipment that could really establish the most important issue is not be included.


And a probe being too big/heavy isn't subjective in my opinion. And what exactly does the military have to do with this? (in reference to interplanetary probes).


It is subjective in that it assumes that that larger payloads are not possible or that other heavy lift platforms can not be employed. It assumes that we should just do what 'we can' with 'what we have' thus leaving those who would manipulate our perception of the world with ample tools to avoid finding what will be.


If NASA had the budget that the 'War on Terror' has, then maybe, but you can only launch probes to Mars every 26 months or so and it's only open for about a month roughly.


NASA has a HUGE budget but it's squandered on useless and hopelessly inefficient space shuttle launches. If those funds were used for truly scientific missions one can only imagine what we could have been sure of by now.


It also depends on the rocket, and the payload (its size, mass, etc). The more energy a rocket can put on it's payload, the wider the launch window, thus why interplanetary probes tend to be small and light, so that the rocket can deliver more velocity towards its payload. It all comes down to physics really.


Physics i am well aware of as you should know very well by now. These types of statements are not very endearing and just serves to encourage me even more. Fact is payloads can vary greatly based on the models you have provided and the choice of launchers. Why not for that matter use one of the Saturn types which were pretty good for sending men to the Moon? It's just a question of them knowing what they were likely to find.


What don't you find believable about those 'same old arguments'? And what military shuttle missions are you referring to? There have been only two as far as I can tell.


I don't believe it because it's easily exposed vapid lies? The arguments are simply not logical based on NASA's vast consumption of funds for other useless and wasteful projects. There are have been many more military missions as is obvious by the choice of NASA 'administrators. Just look up the names.


And what does that have to do with interplanetary exploration?


NASA is a military operation operated in military style meaning it's very wasteful and when it's not lying it's hiding it's discoveries.


"but that they simply did not WANT to send camera's for reason not specified".... huh? And again, I'm not really following what you're saying here in this quote at all, sorry.


I am saying it's pretty obvious that there were attempts to actively sabotage camera's on later missions and they succeeded at least once with the MOC camera's. NASA is actively attempting to obscure the truth by choosing which types of equipment they send to Mars.


Why do you think every mission to another planet should be a 100% success?


Well i don't hence my never claiming that it should be...


Why do you think that when accidents happen that it's a sign of a sabotage or a cover-up or what have you?


Because i have actual damning evidence, from open source material, that sabotage was the intent on at least a few occasions? Why else would i make the claims?


We've only been sending probes to other planets for 50 years at most. That's not a long time at all.


That is very long in terms of rocket technology and it's not like the rockets are failing or anything. There is obviously something going on and it's got NOTHING to do with technology being that fallible.


Of course there are going to be lots of problems in the beginning. Can you claim to do better?


For sure i can do better as i would not allow my program and missions to be sabotaged like that.


How good would you be at what is basically throwing a dart at a target millions of miles away?


Go study your physics and repeat that with a straight face.


Out of the 17 missions NASA has sent to Mars, only 5 have failed. I'd say those are still pretty good odds.


If you can get away with being a consistent underachiever i guess that is not bad. How many times did the launch vehicle let them down?


Most of the failed missions are from the former USSR. Here's a list of all Mars missions www.seds.org...


I am well aware of that but does not change much considering what type of secrets the USSR could keep while claiming failure.

Stellar


jra

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
For nearly thirty years ( since viking) NASA probes lacked the means to establish if there was in fact life on Mars.


What instruments should they use then exactly? What type of life should they look for specifically?


Physics i am well aware of as you should know very well by now. These types of statements are not very endearing and just serves to encourage me even more. Fact is payloads can vary greatly based on the models you have provided and the choice of launchers. Why not for that matter use one of the Saturn types which were pretty good for sending men to the Moon? It's just a question of them knowing what they were likely to find.


Umm I hate to break it to you, but the Saturn V's are no longer in use, they haven't been since the 70's and they will never come back in use. So it's not an option. Your only options are the Atlas and Delta Series of rockets as well as the Shuttle, but it's probably cheaper to go with the other two. You're going to have to wait for the Ares V if you want something similar to the Saturn V in terms of heavy lifting.



How good would you be at what is basically throwing a dart at a target millions of miles away?


Go study your physics and repeat that with a straight face.


Ummm... ok... So are you avoiding the question then? Because sending things to other planets isn't a simple task.

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov...



Out of the 17 missions NASA has sent to Mars, only 5 have failed. I'd say those are still pretty good odds.


If you can get away with being a consistent underachiever i guess that is not bad. How many times did the launch vehicle let them down?


Twice.

Anyway I apologize to spacedoubt for continuing to drag this thread off it's original subject. Hopefully everyone has continued to keep up to date on the latest MRO releases themselves. There should be another release today some time.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by jra]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
No sweat jra!
I've been looking at the newest images as they become available.
I need a new hard drive (or two). these images are huge, and very detailed.
I feel as if I am flying over the surface.

So far it looks like Nasa is keeping to the promise of 1 update per week.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join