Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?
BradGuth
Apparently "Mercury's unseen side now seen!" is only available in
those colors of gray. After all this time, and of our hard earned
loot spent, I'm actually rather disappointed in NASA's MESSENGER. Are
we ever going to see the full visible spectrum scope and photographic
color depth and contrast worth of our digital images, or merely as
limited as to whatever gray pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of
such limited DR to boot?
Of course there's always the full scope of UV and IR spectrums of
colors outside of the human eye response, that as such could also be
easily made available, especially if given the same eyecandy hype as
accomplished on behalf of most everything else that's out of our
reach.
Perhaps it's just little old me deductively wondering, as to exactly
why our spendy MESSENGER color imaging potential is being
intentionally turned off or excluded from public review, and as to why
their CCD dynamic range remains as so dismal.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/view.php?gallery_id=2
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/EN0108821596M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/EN0108826105M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/EN0108826040M_45M.jpg
Thanks to our "no kid left behind" policy, as of prior to CCD camera
imaging perhaps all of 0.1% of Americans even understood what
photographic spectrum sensitivity and the associated DR(dynamic range)
of B&W or color film even meant. Since the advent of commercial/
consumer CCD cameras and the continued dumbing down of America, I'd
say that fewer than 0.0001% (that's one out of a million) of our
supposedly educated population of mostly snookered and thus easily
dumbfounded village idiots have so much as a freaking clue as to what
either factor of spectrum sensitivity or much less that of what DR
means. Of course this is perfectly good news for those of our cloak
and dagger 'Skull and Bones', as well as for all those faith-based
rusemasters within our NASA, and especially on behalf of those
unfiltered Apollo Kodak moments that somehow never managed to get any
such blue saturated images of our naked and physically dark moon like
those recently accomplished by China and Japan with their quality
bandpass filtered optics.
Here's that other one of Venus by way of MESSENGER that's about as
wussy/pastel worth of color and pathetic DR as you can possibly get,
and still having just enough to call it color, especially weird since
most cell phone cameras would have taken a better color image.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?page=1&gallery_id=2&image_id=88
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/Venus%202%20Approach%20Image.jpg
Remember the Earth flyby, whereas our easily color spectrum corrected
as a dark-golden-brown moon was intentionally kept out of frame and
otherwise as either too physically dark or perhaps it was invisible
due to their intentionally limited DR usage, however the pastel color
and/or dynamic range limited image of Earth looked quite nifty.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_galapagos.html
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/images/flyby_images/galapagos_lg.jpg
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/2005/050826.asp
Is this lack of color imaging all because of Mercury being so gush
darn moon like, with similar crater upon crater morphed terrain and of
a low amount of albedo, but otherwise offering such a deposited and
local mineral rich geology, and subsequently colorful surface as
capably imaged by those spendy mirror optics, whereas at least one of
which having an extremely good set of narrow bandpass filters and/or
spectrum cutoff filters, and with each of those CCD imagers having
such terrific DR(dynamic range of at the very least 4X film and that's
not even including the extra +/- skew of their CCD DR).
So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
mapping Mercury gets under way.
. - Brad Guth
eyeball
possible...
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>
> So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
> Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
> fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
> mapping Mercury gets under way.
>
> . - Brad Guth
Maybe it IS just grey. Think of the moon. They used color cameras
there, and you could see colors on the logos on the astronauts, the
flag, etc. But the landscape was all shades of grey. Much of the
color on Earth is the result of biological activity. On Mars there
apparently was enough oxygen in the atmosphere to oxidize iron, but
there is not a whole lot of color there. So maybe Mercury is like the
moon, and really is just grey. If they have specroscopic sensors,
they can see fine color variations, but these are not what it would
look like to the human eye.
Vincent D. DeSimone
> we ever going to see the full visible spectrum scope and photographic
> color depth and contrast worth of our digital images, or merely as
> limited as to whatever gray pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of
> such limited DR to boot?
Yes, we will. As you know, MESSENGER carries the MDIS camera that uses 11
color filters. What we have been seeing are the B&W images of selected
spectrum shots. The magic of combining them into full color images takes
place on the ground. Since weight and cost is very much an issue with these
Discovery missions, the camera was selected to get the most science out, not
just for eye candy. The last of 500 MB of data was only just downloaded; it
will take a little time for the team to combine the shots into full color,
wide-angle panoramas.
du
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:f4e4d4b6-0325-49ff...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
>> Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
>> fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
>> mapping Mercury gets under way.
