Curiosity Has Landed!!

Originally posted by sprtpilot
There will be a lot of questions (that will never get answered) because the audience is far more sophisticated today than when NASA created and spoon-fed the Apollo program to the masses.

Are the images from the Mars Orbiter not enough?

Do you think that NASA has a big urge to really, really "needing" to prove that they sent a probe up there - because A HANDFUL conspiracy twits "don't believe it"? I think NASA has better things to do than satisfying the "Coast2Coast" crowd. I also strongly disagree with your "more sophisticated audience", not after reading about 70% of posts here on the forum which lead me to believe that "the audience" gets dumber and dumber the more time goes by.

reply to post by paulmac


Ignorant people said we landed in the desert on Earth... it was an edit to make people happy.

But I guess you can't please anyone nowadays.....

So why bother even trying for the likes of you people.

reply to post by flexy123


Ye.. I was just looking at NASA's site and they have a couple of pictures that really show what they are aiming for.

www.nasa.gov...

They have a lot of pictures that really helped me get my mind wrapped around the whole thing. Something on the order of 74 pictures I believe though not all are from Curiosity.

Thanks Sounds like you are just as interested as I am in what they will find in those sedimentary layers.

Originally posted by flexy123
Stop it already with that stupid "2MB pixel resolution is bad" comments.
This is the same idiocy as with the hype from makers of digital cameras, making you believe that the more MB a cam has, the "better" it is.

MB has nothing to do with image quality, every smart person buying a digital cam should already know this.

2MB is 1600x1200 resolution - which is plenty to start with - if they need "mega images" like panoramas etc. they can compose giant images of several images. (Look up the AMAZING "McMurdo Panorama", by the way. it was taken in 2008 or so, one of the most stunning Mars images to date! This image is 22k x 5k resolution, by the way, and Mars Pancam who took it over several months has only 1024x1024 pixel resolution).

There are other problems with giant resolution like 8MB - for starters, it would significantly increase transmission times to Earth - a big waste of time for a very insignificant benefit of "better" resolution.

Great, why don't you call nikon and canon and tell them to throw their cameras directly into the waste? Also you should tell to pro and amateurs photographers that 2Mpx are enough.
Go and tell

reply to post by starchaser


With all due respect, why are you continuing your rant at us?

Why don't you get in contact with NASA and offer your expert opinion on all things 'camera', and see what they say? What do you want us to do about it exactly?

Originally posted by Soulece
So nobody else really wants to discuss the photo I posted? I mean its got some artifacts in it. But yet, nobody is really willing to go into detail about it. Another guy posted a photo that was released by nasa and it was edited. Well, I got the raw photo.

Do you really need to ask why people aren't responding to two anomalous white dots on a low resolution image?

Why don't you start your own thread on it, if you think it's important? Then you can have all the whacko's tell you about it being the 'Galactic federation of whites' (they really hate grays), tell you how they are over seeing the mission. You'll get to feel fuzzy, they'll get to feel fuzzy, and we can start having serious conversations in this thread.

Everyone is a winner.

Can someone tell me, what the heck is this black n white camera for? Where is the high res camera with showing details never seen before?

You know, I understand it is an achievement based on the ultra slow exploration done by humanity but I think the scientists there get orgasm over nothing... (well besides of course that they should be happy that the robot landed safely since it was a billion dollar projevct)

reply to post by Imtor


Instead of people repeating constantly the same thing you are requesting, why don't you spend 5 minutes actually reading the thread?

You will learn what you wanted to know, and you will probably learn something new altogether, that you weren't expecting.

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
reply to post by lewtra

 

Was that my other bud with the password? Oh , she is zzzzz, but i am not
Sleeping soundly should be a maxim in life , yadayadayada
4 months of the third season is coming up , after a long holiday
makes perfect sense eh? but there'll be time to see the pictures of this i'm sure

This post should have been removed for being off topic and it dont even make sense.. What the eck are you talking about ?? I'm a 'he' for your infomation, why am I even bothering..

Sorry I dont reply immediatly to responces, but I work long hours.. I have been following the Mars Curiosity expadition when I can and it has been mind blowing thus far...

Hope they discover signs of life while going through the layers of the Gale crater,,,Might even start a thread about it. lol..night.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


The OP has nothing, the last pages are spam, from time to time some black n white pics of Mars plus minus few low res colorful pics on the NASA site.

