NASA Image of the Day

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
While it may not be proof that Martians exist or the discovery of water on Mars, this picture of the Mars Exploration Rover platform is still really cool.
 
In case any of you missed part of what's cool about this picture, at the bottom left, about 2 small craters in, is a small white dot that is the three-petal lander platform that NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit drove off in January 2004.
 
bh192012 said:
In case any of you missed part of what's cool about this picture, at the bottom left, about 2 small craters in, is a small white dot that is the three-petal lander platform that NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit drove off in January 2004.
Click to expand...

For a second there I thought it was going to be an ink-plot test thingy because at first all I seen was rocks, pits, and craters.:D
 
I've been seeing a lot about Mars lately. If an astronaut left an iPod full of music there, the RIAA could sue the whole planet!
 
I don't believe we ever went to Mars. Oh wait, we haven't? Well than, I believe we should stop
spending billions/trillions on killing each other and actually venture out into space so like lets f**king go there already!

Hint: Invest more into NASA and less into anything that ends with .Gov
 
i remember when the rovers first landed on mars and the photos looked real as ever.

after years and years of accumulative internet experience, and visual acuity training from browsing CGI and portfolios of graphic art.. ive come to the conclusion that those past mars rover images cant be real.
They look too CGI and fake, especially for that time period.
 
That crator actually looks like there's water in it. Guess it's just a mirage. :D

I'm actually surprised they have not sent a man there yet. I think it would be pretty cool, and the technology is there.

Though I think the best bet is indeed to put an ipod full of music, since the RIAA will just bring the whole thing to court, where it will be more easily accessible.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Seriously? What makes that fake?
Click to expand...

I think he's stuck on it because it looks like it came out of a scene from a game. Their cameras do not take pictures in a general sense that a normal camera does. A lot of the time they fill in the blank... which is why the pictures come out looking the way it does.

It's not like they have a team of (bad) artists sitting over at NASA, dreaming about what the martian landscape looks like. Most of the stuff released is heavily processed so that your common individual doesn't look at it and think "Another boring black and white image...". Part of NASA's mission is to captivate / educate the public... this is just one means to an end.

Certainly does not mean that it's fake, but I can guarantee you that it's definitely not what comes straight out of the rovers.
 
Seraphical said:
I think he's stuck on it because it looks like it came out of a scene from a game. Their cameras do not take pictures in a general sense that a normal camera does. A lot of the time they fill in the blank... which is why the pictures come out looking the way it does.

It's not like they have a team of (bad) artists sitting over at NASA, dreaming about what the martian landscape looks like. Most of the stuff released is heavily processed so that your common individual doesn't look at it and think "Another boring black and white image...". Part of NASA's mission is to captivate / educate the public... this is just one means to an end.

Certainly does not mean that it's fake, but I can guarantee you that it's definitely not what comes straight out of the rovers.
Click to expand...

Well, yea. It's obviously a composite image. Then take into account a completely different atmosphere, consisting of mostly CO2 and Argon. Particulate matter etc...
 
On that note:

I wondered why there hasn't been any similar photo's of the Moon landing? Maybe it's cuz I haven't googled hard enough, but there really hasn't been a documented photo with the detail and resolution as this one?

Additionally, is there any consumer telescopes out there which could even reach the moon landing which we could see, just curious?
 
Ski said:
On that note:

I wondered why there hasn't been any similar photo's of the Moon landing? Maybe it's cuz I haven't googled hard enough, but there really hasn't been a documented photo with the detail and resolution as this one?

Additionally, is there any consumer telescopes out there which could even reach the moon landing which we could see, just curious?
Click to expand...

There are some pics on nasa.gov of apollo 11 lander. Not in terribly high detail, but good enough to make out the lander, foot path, and instruments that were placed.
 
Ski said:
On that note:

I wondered why there hasn't been any similar photo's of the Moon landing? Maybe it's cuz I haven't googled hard enough, but there really hasn't been a documented photo with the detail and resolution as this one?

Additionally, is there any consumer telescopes out there which could even reach the moon landing which we could see, just curious?
Click to expand...

Firstly, because the last time any major US mission actually landed on the moon was Apollo 17 back in 1972. Since then the focus has been pretty much beyond the moon, like Mars and the outer planets.

And, no, atmospheric distortion and the sheer size of a lens needed to see an object about 4 meters wide from 380,000 km away is just prohibative. What you can do to prove they have been there, you can fire a laser at the reflector plates and 'catch' the handful of photons that would bounce back, after about a 3 second wait due to the light delay.
 
EvilWays said:
Should be Nasa.notreallygov
Click to expand...
Notreallygov is right! They treat NASA like a red-headed stepchild, locking it in the basement and starving it as much as they can.

This year, spending on NASA as a percentage of the total federal budget is the lowest it has been since 1959, NASA's second year.
 
Ski said:
On that note:

I wondered why there hasn't been any similar photo's of the Moon landing? Maybe it's cuz I haven't googled hard enough, but there really hasn't been a documented photo with the detail and resolution as this one?

Additionally, is there any consumer telescopes out there which could even reach the moon landing which we could see, just curious?
Click to expand...