>>
>> . - Brad Guth
>
wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
mission.
Mark Thornton
> "Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?"
> Apparently "Mercury's unseen side now seen!" is only available in
> those colors of gray. After all this time, and of our hard earned
> loot spent, I'm actually rather disappointed in NASA's MESSENGER. Are
> we ever going to see the full visible spectrum scope and photographic
> color depth and contrast worth of our digital images, or merely as
> limited as to whatever gray pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of
> such limited DR to boot?
The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific purposes
and not generating eye candy. This usually means a sensor with a colour
filter wheel. Creating colour images requires post processing which
isn't trivial --- with the probe moving you have to align the images for
each colour. The colour response is also often not well suited to
producing what our eyes would interpret as true colour. I think NASA has
admitted that this last aspect results in poor PR and that future
sensors might include more suitable filters in the set.
Note also that sci.op-research is about Operations Research and nothing
to do with optics.
Mark Thornton
Pat Flannery
Vincent D. DeSimone wrote:
>
> Yes, we will. As you know, MESSENGER carries the MDIS camera that uses 11
> color filters. What we have been seeing are the B&W images of selected
> spectrum shots.
The photos we've been seeing are those using the visible red filter on
the spacecraft.
Pat
Pat Flannery
du wrote:
> This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
> wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
> color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
> mission.
I'm pretty sure this fly-by used all the filters.
Exposure time for each photo certainly didn't need to be much given the
level of illumination provided by the Sun.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Mark Thornton wrote:
>
> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific
> purposes and not generating eye candy. This usually means a sensor
> with a colour filter wheel. Creating colour images requires post
> processing which isn't trivial --- with the probe moving you have to
> align the images for each colour. The colour response is also often
> not well suited to producing what our eyes would interpret as true
> colour. I think NASA has admitted that this last aspect results in
> poor PR and that future sensors might include more suitable filters in
> the set.
In the case of MESSENGER, the photos are across a wide part of the
optical spectrum via several filters.
So they will be putting together color images of the planet from this
data fairly shortly.
The main point of the mission is to determine the elemental make-up of
the surface of Mercury by how the various minerals and rocks reflect
sunlight in various parts of the spectrum, via multiple images of the
same area through all of the optical filters This allows maps to be
generated, such as Clementine generated of the Moon using the same
technique. You can look at the Clementine lunar mineral maps here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/clementine/images/
Pat
marika
"eyeball" <eyeball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b07a538a-6e64-4b3c...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> they say the little green men are really gray,so anything is
> possible...
you are confusing me
mk5000
"The girls in their summer clothes
Pass me by
Frankie's Diner's
Over on the edge of town"--Bruce Springsteen
BradGuth
wrote:
So, you are going on record as saying that our moon and Mercury are
each of a medium light gray?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote in messagenews:f4e4d4b6-0325-49ff...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
> >> Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
> >> fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
> >> mapping Mercury gets under way.
>
> >> . - Brad Guth
>
> This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
> wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
> color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
> mission.
There was plenty of flyby time for accommodating at least a few full
color images.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
I'd have to agree with that. Remember there was two CCD imagers, and
the very best of mirror optics in addition to one of those CCD imagers
having those nifty filters.
I'd like to review the entire archive of all such images from each of
those cameras, and especially of those using whatever narrow bandpass
filters.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > "Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?"
> > Apparently "Mercury's unseen side now seen!" is only available in
> > those colors of gray. After all this time, and of our hard earned
> > loot spent, I'm actually rather disappointed in NASA's MESSENGER. Are
> > we ever going to see the full visible spectrum scope and photographic
> > color depth and contrast worth of our digital images, or merely as
> > limited as to whatever gray pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of
> > such limited DR to boot?
>
> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific purposes
> and not generating eye candy.
Colour imaging is good science of the best kind.
>
> This usually means a sensor with a colour
> filter wheel. Creating colour images requires post processing which
> isn't trivial --- with the probe moving you have to align the images for
> each colour. The colour response is also often not well suited to
> producing what our eyes would interpret as true colour. I think NASA has
> admitted that this last aspect results in poor PR and that future
> sensors might include more suitable filters in the set.
>
> Note also that sci.op-research is about Operations Research and nothing
> to do with optics.
