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.

 

India's Chandrayaan Blasts Off To The Moon!

page: 43
40
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Where DO you get you info


I got my information from this chart by Mark A. Wieczorek, from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector.



Where do you get yours?

[edit on 12/1/2008 by Phage]




posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Regarding the 'RGB' discussion of how light frequencies can be combined to produce every visible color in the spectrum that the Human Eye can perceive, perhaps 'ArMap' cold further enlighten (no pun) about why pigments (paints) are basically Red, Yellow, and Blue (plus White and Black, for shading) used to create every visible color of the visible spectrum as well.

Everyone who's ever played with paint knows that mixing yellow and blue pigments will produce a various color of green, depending on the proportions....

AND, anyone who's ever seen the spectrum displayed by a prism, from our Sun's light, will immediately recognize the 'rainbow' pattern....'red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet'...

Notice, please, the mixing that occurs....from 'red' to 'yellow, we get 'orange'. Between 'yellow' and 'blue', we get 'green'....when using paints, those three 'Primary Colors' are that are needed....(Red, Yellow and Blue)

TVs and other video devices have resorted to the 'RGB' system....why?

Is it because 'yellow' proved too difficult to re-create using light and pixels?? Was it a compromise? (Switching to 'green', and mixing, as needed, because it was easier??)

I realize this post of mine is not 'ON TOPIC'. However, I am just following the most recent discussions, with what I hope are questions that may be answered.

AS TO the Indian space effort....does anyone have clear and pertinent info about the status of that mission???

Thanks...



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Chandrayaan bollocks I'm calling it.

Little information if any. Basic low res (by todays standards) pictures and videos. No hi-quality download of the video released, WTF is that about? No news. No live feed. No real information.

Side tracked with "terrorism". This whole thing stinks, and to the team at India: bollocks! To NASA while I'm at it" double bollocks.

Now I think I'll just keep showing everyone Richard Hoaglands "Dark Mission - The secret history of nasa" as reference. The mere fact this 'event' has such a low key, and no press indicates to me there really IS something WAY more than we can expect.

Thanks zorgon and mike and other positive posters. Stuff the same disinfo people, you are too obvious thesedays, and you suck!

The moon is/was a vessel, that was pursued into our universe by some ET group. There are bases on it. There are so many artifacts all over it even NASA made a balls up when they couldn't cover/smudge/paint over all the evidence there. The moon is the only known celestrial object in the known universe that behaves the way it does. I don't care if you ask me to prove this. I don't care what you think. Anyone with a clue knows what the gig is. And those that hold back, stuff it, let loose I say, who cares what a few misinformed or deliberate disinforming monkeys think. I sure as hell don't.

boooya

wZn



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


wZn....fascinating theory re: Luna

Possiblity of ET outposts based there, for survelliance of Earth? OK, I can buy that idea.

Possiblity of the Moon being a 'vehicle' that was positioned into Earth orbit...???

Occam's Razor....should apply here.

Here's a scenario: ET discover Earth -- Earth conveniently has a natural satellite that provides excellent cover for ET to position, out of sight, yet observe Earth.

Second scenario: ET wish to observe Earth -- Earth has no natural satelite, so ET position constructed satellite in orbit.

In the second scenario, would you, as manager of the budget, authorize the construction of a globe one-fourth the size of the planet you were observing??? Knowing that it would be readily visible by the inhabinants of the planet you were monitoring??? OR, would you opt, instead, for something smaller and easier to build?????? AND, less detectable?

While it may be FUN to imagine our Moon as some sort of artificial construct, it simply belies credulity to think that something THAT LARGE would be constructed for the simple purpose of observing the Earth!

IF we are being observed, I think it's more obvious that the selection of our natural satellite was more likely, since it was there, and was a perfect place to hide....not 'built', just.....there!!!!

As to what may, or may not, have happened if ETs arrived....well, the Jury is still out, and open to consultations.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The difference is in the way we see light.

The RGB system is for adding lights (or light sources, like the light emitting pixels in a CRT monitor or the transistors that let light pass through in a LCD monitor), while the CMYK system (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black) or the Blue, Red, and Yellow system is used for adding inks that reflect the light.

The RGB system is a additive colour system while the CMYK (Blue, Red and Yellow) is subtractive colour system.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks, ArMaP....I've heard of cyan and magenta, of course...but still, aren't they just a different combination of light frequencies?

