Green Martian valley?

Maybe just oxidized copper deposits? (think Statue of Liberty)

Just a thought... but it would be cool if this turned out to be otherwise.

Originally posted by damajikninja
Maybe just oxidized copper deposits? (think Statue of Liberty)

Just a thought... but it would be cool if this turned out to be otherwise.

Not on Mars, undoubtedly it's just the result of camera effect, the resolution of this image is not very high - it's probably a pixel per 10 or more meters. It's hard to tell what is being observed.

Originally posted by The_Investor
I was interested in coming here based on scientific observations but now am puzzled as to why someone like Stellar-X would proceed to argue agianst what scientists argue for? Experience?

"Scientific observation' is what i focus on the only difference being that i do not disregard the scientific observations the science community( in this field) have chosen to. If you are unwilling to accept what the scientific method ( TM) reveals to you you really have no business getting involved in my opinion. I do not have any 'formal' experience in planetary sciences ( no degrees beyond physics up to grade 12) and that is why i exclusive depend on the scientific findings up actual scientist with actual formal degrees...

Stellar

So your misunderstanding of how color calibration is done and how poor the color resolution is on that orbital camera - means that the Scientists are "lacking in observation".

No merely they are discarding what is "noise" or unreal due to technological limitations.

Originally posted by The_Investor
So your misunderstanding of how color calibration is done and how poor the color resolution is on that orbital camera - means that the Scientists are "lacking in observation".

As i said before they are well aware of how to calibrate to give us a true perspective of the colours of the Martian Surface ( as is admitted by them) and they occasionally do when they are not forced into giving us compromised data.

Which camera are we talking about here btw?

No merely they are discarding what is "noise" or unreal due to technological limitations.

What is your theory of 'technological limitations' based on? Why could some scientist put together the MOC ' on the cheap' using nothing even remotely approaching military grade ( thus classified) equipment? Why must planetary science 'make do' with 'off the shelf' 1970's technology in the year 2000?

Stellar

The big answer to your question is bureaucracy - NASA has a shoe-string Budget 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, and their ever so expensive manned space program.

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

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.

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.

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

Looking at the picture again the darkest patches seems to be on the steepest of slopes I'd say it's a loss of reflectance due to the angle the pictures were taken.

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