>
> Mark Thornton
Your naysay mindset is noted.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
BTW, that Clementine image has the the color pixels excluded from the
moon. Even a 5th grader can prove that image has been doctored.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/clementine/images/
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
That's good news, as I was getting a little worried that we'd waited
too long and having paid far too much for just those B&W images of
such limited DR.
BTW, composite color spectrum imaging is good science, especially
since the color can always be software (aka PhotoShop) excluded by the
individual viewing the archive of any such color enabled image.
Digital color information does not degrade the observationology
science.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
How exactly do you know that?
- Brad Guth
us...@domain.invalid
>
> So, you are going on record as saying that our moon and Mercury are
> each of a medium light gray?
>
That's certainly wrong for the moon. It is dark gray. I've actually
held a couple of hunks of it in my hands, and seen
many others, and they were all dark gray.
Doug McDonald
OM
<GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
>public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
>through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
>this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury. When Messenger settles
>down into orbit in 2011, they will have more time to gather full color
>pictures. Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
>that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
>aligned perfectly. Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
>on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
>consumption.
...The good news: This is 110% dead-on why there was no "true color"
imaging on this flyby.
...The bad news: Too bad it was wasted on the likes of Guthball.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
> public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
> through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
> this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.
Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=125
"The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
approach with Mercury."
> When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
> time to gather full color pictures.
A lot of things can happen in 3 years.
> Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
> that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
> aligned perfectly.
It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
software (on Earth).
> Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
> on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
> consumption.
Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.
There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
BradGuth
> The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
> public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
> through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
> down into orbit in 2011, they will have more time to gather full color
> that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
> on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
> consumption.
>
Are you you quit through with being anti-science, and otherwise such a
silly born-again rusemaster on behalf of your brown-nosed butt
protecting all that's hocus-pocus NASA.
You know, for some stupid reason your MESSENGER had no problems or
lack of any science whatsoever with all of those full pastel (DR
limited) color images of Earth as it flew past, and there sure as hell
was no shortage of Mercury flyby time for accomplishing a good enough
number of full color and of maximum DR depth worthy images. Three or
four of those full color spectrum images would not have been any loss
to the MESSENGER science, in fact such imaging would only have
improved upon their science.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom <GEdst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
> > public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
> > through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
> > this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.
>
> Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
The last thing these infowar and disinformation spewing bastards of
NASA's science fuckology ever want to hear is that I'm right. So, you
should expect to get ignored, banished or given a good amount of
whatever lethal flak they can muster.
>
> "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
> image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
> end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
> also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
> approach with Mercury."
>
> > When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
> > time to gather full color pictures.
>
> A lot of things can happen in 3 years.
>
> > Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
> > that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
> > aligned perfectly.
>
> It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
> software (on Earth).
Lots of local PhotoShop efforts can manage to correct for most
anything, as long as those original images are in focus and without
too much motion distortion to start off with.
How the freaking hell did they manage to accomplish all of those Earth
flyby color frames so quickly?
>
> > Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
> > on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
> > consumption.
>
> Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
> public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.
>
> There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
> be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".
>
> --http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
>
> .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
> Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
99.9% of Usenet folks seem perfectly cozy with their pretending as
being atheists and otherwise as all-knowing at the same time, are
oddly opposed to sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
They get especially testy whenever such new and improved information
rocks their NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP, and of most everything
since getting put at risk.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
The nearly coal like albedo of our moon and of the nearly as dark
Mercury are in fact in B&W imaging format of a very dark/charcoal gray
(in fact somewhat new asphalt dark gray looking).
However, don't tell that silly color-blind story along with most any
of those official NASA moon image archives, much less to others having
taken properly filtered images of our moon along with the likes of
those having Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn within the same FOV, thus
having used the very same exposure for their film or CCD obtained
image.
- Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
Gary Edstrom wrote:
> The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
> public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
> through each of 3 color filters.
Look... would everyone please get this straight.
They took over 1,200 pictures of the planet on this flyby.
The pictures have all been successfully transmitted to Earth.
They used the color filters on the Wide Angle Camera (WAC) in all of
the pictures it took (the narrow angle camera is B&W).
You can read up on this here:
http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0110_MESSENGER_Set_for_First_Spacecraft.html
They got a color movie of the approach to Mercury using three filters of
the Wide Angle Camera to generate a "this is how it would look to the
naked eye" view.
At one hour and twenty-five minutes before closest approach they they
took a color still image of the planet through all eleven filters.
Eleven minutes after closet approach, they took a set of five color
still images through all eleven filters.