Here's the dilemma -- when it comes to interpreting visuals from exotic environments, such as space.

How was the image obtained? Is it processed digitally, is it a photograph, how has it been manipulated??

When we see a clever photograph using unusual lighting or exposure settings of an Earthly environment, even as we recognize the familiar vista, we can still appreciate that it is something we are comfortably assured that is IS from Earth, since we see our surroundings every day.

THIS, I think, is one part of the beginnings of these cries of 'Fake!' whenever people see visuals from an alien environment. The context of every image must be taken into account.

From a high altitude, any spacecraft's camera using the (to Humans) visible light spectrum to take pictures of the Moon will see shades of gray. Boring as all get-out!

In terms of 'mapping' accurately the surface of the Moon....I believe it is nearly the equivalent of all of the dry land on Earth....I see it as a daunting challenge. Because on Earth, of course, we can physically travel to the spots we are photographing from space....plus, launching good optics into LEO is far easier than sending the same technology to the Moon....



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm not sure if I understand all of what you say, so I will just say that mapping faithfully something from photos is a hard task, that is why Google Earth has so many faults, they have to take in their calculations the position of the camera (the camera is almost never at a perfect 90º angle to the ground) and any possible distortion from the lens, that is one of the reasons they record the temperature of the camera when they take the photos.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you, ArMaP....it is difficult to discuss that which I only have a passing knowledge of.

I was attempting to convey that 'Google Earth' is being tied in with images taken, at ground level, in order to provide a nearly virtual '3-D' ability to see our surroundings, here on Earth.

Since we do not, as yet, have the ability to drive around on the surface of the Moon and include THOSE photos, we are restricted to the 'look-down' pictures taken from orbit. AND, we have to live with the resolution restrictions inherent in the optics employed.

What I find interesting is...if I mix paint colors (I am a hobbyist, building minatures) I use the basics....red, yellow and blue, plus white and black, for shading. Those THREE primary colors can create an entire color palate.

Now...I was buying new printer ink, and noticed that my Printer uses Cyan and Magenta, along with Black....and yellow, I think.

I also know about the RGB connection on my television (Red, Green, Blue)

So, what we have here is a variation of how to produce color, depending on the medium you use. AND, it is all about how OUR EYES perceive the resulting colors.

As a Human Being we have only a limited range of the light spectrum we are able to perceive, with the naked eye.

Spacecraft, whether launched by NASA or India's Space Agency, can include equipment that can record and send back, as data, in other spectra.

I'm reminded of a movie, and a scene, from "The Abyss"....when a person in very, very deep water cannot see the color of certain wires he must cut, in order to prevent an explosion....BECAUSE of the refraction effects of water, and how it affects the visible spectrum.....



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
So now the question is:

WHAT IS TRUE COLOR?

Is it what our eyes perceive or what the cameras, TVs, and monitors that produce color images using a mix of RBG (the primary colors)?

Eyes have cone cells which have spectral sensitivities that are short (S), medium (M), and long (L), also sometimes referred to as blue, green, and red cones.

But the RGB color model is merely a convenient means for representing color, and is not directly based on the types of cones in the human eye.

In other words we can never know what the true color is until we see it DIRECTLY with our own eyes. Case closed!



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Guess we will have to wait till the "summer" abroad Chandrayaan wanes - the current alignments of the spacecraft, the sun and the moon have resulted in a rise of temperature inside the craft -- not ideal for scientific observations using some instruments, which are turned off. According to ISRO, things should cool down as December progresses, and everything should be hunky-dory. They probably will raise the orbit a little too.


Latest updates to their website relates to Tenders and Account statements.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Some reading material to keep the juice flowing.


The Moon Impact Probe was never a part of Chandrayaan-1’s original configuration Source..


...
The MIP actually was never part of Chandrayaan-1’s original configuration, which included payloads from abroad in response to ISRO’s announcement of opportunity (AO) for proposals from elsewhere ... Its inclusion probably became imperative because it was mooted by former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

The probe’s mass of 35 kg is more than one-third of the total mass (of around 100 kilogram) of the 11 payloads on board and is the highest of all....
...
Chandrayaan-1 had to be reconfigured significantly to accommodate the MIP and that too within six months. For instance, the original plan of having 16 on-board thrusters was changed to eight ... Similarly, instead of the usual four star sensors (used for attitude control) only two were used. This reconfiguration exercise also seems to have necessitated some innovation. Instead of deploying the antenna at the end of a boom, as is usually done in such deep-space missions, the antenna was re-engineered for it to be deployed without a boom.

