What has NASA been doing while all Eyes were on ISON...

VoidHawk

wmd_2008
PLEASE explain to members your understanding of low res pictures ?

What, you think its a secret? or that I dont understand that pictures are made up of databytes that get converted into pixels?
When they send the image data back to earth its sent in layers, over time when they have all the image data they can assemble a hi res picture made up of many pixels. What we are shown looks much more like the its just the first scan.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

To YOU what is low resolution is the question that difficult

reply to post by hurdygurdy


You make a major but all too common done error in calling NASA "inept." We hear that time after time about this or that government program especially those that involve critically secret data and activities. Better to think that is what they want us to think as part of their cover story rather than us stopping to say, "Now why would they do that?"

If one ever reads one of the major astronomical magazines, you will occasionally get details of new advances in astrophotography that were unimaginable a few years ago. Some of these techniques are available and used by some of the wealther amateur astronomers that display their work in those publications.

Basically, they can take fifty different images of a astronomical object at different settings and get an idealized image of any aspect of it. With comets, it can be an enormous halo of the dust of the coma and how it exits the nucleus or it can be highly defined details of the nucleus itself. And as you mentioned these types of images have been lacking from those released to the public.

So your major premise is correct, but the reason is not their ineptness. Comets are NOT what they tell us. NASA (and ESA) has a good reason to hide and lie about what is released about strange activities around those objects. That manner of operation for NASA is not confined solely to comets.

wmd_2008

VoidHawk

wmd_2008
PLEASE explain to members your understanding of low res pictures ?

What, you think its a secret? or that I dont understand that pictures are made up of databytes that get converted into pixels?
When they send the image data back to earth its sent in layers, over time when they have all the image data they can assemble a hi res picture made up of many pixels. What we are shown looks much more like the its just the first scan.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

To YOU what is low resolution is the question that difficult

In an earlier post you said

PLEASE explain to members your understanding of low res pictures ?

and I answered.

Yet now your pretending your question was

To YOU what is low resolution is the question that difficult

I think it doesnt matter what I say, you'll just continue to cast doubt on the idea that we're being denied detailed pictures.

reply to post by VoidHawk


astroengineer.wordpress.com...-47

If you have not read this, you may find it interesting.

VoidHawk

wmd_2008

VoidHawk

wmd_2008
PLEASE explain to members your understanding of low res pictures ?

What, you think its a secret? or that I dont understand that pictures are made up of databytes that get converted into pixels?
When they send the image data back to earth its sent in layers, over time when they have all the image data they can assemble a hi res picture made up of many pixels. What we are shown looks much more like the its just the first scan.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

To YOU what is low resolution is the question that difficult

In an earlier post you said

PLEASE explain to members your understanding of low res pictures ?

and I answered.

Yet now your pretending your question was

To YOU what is low resolution is the question that difficult

I think it doesnt matter what I say, you'll just continue to cast doubt on the idea that we're being denied detailed pictures.

YOU may have explained how a picture is assembled in the most basic of terms but that is NOT resolution is it, so what is low , medium ,high or very high resolution to you it's not a trick question!

reply to post by VoidHawk

Irrelevant when it concerns the camera's, in fact each year camera's get smaller yet more powerful so it would have been a minor adjustment to fit the latest tech.

MysterX
reply to post by TheDon

 

What do you expect mate, NASA decided to build a rover to wander around a crater on Mars costing $3.5 Billion...and apparently decided to equip the most expensive Matian rover in the history of Humanity with....2 megapixel CCDs.

Yep...2 meg imaging chips...on a $3.5 Billion mission.

And the reason for equipping the thing with such a pathetic, whimpy, little gnat of a CCD series given by one of the NASA imaging team?

I have a 16MP camera. For raw images that's anywhere from 16-24MB in size. *

The data rate direct-to-Earth varies from about 12,000 bits per second to 3,500 bits per second (roughly a third as fast as a standard home modem). The data rate to the orbiters is a constant 128,000 bits per second (4 times faster than a home modem). An orbiter passes over the rover and is in the vicinity of the sky to communicate with the rovers for about eight minutes at a time, per sol. In that time, about 60 megabits of data (about 1/100 of a CD) can be transmitted to an orbiter. That same 60 megabits would take between 1.5 and 5 hours to transmit direct to Earth. The rovers can only transmit direct-to-Earth for at most three hours a day due to power and thermal limitations, even though Earth may be in view much longer.

marsrover.nasa.gov...

So if my camera was on mars, it would only take them a full day to send one or two pictures. Woo. I bet you would be cheering up NASA even more if they were only able to send one photo a day.