(since those images were taken in fairly quick order of the same place
on the surface at different angles, I suspect they are going to be
turned into a 3D color image of that area.)
Then, thirty-six minutes after closest approach, another color mosaic
still view of the whole planet via nine images taken through all eleven
filters.
Finally, at one hour and twelve minutes after closet approach, another
color image of the whole planet in one image taken through all eleven
filters.
To give some idea of what Mercury looks like in color, here's a large
true color shot of it from Mariner 10:
http://www.planetary.org/image/mariner_mercury_stryk_outboundhires1f1.jpg
A lot like the Moon, but more light olive drab than gray in color.
You can see what instrument was doing what on MESSENGER during the flyby
via the interactive time-line here:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/encounters/index.php?autorefresh=false&time=1200343330
The images released from the WAC up to the moment have been trough the
red filter, as it shows detail best.
Pat
Scott M. Kozel
>
> The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
> public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
> down into orbit in 2011, they will have more time to gather full color
> that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
> on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
> consumption.
So how did the Voyagers get color photos of the moons of Jupiter?
That was over 25 years ago, too.
BradGuth
wrote:
Our moon and Mercury each have their fair share of local and cosmic
contributed mineralogy, and they also have way more than their fair
share of gamma and X-Ray influx that interacts and unavoidably creates
those pesky secondary/recoil photons, many of which the human eye can
even see, and of certainly seen within the much greater spectrum worth
of whatever a good CCD eye that's using mirror optics can detect.
How many official NASA/Apollo archive images would you like to review,
of those which proves that you are actually far worse off than merely
in human error?
BTW, why don't you tell us how the heck team MESSENGER accomplished
all of those colorful Earth flyby images, and so quickly?
- Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...The good news: This is 110% dead-on why there was no "true color"
> imaging on this flyby.
>
With the WAC images through all the eleven filters, they can do "true
color" via just using the RGB filtered images.
Anyway in true color it's pretty damned bland. Sort of like the Moon
seen through smog.
Pat
BradGuth
Our moon and Mercury have "smog"? (that's a good one)
Let our own PhotoShop or whatever digital photo software unbland
whatever there is to see, or is even that too much to ask for?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
Our moon and Mercury have color image inhibiting "smog"? (that's a
really good one, Pat)
Jeff Findley
"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
news:fn2rk0$tp9$1...@koala.mat.uc.pt...
> Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
>
> http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=125
>
> "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
> image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
> end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
> also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
> approach with Mercury."
It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they imaged the
same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those would be
*different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from several
images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above web page.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
Damon Hill
news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$17...@FUSE.NET:
> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
>
> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
> web page.
I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.
--Damon
John Navas
<damon...@comcast.netnet> wrote in
<Xns9A2D790C730F6...@127.0.0.1>:
And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Vincent D. DeSimone
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:acd9eb47-20d9-449a...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
GregS
Ever check out Area 51 on Google maps. Interesting layout.
greg
BradGuth
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:53:57 -0600, Damon Hill
> <Xns9A2D790C730F6damon161attbi...@127.0.0.1>:
>
> >"Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in
> >news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$17...@FUSE.NET:
>
> >> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
> >> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
> >> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
>
> >> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
> >> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
> >> web page.
>
> >I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
> >forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
> >involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
> >identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.
>
> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
You're saying that the regular laws of physics along with the best
available science that's easily peer replicated are "unfounded"?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote innews:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$17...@FUSE.NET:
With the new and greatly improved 2048 CPU supercomputer at NASA's
disposal, how many seconds or rather fraction of a second worth of
processing time for the entire lot are we talking about?
- Brad Guth
robert casey
>
> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific purposes
> and not generating eye candy.
Don't discount "eye candy" for the public, aka taxpayers.
Anyway, in today's local paper I saw a "color" picture of Mercury. The
color may just have been photoshopped, as the entire planet was a light
tan hue.
John Navas
wrote in
<f12672cc-f119-4254...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. :)
BradGuth
There's nothing "light tan hue" worthy about any albedo of 12%.
Perhaps as an open pit coal mine worth of a somewhat dark tan hue.
- Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
The blurring effect of images taken close in at magnification is
probably why they didn't put a filter wheel on the close-up camera, but
only the wide-field one.
Since the illumination of the planet will be intense, imaging time would
be limited only by how fast the camera can complete a scan and how fast
the color filter wheel can rotate. You should be able to take a lot of
photos in just a few seconds.