Annadurai, however, prefered to take a positive view of the whole exercise. “I would not say we paid a price. It was a trade-off,” he said. “This forced us to optimise the mission to the maximum without giving up system redundancy. ... According to him, the satellite now has about 150 kg of the propellant, which is 50 per cent more than what is required (including the margin provided for in the fuel budget) for a lifetime of two years.

...Besides the instruments, the MIP carried a small solid motor and mini solid thrusters, on-board electronics for communication with the orbiting mother satellite, an antenna, a thermal control system and a data storage and read-out system for relaying to the orbiter.

The solid motor provided the small de-boost velocity (of about 62 metre/second) to make the probe’s orbit sub-optimal so that it would crash on the surface (instead of going around with the orbiter after separation). The de-boost was kept small so that the orbiter and the probe had nearly the same horizontal velocity (of about 1.6 km/s) and the former could track the latter right until its demise.

Before the de-boost operation, the probe was spun (at 60 rpm) using the spin-thruster to stabilise it so that the on-board antenna remained steady during the firing. Thus the video imaging was actually done by a spinning camera, which is devolved to get images with the correct perspective. In the distance that the MIP traversed before crashing, it captured about 800 images...

According to Annadurai, the probe crashed near the rim of the Shackleton Crater on the south pole as targeted. The crash was signalled by a sudden break in the transmitted data. The crater itself is in permanent darkness whereas the sun shines in the adjacent regions (including the Malapert Mountain Range) nearly all the time. The evidence on where it crashed came from the final few video images which became progressively pitch dark from one side, as against the earlier lighted images, because of the adjoining crater’s darkness.***
...
According to a paper by R.V. Ramanan and Madan Lal of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), the optimal strategy for landing on the moon from a lunar parking orbit requires a powered braking (at an intermediate altitude) to bring the horizontal velocity to zero and the vertical velocity to a few m/s so that the probe has vertical soft touchdown with a near-zero velocity. This requires an optimum braking thrust of about 700 Newton. The thrusters that ISRO currently has are only of 440 N, and a new thruster has to be developed. They also point out that the landing mass is not optimal if two 440 N thrusters are used.
...

*** That explains the pitch black seen on one side in the second MIP image


[edit on 4/12/2008 by sentinel2107]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
In other words we can never know what the true color is until we see it DIRECTLY with our own eyes.
That is why the expression "near true colour" is sometimes used.

Even if I look at something with my left I do not see the exact same colours that I see with my right eye.

But the systems used (using temperature, colour and light calibration) ensure that what we see is the closest possible to what we would see if we were there, if a camera (without our limitations) "sees" something as 255,0,0 in RGB (pure red), and reproduces it as 255,0,0 we will see it as if we were looking at it.


Case closed!
I think this case will always be opened...



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sentinel2107
Latest updates to their website relates to Tenders and Account statements.

So what's new?
Darn! A one liner again!!

Line 2: Jeeez!! Where's my beer?

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPThat is why the expression "near true colour" is sometimes used.

Even if I look at something with my left I do not see the exact same colours that I see with my right eye.



When you look at the sky is the sky blue? When you look at the grass is the grass green? When you get to a traffic light do you see the red, green and amber light?

Unless you are color blind... in which case you do not see true color... If I showed you a photo of a traffic light would it appear the same to you as when you see it in real live? If I show you a photograph of of a field of grass with a blue sky would it look different to you than in real life?

Now if I show you a picture of a traffic light on Mars and it looks red green and amber... could you not safely assume that the Martian traffic light looks the same on Mars as it does on Earth?

Well we have such a 'traffic light' the sun dial on the Rover...

We have a photo of what it looks like on Earth under Earth sunlight
We have photos of what it looks like on Mars

The SAME sun shines on both Earth and Mars therefore the frequency of light is the same on both worlds. Mars is further away so gets less but has a thinner atmosphere so that compensates a little

When NASA shows me a picture where the sundial is THIS color...




I know it is not correct (PS Ignore the gear thing the rover drives over
)

But when the sundial I see on Mars looks like THIS...



I can reasonably expect that what I am looking at is correct as to what my eyes would see if I was on Mars. Also notice how bright the sunlight is on that sundial.