Keep in mind, down time, imaging problems, etc.

At the end of October 2013, the rover Curiosity-lab is present on Mars for more than 440 days. At that time, thousands of photos of the Red Planet have been published

Unity_99
That picture should tell everyone in the world they are lied to. In the US, funded by tax payers money, can't see how they're allowed to continue operations.

Actually, NASA lies to people when it releases those really pretty false colour hubble images. Of course, the public asks for and responds to those kinds of pictures.

Just like the CT crowd does. Most of the pretty images from space came out looking like TV static (which can be very useful to scientists analyzing them, but they don't make for good TV or Youtube, so people play around with them so you have something pretty to look at.

They hiding Nibiru from us...that is all

www.disclose.tv...
www.disclose.tv...

wmd_2008

Unity_99
That picture should tell everyone in the world they are lied to. In the US, funded by tax payers money, can't see how they're allowed to continue operations.

WELL Unity_99 YOU of all people should be able to do better than NASA if your claims were true but you never seem to want to prove them do you!!!

No fancy equipment or wish to hang outside at night anymore. I like being inside with kids. Most of what we've gone through has been pressed on us or me, not chosen consciously. Except for shaking my fists at the sky when I want some real accountability up there and wish everyone would do that.

No body gets proof All I keep getting is that there are teams of counselors close by, and here and earth, and we're not letting any dark hatters get humans. And see an upgrade taking place. But I also noticed Fukushima took place, and alot sea life, including dolphins and whales have died, and people are always being targetted, such as Phillipines recently. So on the score of everyone being safe, haven't a clue. At least physically. Since spirit is real and this is a kind of spirit school, not sure they ever meant physically.

I just don't intend to let my consciousness be hijacked by doomers when we're supposed to send the force of positive thoughts and our consciousness/love to them to overcome all of this. But I never wake up assuming that something isn't in the works either. I think its best to take each day at a time, and not assume everything. Nasa is a pathological liar by intent. Which means, in a real event or a minor one, they still lie. Its pretty useful for them, that way if people catch them out, it still isn't consistent with doom occuring, so you'd never know would you?

On the other hand, people should be expecting more of them that the performance they're giving.

Also I always can see the forest an the trees and connect dots so speak up and ask others to do so because it seems to be about how many wake up and say hell no! And mean it! It seems to about people and what they accept or believe. In other words we can take the bumpy road, or a smooth road into the future depending on us and that seems the way tests are, one by one, and collective.

I post and ask why more aren't standing up and saying No, all the time.

Most of these guys and I pressume NASA as well, are getting DENTAL, not just medical. Now, usually those with DENTAL don't want to lose it. People always have the power to speak up and stand up and refuse to budge.

However, when a few do this they just get targetted, have their lives, their families lives, destroyed or ended, and no one gives a darn, they just go on and on and on.

So if there is a mission involved, it always seems to be about asking for numbers, awareness, to get others to stand up, so there are no martyrs, no pearls before the swine who trod on the gift and destruction of the hero's lives all the time, even with many putting them down for their effort.

So I'm not sure what you're even talking about. I post like that alot on a website that is apparently 1/8th biggest in the world according to a thread on here once. In other words, I try.

reply to post by boncho


Unfortunately your camera stops working when it gets below 10C, or when it gets usbjected to high g-forces, or high radiation..... And in low light the noise is just terrible...

Hellhound604
reply to post by boncho

 

Unfortunately your camera stops working when it gets below 10C, or when it gets usbjected to high g-forces, or high radiation..... And in low light the noise is just terrible...

Well that's just icing on the cake isn't it.

reply to post by boncho


If you design electronic stuff you will know it is nothing to get stuff working at normal temperatures, but designing stuff that even switch on at -50C is a tremendous challenge.... The same applies to radiation, etc. Why do you think a military radio that must work reliably at -10C costs 100x more than a commercial radio? Even more so, why does a radio that goes into an aircraft, and sits in the instrument bay cost 100x more than the military radio? And that is only for a passenger airliner, not subjected to high radiation or high g-forces. Throw your fantastic camera from a 10-store building onto solid concrete and see if it still works, lol....

Instead of pumping your gums about the difficulties on Mars can one of the above self proclaimed camera experts explain why NASA can't take a pretty picture of ISON please? Remember that's what this thread is about, the 'comet of a century'.