Pat
Pat Flannery
John Navas wrote:
> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
>
Okay...everybody ready?
The first color image:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.
Pat
John Navas
wrote in <13pcs1p...@corp.supernews.com>:
Clearly a fake. There isn't actually a working camera on board, and the
satellite never actually made it out of Earth orbit. The aliens are
just unfamiliar with Photoshop,.
Pat Flannery
robert casey wrote:
>
>>
>> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific
>> purposes and not generating eye candy.
>
> Don't discount "eye candy" for the public, aka taxpayers.
The three-filter color approach movie to the planet was done
specifically for public consumption by NASA.
This is probably a frame from it:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
Pat
John Navas
wrote in <13pcof1...@corp.supernews.com>:
>> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific purposes
>> and not generating eye candy.
>
>Don't discount "eye candy" for the public, aka taxpayers.
NASA doesn't -- see the websites and many images released to the public.
BradGuth
>
> Pat
Thanks, Pat, as that's a whole lot better. However too bad their
image DR is still so limited.
PhotoShop image adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT = MASTER
HUE = 0
SATURATION = +75
LIGHTNESS = -5
enlarge image: RESAMPLE = 2X (2048 X 2048)
filter image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS = 2
THRESHOLD = 4
filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more PhotoShop work if you'd like to see the
atmosphere. Of course the raw image would have been so much better if
we were given the full DR worth pixel data to work with.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
Thanks, Pat, as that's a whole lot better. However too bad their
image DR(dynamic range) is still so limited.
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png @2X along with more color
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
Embedded: ColorMatch RGB (use the embedded profile)
Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT = MASTER
HUE = 0
SATURATION = +75
LIGHTNESS = -5
Image Size: RESAMPLE = 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS = 2
THRESHOLD = 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more PhotoShop work if you'd like to see the
atmosphere. Of course the raw image would have been so much better if
we were given the full DR worth pixel data to work with.
Mercury atmosphere: c1000_700_430.png @1X
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: Replace Color
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +10 up to +50
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:36:32 -0500, robert casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> >> The imagers on space probes are usually designed for scientific purposes
> >> and not generating eye candy.
>
> >Don't discount "eye candy" for the public, aka taxpayers.
>
> NASA doesn't -- see the websites and many images released to the public.
I agree, that our NASA is pretty much all about using science hype and
"eye candy" infomercials.
- Brad Guth
Chris Savage
I don't know; that blue crater right in the middle of frame looks quite
interesting.
--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
BradGuth
wrote:
> On 2008-01-22, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
> >> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
> >> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
>
> > Okay...everybody ready?
> > The first color image:
> > Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.
>
> I don't know; that blue crater right in the middle of frame looks quite
> interesting.
> --
> Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
> Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
> - Billy Bragg
If you have most any kind of photographic enhancement software, you
can do this extremely pastel image one better.
This is certainly a whole lot better science worthy look-see at
Mercury. However, too bad their extremely pastel image of such
pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast or depth of hue
limited. Remember the albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb
nearly as dark as coal.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
* Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")
Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5
Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related artifacts. Of course the raw image itself would
have been so much better off if we were ever given the full DR worth
of pixel data to work with.
Mercury atmosphere: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13pcs1p...@corp.supernews.com...
> Okay...everybody ready?
> The first color image:
> http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
> Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.
True, but there are grays, browns, and even a bit of bluish looking gray in
there.
BradGuth
wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13pcs1p...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Okay...everybody ready?
> > The first color image:
> > Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.
>
> True, but there are grays, browns, and even a bit of bluish looking gray in
> there.
>
> Jeff
Even in a very pastel kind of way, this is certainly a whole lot
better science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their
extremely pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so
contrast impaired or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember the
albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as dark as coal.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")
BradGuth
If we were to focus our best talents and remaining resources upon
obtainable goals that'll directly benefit humanity without further
traumatizing our environment, such as instead allowing our public loot
to get spent on accomplishing those 100% renewable and clean
terrestrial energy alternatives that'll subsequently deliver the
absolute most out of our remaining fossil fuels, along with
contributing the least CO2 and even if need be at zero NOx, whereas
we'd otherwise need to focus our future NASA probes and whatever off-
world EVA robotics as dealing with using the interior of our moon, and
otherwise as doing the sorts of Earth/Moon science from being
efficiently situated within the moon's interactive L1, or quite
possibly on behalf of our doing the cool Venus L2 POOF City thing of
safely accommodating us frail humans in space, that which some day
either our Moon's toasty L1 or of the cool and much less gamma pesky
environment of the Venus L2 outpost could become the space depot/
gateway on behalf of accomplishing our first for-profit interplanetary
enterprise.