A few years ago, one of the scientists related to nasa collected a few of the original analog oribital tape drives along with a broken machine in their garage. The original hardware no longer existed to get it working. They were able to collect funding after more than a year to restore the drives and used modern processing to release full resolution oribital photos online.

Apollo landing site and astronauts' footpaths: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
Alot of orbital images here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/
 
AnonymousUser said:
I don't believe we ever went to Mars. Oh wait, we haven't? Well than, I believe we should stop
spending billions/trillions on killing each other and actually venture out into space so like lets f**king go there already!

Hint: Invest more into NASA and less into anything that ends with .Gov
Click to expand...

You Americans should start voting in governments that spend a little less on killing people, and a little more on science, engineering, and curiosity.
 
Kevstra said:
You Americans should start voting in governments that spend a little less on killing people, and a little more on science, engineering, and curiosity.
Click to expand...

We can't, all of our choices between the candidates given are full of war profiteering two faced D-bags. Ron Paul is the only exception and he'd mysteriously die of the flu two months into the presidency if elected. Plus, Obama already has this preordained election under his belt (you'll see). As for spending less on killing people, we can't! We've created the biggest monstrosity of a military industrial complex the world has ever seen and we have to feed it the rest of the worlds souls or it will turn around and eat ours too. I'm sorry, hide your families, it's coming. :(

Well, I'm off to watch cartoons and the news. There's something on about Snookie from Jersey Shores being a drunk twat. That's real news! (has all the real life sad stuff left out)
 
TorxT3D said:
you cant tell me this doesnt look fake to you??

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20060306a/Gibson_L257T-A751R1_br2.jpg
Click to expand...


It's not fake. It's real, but is all rocks, thus is enhanced. PR stunt anyone?
The Hubble views? Magnificent yes? It's all black and white when downloaded and on that image you have visual boundaries colored by human based on what sensors say is there - if hydrogen - blue, etc. It takes time. Real pic from space is not that inspiring.
So..little heeere.. and there too. Now it's fine.
 
Kevstra said:
You Americans should start voting in governments that spend a little less on killing people, and a little more on science, engineering, and curiosity.
Click to expand...

I agree completely....

...uh, that darn history though - - I guess we should all thank British counterintelligence...

- you see, if it wasn't for those clever Brits, providing false intel to those pesky Germans that those V2 rockets were striking the right/wrong location, them darn sausage eaters wouldn't have spent so much on improving rocket guidance and control systems, which, came in handy when we decided to employ those rocketeers, who then made the US space program what it was and able to reach the 'man on the moon...'

So, as distasteful as them dollars for destruction might be, it seems that either power or greed is what is a part of many discoveries...

...tragic, but true

- - so the next great discoverer/scientist should get a prize, how about that lofty Nobel prize, uh, what did that Nobel dude do by the way?
 
AnonymousUser said:
Is it just me or do those images show almost absolutely nothing for being "High-Res" (shrugs)?. I guess I just expected more by now.
Click to expand...

Footprints aren't high enough resolution for you? :confused:

There's not much to see, just the footprints/rover tracks, remains of the descent stages, and science equipment. Going to the moon is still pretty expensive, why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to take vanity pictures? The mapping spacecraft we've been sending recently orbit at relatively high altitudes where they can map large areas in a reasonable amount of time. They're already getting the maximum resolution their instruments allow, flying in closer would just making mapping take longer.

For close ups of the Apollo sites you'd need a short lived low altitude orbiter, and unless you carried a shit-ton of fuel with you you'd only be able to photograph one or two sites (orbital plane changes are take a lot of delta-v)
 
132583561132.jpg
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Footprints aren't high enough resolution for you? :confused:
Click to expand...

Since I don't actually see any footprints, yeah, I'd be so bold to say it's not shot close enough or at a high enough resolution...lol. However I read the rest of your post and understand the mentioned difficulties. That said, it is the closest rock to us, one might sometimes think we can at least easily achieve a closeup of it...lol.
 
AnonymousUser said:
Since I don't actually see any footprints, yeah, I'd be so bold to say it's not shot close enough or at a high enough resolution...lol. However I read the rest of your post and understand the mentioned difficulties. That said, it is the closest rock to us, one might sometimes think we can at least easily achieve a closeup of it...lol.
Click to expand...
The problem is not technological know-how. The problem, as always, is funding.
 
I always think it's interesting how much they sink into the moon soil with just 1/6 Earth gravity. Show's you how puffy/fluffy the soil is. Almost like walking on snow. (Partly because 1/6 gravity isn't going to compact it much.)
 
No atmospheric pressure either, and I bet the soil is all charged the same so it repels each other (at least a little)
 
bh192012 said:
I always think it's interesting how much they sink into the moon soil with just 1/6 Earth gravity. Show's you how puffy/fluffy the soil is. Almost like walking on snow. (Partly because 1/6 gravity isn't going to compact it much.)
Click to expand...

Well they sink because it's a very fine dust from all the pulverized material from early impacts 4 billion years ago, the lack of any sort of erosion, water, weather, etc means that it stays as "poofy soil". It actually did cause problems with their equipment too because it stuck to everything and was so damn fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top