Hellhound604
reply to post by boncho

 

If you design electronic stuff you will know it is nothing to get stuff working at normal temperatures, but designing stuff that even switch on at -50C is a tremendous challenge.... The same applies to radiation, etc. Why do you think a military radio that must work reliably at -10C costs 100x more than a commercial radio? Even more so, why does a radio that goes into an aircraft, and sits in the instrument bay cost 100x more than the military radio? And that is only for a passenger airliner, not subjected to high radiation or high g-forces. Throw your fantastic camera from a 10-store building onto solid concrete and see if it still works, lol....

That's all well and good. My response was to the claims that "Why does NASA have a 2MP camera on a billion dollar machine?!!"

Which, is simply answered by data transfer (as it's the primary reason). Even if "my camera" *any camera, was built to withstand all the points you are raising, data-transfer is the bottle-neck.

I just want to be clear for the other people in the thread. Because there seems to be a lot of confusion.

So why go with just 2MP? The choice was made for a number of reasons, some of which might not be immediately obvious. First and foremost is the distance over which datamust be transmitted. The rover sends data to two satellites that orbit Mars, which then relay it back to Earth. This stream of data is quite limited, to something like 256 megabits (32MB) a day. And images aren’t the only thing that Curiosity is sending back — there are all sorts of other recordings and measurements that needs to be transmitted.

www.extremetech.com...

And to hammer in on some of the points WMD was making earlier (for the other readers in the thread):

The final reason why a 2MP sensor made the cut is also the most practical: nothing on Mars is moving. That means that multiple images can be easily stitched together into panoramas. This will have the same effect as a higher resolution camera and none of the drawbacks.

angryhulk
Instead of pumping your gums about the difficulties on Mars can one of the above self proclaimed camera experts explain why NASA can't take a pretty picture of ISON please? Remember that's what this thread is about, the 'comet of a century'.

You would first have to show us the pictures you are making these claims about. And offer some information about them for a comparative analyses.


1. NASA picture, date and time taken, equipment used, processing used.
2. Non-NASA picture, date and time taken, equipment used, processing used.

Without this we may as well be comparing rotten apples to fresh ones saying, "Why can't farmers grow fruit that isn't rotten!"

I could easily create a YT video showing the first glimpse NASA got of ISON, then show something amateurs took when it was much closer, making the same claim. As well, if multiple pictures are stitched together, and a very basic NASA pic is used, same thing.

Without knowing specific examples there is no educated guess for anyone to offer.

Also, which should be noted, is that amateurs/professionals often use the same equipment as NASA, booking it themselves when its free.

It's funny how amateur astronomers are suddenly being used like it proves NASA has been lying, when all the other comets claimed as Nibiru in the past few years were totally debunked by amateurs themselves.

reply to post by boncho


Apologies.... Quite late over here, and still jet-lagged so I only read half of your post, lol..... Yes, I totally agree, even if we can radiation-harden your camera, and get it to work at the temperatures experienced on Mars, bandwidth would be the next problem, until they have a laser link from Mars to Earth

Hellhound604
reply to post by boncho

 

Apologies.... Quite late over here, and still jet-lagged so I only read half of your post, lol..... Yes, I totally agree, even if we can radiation-harden your camera, and get it to work at the temperatures experienced on Mars, bandwidth would be the next problem, until they have a laser link from Mars to Earth

Or a really, really, really, really, really, really long fibre optic cable…

Sorry, i know I am off-topic now, but I am trying to get my mind onto the optic cable to Mars, and seeing it looping around the sun and eventually forming this huge interplanetary knot, lol...

More to the point, if i am not mistaken, next week ISON should be far enough from the sun so that Hubble can take pics from it again. i tjink I have seen it inits schedule too, and No, it is no conspiracy that Hubble cannot point close to the sun. No normal telescope can withou damaging it, unless you have the right filters on, which Hubble doesnt have.

boncho

angryhulk
Instead of pumping your gums about the difficulties on Mars can one of the above self proclaimed camera experts explain why NASA can't take a pretty picture of ISON please? Remember that's what this thread is about, the 'comet of a century'.

You would first have to show us the pictures you are making these claims about. And offer some information about them for a comparative analyses.

Emm no, as essentially I'm repeating what the OP has already pointed out. Use his source?

I would assume it was a simple question I asked for anybody that has any knowledge in this field. I don't have a clue about cameras and that's that.

YAY! Another NASA are big fat liars thread!

You guys are aware that it isn't NASA's job to take pretty pictures of stuff for you to look at, right? They are a space agency, not a photography company.

I see that plenty of rational explanations for their picture quality have been given, but I am sure it will be tossed out in favor of the youtube "expert" featured in OP's video, because we all know that NASA knows nothing, and youtubers know it all