BTW, I'd recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel pixels had anything of
interest to offer as intelligent/artificial looking (such as those I'd
previously discovered about Venus), and lo and behold there's not one
such collection of those DR limited and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus
far that's worth a closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury
MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each
pixel would have been at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp
as a tack.
-
Even in this very pastel kind of way, at least this color image is
certainly offering us a whole lot better science worthy look-see at
Mercury. However, too bad their extremely pastel image of such
pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast impaired or depth of
hue saturation limited. Remember also that the albedo of 0.12 is
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
If you can't manage to do these basic sorts of 5th grade PhotoShop
things, in which case you have no business in this or any other
physics or science related group.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
team MESSENGER is willing to share, but we can rather easily improve
upon that image by simply pushing up those color saturations without
distorting one damn thing.
I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel pixels had anything of
interest to offer as potentially intelligent/artificial looking (such
as those I'd previously discovered about Venus), and lo and behold
there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited and
somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth a closer look-see.
Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar
imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been at least 4
confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft pastel kind of way, whereas at least this
limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever tell us the truth about such
things.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")
Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5
(if you like color, do it again at +50 Saturation and 0 Lightness)
Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related artifacts. Of course the raw image itself would
have been so much better off if we were ever given access to the full
DR worth of their pixel data to work with. Replacing the color black
with most any other color, such as a medium dark gray does the trick.
Mercury atmosphere: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)
If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is too much for your speed, then perhaps you should not be
anywhere in Usenet science groups, especially since you lack the most
basic skills.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
How can this be, that little old me can manage to pull out so much
information from that otherwise absolutely pathetic pastel color image
of Mercury?
Is there a little something that our NASA and team MESSENGER might
care to share, so that others can see a whole lot more of what makes
that moon like planet Mercury tick?
- Brad Guth
> Mercury atmosphere: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2Xhttp://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
BradGuth
blind.
Guess we all have to live with whatever pathetic little color
saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing wizards
are willing to share, but then we can rather easily improve upon that
extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those color saturations
without distorting one damn thing.
I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those I'd previously discovered as of 8+
years ago about Venus), and lo and behold there's not one such
collection or pattern of those DR limited and somewhat fuzzy CCD
pixels thus far that's worth a closer look-see. Too bad that our
Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar imaging, whereas
each radar pixel would have been at least 4 confirming looks and
absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft pastel kind of way, whereas at least this
limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever tell us the truth about such
things.
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/view.php?gallery_id=2
Of the one and only pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic
range) and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")
Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5
(if you like color, do it once again at +50 Saturation and 0
Lightness)
Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related pixel artifacts. Of course the raw image itself
would have been so much better off if we were ever given access to
having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data to work with.
Replacing the color black with most any other color, such as a given
medium dark gray does the trick for this next interesting extraction
of planetology science.
The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)
Next try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.
If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your speed, then perhaps you should not
even be anywhere in Usenet science or any other science/astronomy or
astrophysics related forums, especially since so many of you folks
lack the most basic of digital image observationology skills.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
alike?
Isn't Mercury in mineralogy color a whole lot more interesting than in
B&W?
Is this also why nothing is getting shared about those technology
blind JAXA/Selene obtained images that oddly can't even so much as
detect upon any one bright and shiny pixel worth of depicting any such
highly reflective NASA/Apollo item of good enough size, that's
supposedly existing in good numbers, situated as though soft-landed
and otherwise nicely EVA deployed upon that physically dark as coal
moon of ours?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
this anti-think-tank of Usenet naysayism and continued denial that's
color blind and otherwise dumbfounded itself past the point of no
return.
Such modern CCD imaging and especially of mirror optics not only have
the greatest spectrum of photon detections to offer, especially of
recording whatever our naked eye can't even see, but it also has far
better dynamic range(DR) to work with. Too bad we're not being
allowed to see either of those terrific capabilities.