Again what's with bringing such a greyscale camera? Unless they show us some true color not some RGB rendered pictures and also to be with dimensions of 3000+ or 2000+, this is a total waste of camera...

reply to post by starchaser


I just wrote them a long paragraph saying exactly what you said.

This is what they said back.

"We are sorry for the inconvinience of having too high of quality pictures on Earth, Any camera 3 megapixels or higher will be deemed obsolete and will be removed from the market as of 8/7/2012. However, due to the fast upload times of the recently invented Mini USB Port, most of our customers will continue to upload their pictures with high quality HD formats through the use of high speed internet ports. On average a standard internet provider can move packets of data around the world with a delay of on average 2 seconds give or take. This makes placing the high quality photos, videos, or any other multimedia onto a social media site incredibly easy with usually no wait at all.

We have also reviewed in great detail your complaint about Mars and the upload times taking 'too long' to get to Earth. This is because the distance from Earth to Mars is 13 light minutes away. The time it would take to upload a full HD photo may take up to a couple days due to the amounts of packets needed to be processed and shipped.

However, our great technical team consisting of Count Chocula,the Easter Bunny, Dr. Santa Claus, and El Chupacabra, made a proposal to AT&T to make a high speed fiber optic cable directly to the Martian planet. Making the data transfer time a blazing fast 13 minutes! A speed advantage of 0 seconds and 0 minutes.

We have filed your concern for future reference in our International Database placed convieniently for your easy access in our Atlantis, Undersea Co.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely
The Boogeyman C.E.O."

Happy now?

reply to post by Imtor


Oh you have been to the NASA site? You looked at the pictures? Cool.

All the relevant information to your question, is found in depth on NASA's site.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Instead of acting like a smartass you could also link where it says why the greyscale camera. sure it's in the depths or I woulve' seen it with a skim through the pages

reply to post by Imtor


Maybe i would post pictures on the OP but i cant edit it anymore...

People are too used to being handed things to them like a baby. Instead of looking for yourself.

Theres a reason for everything and it doesn't always have to go your way.

reply to post by Imtor


My purpose here is not to spoon feed people who have a lack of a comprehensive reading ability, but to share my thoughts with like minded people whom are genuinely interested in this subject matter. Good day.

reply to post by Imtor


It says it on page 1 why the pictures are in black and white. But im guessing you didn't read the P.S. section that explains why did you?

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


Yes I didn't read at first due to the spammmy nature of this thread but now I did. Ok then, waiting for high res true color images.. thanks for explaining that part... I Guess

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by starchaser

 

I just wrote them a long paragraph saying exactly what you said.

This is what they said back.

"We are sorry for the inconvinience of having too high of quality pictures on Earth, Any camera 3 megapixels or higher will be deemed obsolete and will be removed from the market as of 8/7/2012. However, due to the fast upload times of the recently invented Mini USB Port, most of our customers will continue to upload their pictures with high quality HD formats through the use of high speed internet ports. On average a standard internet provider can move packets of data around the world with a delay of on average 2 seconds give or take. This makes placing the high quality photos, videos, or any other multimedia onto a social media site incredibly easy with usually no wait at all.

We have also reviewed in great detail your complaint about Mars and the upload times taking 'too long' to get to Earth. This is because the distance from Earth to Mars is 13 light minutes away. The time it would take to upload a full HD photo may take up to a couple days due to the amounts of packets needed to be processed and shipped.

However, our great technical team consisting of Count Chocula,the Easter Bunny, Dr. Santa Claus, and El Chupacabra, made a proposal to AT&T to make a high speed fiber optic cable directly to the Martian planet. Making the data transfer time a blazing fast 13 minutes! A speed advantage of 0 seconds and 0 minutes.

We have filed your concern for future reference in our International Database placed conviniently for your easy access in our Atlantis, Undersea Co.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely
The Boogeyman C.E.O."

Happy now?

Yes, very funny.

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Instead of acting like a smartass you could also link where it says why the greyscale camera. sure it's in the depths or I woulve' seen it with a skim through the pages

READ

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


That mount is supposed to be 3.3 miles high? Does it look 3.3 miles / 5 Kms high to you? No conspiracy or anything, but it just does not look that high to me...............probably a perspective thing?? Hmmmm?