I think the whole issue of 'true color' is a red herring used by debunkers to divert focus on what is important.

Now about Clementine...

Remember THIS photo?



Well here is the original that Clementine took before they enhanced it to create THAT false image...



That photo was taken by the HIGH RESOLUTION Camera...


High-Resolution Camera

This 1.1-kg camera operates at visible wavelengths (0.415 to 0.75 µm) with silicon CCD technology combined with a compact, lightweight image intensifier. A six-position, spectral filter wheel provided imagery in
discrete spectral bands.

As an example of the camera's capability, Figure 13 shows an image
of Earth taken by the high-resolution camera from lunar orbit at 1250 km
above the surface of the Moon and at a distance of 384,000 km from Earth.
During the lunar-mapping portion of Clementine, the camera produced
high-resolution images for mineral typing of the lunar surface.


Okay so now unless you want to try to convince me that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is LYING it seems that the Lunar surface was mapped with this High Resolution VISIBLE LIGHT (as WE SEE IT) color camera.

Here are the other cameras...


Ultraviolet/Visible Camera

To provide reliable, solid-state, cost-effective imaging in the near ultraviolet,
visible, and near-infrared regions of the spectrum (from 0.3 to 1.0 µm), LLNL designed and built a medium-resolution, 0.426-kg camera that uses silicon charge-coupled device (CCD) technology. For Clementine, this camera was combined with a six position spectral filter wheel for remote sensing applications and, specifically, for mineral typing studies of the Moon.



Near-Infrared Camera

This 1.9-kg camera, produced by LLNL and Amber Engineering,
uses a cryogenically cooled indiumÐantimonide array to provide
solid-state imaging from the nearinfrared (0.9-µm) region to the shortwave-
infrared (3.1-µm) region at medium resolution. The Laboratory
combined the camera with a modular, six-position spectral filter wheel to
obtain data in discrete spectral bands.


www.llnl.gov...

Now you can argue till your blue in the face or turn beet red... but according to those who made the camera they state that the High Res camera on Clementine took photos in VISIBLE light spectrum

And until you can prove that LLNL is lying forgive me if I go with their story and put this issue to rest




...



[edit on 5-12-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Now you can argue till your blue in the face or turn beet red... but according to those who made the camera they state that the High Res camera on Clementine took photos in VISIBLE light spectrum

And until you can prove that LLNL is lying forgive me if I go with their story and put this issue to rest


This 1.1-kg camera operates at visible wavelengths (0.415 to 0.75 µm) with silicon CCD technology combined with a compact, lightweight image intensifier. A six-position, spectral filter wheel provided imagery in discrete spectral bands.


One of the filters on the high resolution camera was broadband which included the full visible spectrum and a bit of near infrared. The others were very narrow band filters. So yes, some imagery from the High Resolution camera is "true color". But not all. I've only been able to find black and white images of the Moon's surface from the broadband filter. Are there any color ones available? As has been pointed out, the Earth/Moon image is "colorized".

The images we get from the USGS, LPI, and Navy browsers are from the UVVIS camera. As has been discussed, the images provided the UVVIS camera are not broadband and, in fact, include only a very small portion of the visible spectrum.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhageSo yes, some imagery from the High Resolution camera is "true color". But not all. I've only been able to find black and white images of the Moon's surface from the broadband filter. Are there any color ones available?



So they sent this high res camera up there, used it to map the entire lunar surface and yet all we see is crappy black and white full of jpg anomalies and medium res UV/VIS 'color' images... Good one but hey "NASA ain't hidin nuttin"

Yes some are available, but it seems not to us, not easily anyway... I wonder if putting in an F O I A request with the NAVY would do any good?

But while looking for something for that post I stumbled upon a huge collection of Mars rover images in real color and very high res. I won't post it yet until I d/l all 3,000 some images. The last time I did that NASA pulled the directory and I never had that Apollo set saved
NASA

To show I am not 'pulling your leg' on this here is one sample



This is going to take a VERY long time to get all these as the source has no volume d/l access and I have to click on each item three times to get to the big picture


But hey, its gonna be worth it
And what else do I have to do anyway with all the Nibiru threads and crappy images from China, Japan and now IRSO?

Hehehe Call me when they show something good





...

[edit on 5-12-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Yes some are available, but it seems not to us, not easily anyway... I wonder if putting in an F O I A request with the NAVY would do any good?