Out of the thousands of recently obtained images, we're given all but
one extremely pastel color image to ponder, and even of those filtered
B&W images having been limited and/or excluded viable science related
pixels. Perhaps the planet Mercury is more like our moon than not,
and as such we the public need to be kept in the dark (sort of speak),
as otherwise kept as color blind as possible, so that the true
mineralogy and thin atmosphere of Mercury remains as hocus-pocus need
to know as possible.
. - Brad Guth
On Jan 27, 2:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BradGuth
by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
otherwise such piss poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
cameras to that probe.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."
http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."
"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."
It's a darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part such a
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of Venus do not have any pesky
nearby moon of such horrific mass, like that physically dark sucker
that has been somewhat recently keeping Earth so extra toasty from the
inside out, plus affecting each and every m3 of our thin crusted
surface, oceans and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and
subsequently thawing us out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever
see.
Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's unlikely
that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old water
ice, that is unless sequestered within polar geode pockets offering
thick enough basalt or protected by whatever mineralogy solids.
Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind. Out of 1,213 images,
thus far we've got all of one extremely pastel color image to work
with.
Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.
I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those interesting pixels I'd previously
discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and behold there's
not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited and somewhat
fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a closer look-see.
For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related pixel artifacts. Of course the raw image itself
would have been so much better off if we were ever given access to
having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data to work with.
Replacing the color black with most any other color, such as a given
medium/dark gray does the trick for this next interesting extraction
of planetology, mineralogy and atmospheric science.
The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)
Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.
If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset,
then perhaps you should not even be posting anywhere within Usenet
science, or contributing into most any other public space/astronomy or
astrophysics related forums, especially since so many of you folks
seem to lack the most basic of digital image observationology skills.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wonder China, Japan and soon enough India are doing so well.
. - Brad Guth
On Jan 31, 5:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting terribly hot, especially
> by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
> obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
> also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
> fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
> little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
> bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
> otherwise such piss poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
> DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
> Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
> cameras to that probe.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
> "How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
> temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
> extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
> models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
> 175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."
>
> http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_...
BradGuth
was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."
Why are only selective topics being moderated, as though taboo/off-
limits to receiving my words of wisdom?
. - Brad Guth
On Jan 31, 5:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting terribly hot, especially
> by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
> obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
> also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
> fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
> little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
> bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
> otherwise such piss poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
> DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
> Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
> cameras to that probe.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
> "How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
> temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
> extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
> models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
> 175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."
>
> http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_...
BradGuth
than any of those Venus polar and elevated zones that can become as
cool as 600 K, and quite possibly a bit cooler by season of nighttime.
How colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER? (is there such a thing as
braille color?)
On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly moon like cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet
within a fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good
potential for a little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter
Olympics?). Too bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such
crappy CCD cameras and otherwise such piss poor mirror optics that so
terribly degraded their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the
mineral hue/color saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few
of those free cell phone cameras to that probe.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."
http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."
"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."
A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.
Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.
Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.
Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.
I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/view.php?gallery_id=2
Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")
Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5
(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)
For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)
There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.
The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png
PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)
Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.
Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/Prockter07.jpg
Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/R6Hq9ccDJ9I/AAAAAAAABT4/BLtXCZz13VY/s1600-h/MercuryInDetail
If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
past the point of no return. It must be some kind of silly brown-
nosed thing, quite a common DNA mutation within the sorts of pretend
atheists (aka Zionist/Jews of the Third Reich).
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
using maximum DR and full color saturation of that physically dark
planet of Mercury.
Don't tell us that our cell phone cameras are of better quality than
your spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes has to offer.
. - Brad Guth
On Feb 2, 8:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In places by day, the low albedo of Mercury can become so much hotter
> than any of those Venus polar and elevated zones that can become as
> cool as 600 K, and quite possibly a bit cooler by season of nighttime.
>
> How colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER? (is there such a thing as
> braille color?)
>
> On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
> especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
> midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
> cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
> also terribly moon like cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet
> within a fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good
> potential for a little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter
> Olympics?). Too bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such
> crappy CCD cameras and otherwise such piss poor mirror optics that so
> terribly degraded their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the
> mineral hue/color saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few
> of those free cell phone cameras to that probe.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
> "How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
> temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
> extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
> models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
> 175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."
>
> http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_...
> (you'll also need to zoom way in).http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/Prockter07.jpg
>
> Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
> accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
> recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
> Mercury.http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/R6Hq9ccDJ9I/AAAAAAAABT4/BLtXCZz13...