The high resolution images are available. I think even the broadband stuff is b & W though. No reason for it to be in color. The purpose of the mission was not to produce eye candy. Remember b&w photography? Visible spectrum but in black and white.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Phage]

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
When you look at the sky is the sky blue? When you look at the grass is the grass green? When you get to a traffic light do you see the red, green and amber light?
Yes, with slightly different shades according to the eye that I use or a mix of both when I see them with both eyes.


Unless you are color blind... in which case you do not see true color...
Even if I am not colour blind, how can I know if I see the whole visible spectrum? What is visible to someone may be invisible to a different person.


If I showed you a photo of a traffic light would it appear the same to you as when you see it in real live?
If the colour reproduction was correct then yes, if the colours were really the same as in real life I would see them in the same way, if the light conditions were the same.


If I show you a photograph of of a field of grass with a blue sky would it look different to you than in real life?
Maybe, maybe not, you did not said the colour of the grass.


More seriously, and as I said before, if the colour reproduction was perfect and the light conditions similar then it would look the same as the real thing; in fact, even if the conditions were not the same and the colour reproduction not perfect, if it was a photo of a familiar scene, that fact would made me see it closer to what the real scene would look.


Now if I show you a picture of a traffic light on Mars and it looks red green and amber... could you not safely assume that the Martian traffic light looks the same on Mars as it does on Earth?
No, because traffic lights are red, amber and green.
But as I said before, if the colour reproduction is perfect, then yes.


The SAME sun shines on both Earth and Mars therefore the frequency of light is the same on both worlds.
I am not that sure about it, the different atmosphere may change the light a little, but I don't know if it does or not.


When NASA shows me a picture where the sundial is THIS color...

I know it is not correct (PS Ignore the gear thing the rover drives over
)
And you are right, those colours are not correct because that image was not made with the images from the Red, Green and Blue filters, it was probably made with the Ultraviolet filter instead of Green or Blue.

Did NASA said that photo was true colour?


But when the sundial I see on Mars looks like THIS...


I can reasonably expect that what I am looking at is correct as to what my eyes would see if I was on Mars. Also notice how bright the sunlight is on that sundial.
I also notice that this image looks strange, specially the shadow of the Sundial, it looks like the contrast was changed and a fake shadow drawn to hide the change.

I remember that photo and it does not look like that.


I think the whole issue of 'true color' is a red herring used by debunkers to divert focus on what is important.
I think it's just one more issue, and one issue that the "believers" sometimes like to use, when it fits their opinions.



Well here is the original that Clementine took before they enhanced it to create THAT false image...
I suppose you don't know the ID for the original image, but if you (or anyone else) knows, could you please tell us, it's a bit difficult to find the right photo on 203 CDs full of photos, so I am still looking for it...


Okay so now unless you want to try to convince me that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is LYING it seems that the Lunar surface was mapped with this High Resolution VISIBLE LIGHT (as WE SEE IT) color camera.
Why would I try to convince you that they are lying?

What they say does not even goes against what I have been saying, and if it was, that would not be reason for me to try to convince anyone that the people that are supposed to know about something do not really know it, I am not the type of person that doubts the word of specialists when they talk about something in which I am just a little more knowledgeable than most people.


Now you can argue till your blue in the face or turn beet red... but according to those who made the camera they state that the High Res camera on Clementine took photos in VISIBLE light spectrum
And that means...


And until you can prove that LLNL is lying forgive me if I go with their story and put this issue to rest
Once more, why should I do that? What makes you think that I want to prove that they are lying? What makes you think that my opinion is different from what they say? What makes you think that what they say is incompatible with what I say?

I don't really get it, what did I said that made you think that?

 

PS: just before posting this I noticed this image on the PDF to which you posted a link.



Read the text, please, and say what is your interpretation of those words.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But while looking for something for that post I stumbled upon a huge collection of Mars rover images in real color and very high res. I won't post it yet until I d/l all 3,000 some images. The last time I did that NASA pulled the directory and I never had that Apollo set saved
NASA
They are probably the same photos that are available on a site to which I posted a link some months ago, but I will keep my mouth shut until you have downloaded all the images, I remember that other occasion.

If you need help downloading them just say, I have a new computer with lots of free space.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I suppose you don't know the ID for the original image, but if you (or anyone else) knows, could you please tell us, it's a bit difficult to find the right photo on 203 CDs full of photos, so I am still looking for it...

That image is in the document I linked to from LLNL



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join