ArchAngel's Mars Issues Thread

[ArchAngel]

THE RAVINGS OF A MARS MAN

http://mindspring.com/~madman73/Mars_In_Color.html

I must compliment the mad man who runs this site.

He has done a far better job than NASA at providing us with color images from Mars.

Why is that?


ArchAngel from GLP

[NGR]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Why is that?

I really don't know, but I would speculate that the scientists involved are very busy undertaking real science in their quest to understand Mars and its history in the small window of oportunity that the rovers lifespan provides.

The pictures that they provide for the public perusal are simply to satisfy general curiosity and to provide additional publicity for what has been a great achievement. The idea that there is much fuss about the true colour nature of the pictures is probably well off the radar screens of those scientists involved in the undertaking.

Incidently has anyone actually put in a request to NASA to provide such an image?

[ArchAngel]

Let me start by saying I am AArchAngel refered to in the article at ATSNN: Above Top Secret, and am later ArchAngel in the discussion.

I was one of the first to post about this on the internet.

I am also ArchAngel at the infamous GLP(Don't judge me by this), and numerous other forums.

I really don't know, but I would speculate that the scientists involved are very busy undertaking real science in their quest to understand Mars and its history in the small window of oportunity that the rovers lifespan provides.

This brings up many other questions.

Are not the scientists using the raw data in the programs, and applications that they setup before the images started coming in?

Will they not be using this data right away instead of waiting for the panoramas?

I believe any real science work would be done only with the raw data.

All Color images are for the public.

The pictures that they provide for the public perusal are simply to satisfy general curiosity and to provide additional publicity for what has been a great achievement. The idea that there is much fuss about the true colour nature of the pictures is probably well off the radar screens of those scientists involved in the undertaking.

Yes, the images are provided for the public, but as shown on numerous web sites like the one above what they are producing is not color, yet they have the ability to use the L4 in place of the incorrect L2 as the source for these images.

The ones creating the images for the press page can easily provide us with better images by simply starting with the proper data.

I believe that in order to not create a false perception NASA should not have released any color images other than ones created from L4 L5 L6 raw data.

Incidently has anyone actually put in a request to NASA to provide such an image?

NASA commented in forum at ATSNN so they are quite aware of the issue, and there should be no need for asking after everything raised there.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Sometimes color images are useful. In a galaxy, for example, they make it clear where, say, newly-formed stars are versus dust. For Mars, I would think that color might help determine the relationship between dusty and dust-free regions.

But the real science is done with the greyscale data (at least for deep-sky astronomy). It is not really raw, which is what scientists call the data right off the instrument. There is usually some processing that goes on to clean up camera defects and the like. But the cleaned image is then used for analysis.

For Mars, I don't know. It can be difficult to extrapolate from something like Hubble to the way planetary geologists use their data.

[The Bad Astronomer]

And as far as the color images go, my only beef is that people are tossing around the phrase "true color" too casually. There is no such thing as true color. Color depends on lighting, shading, contrast, internal and external factors, and changes continuously for even a single scene.

You can see that the colors of the martian rocks changes with time of day; the sun angle changes, causing the way light reflects to change. The sky changes color with sun angle too, which is most likely due to the way the dust scatters blue light. The amount of dust in the air changes too, making a hash of all this!

Digitial cameras can only come close to reproducing what the eye sees, because the filters don't match the color sensitivity of the cones in our eyes, the detector doesn't match the sensitivity of our eyes, and combining three frames using different filters is a nearly impossible task.

I think it would be nice if the Mars Express, Odyssey, and rover teams had someone (or ones) full time to process the color images, but that would cost big bucks, and they have little money for such things. It sounds silly, when you're spending millions, but I have been involved with projects like this, and you wind up cutting things you really need to fit the budget, let alone stuff like a staff artist/image processing person. Hubble has people doing that, and they do an amazing job, but it's rare in this field.

[ArchAngel]

And as far as the color images go, my only beef is that people are tossing around the phrase "true color" too casually. There is no such thing as true color. Color depends on lighting, shading, contrast, internal and external factors, and changes continuously for even a single scene.

True color, and what NASA is presenting to the public are very different.

Much more different than it needs to be.

They have the data to produce MUCH better color images.

Debate about exact colors should only start from the point of an L4 L5 L6 image.

The frequencies of light represented in the picture for the red channel do not match that of the human eye.

[Archer17]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

True color, and what NASA is presenting to the public are very different.

Much more different than it needs to be.

They have the data to produce MUCH better color images.

Debate about exact colors should only start from the point of an L4 L5 L6 image.

The frequencies of light represented in the picture for the red channel do not match that of the human eye.

Where did you say you were from again? :wink: Why the nitpick on this? Why even post here? If you don't trust the images, what difference does it make what NASA or any of us say anyway? :-k

[ArchAngel]

Why even post here?

Why not?

Why do you?

I hoped to discuss the issue here.

Someone posting unlogged as Dr. P at GLP commented on the issue in a post of mine, and several people told me it was Phil Plait from Badastro.

I know about the conflict between GLP and Badastro, but I am not here to cause trouble.

If you do not care for my questions do not answer them. I am not trying to impose myself on you.


Had you seen the color images at the Mars Man site already?

What do you think of his work?

What do you think of the apparent blue?

Why is the sky blue?

[Lm Wong]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

What do you think of the apparent blue?

Why is the sky blue?

Here an explanation from
Mary Urquhart
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder
and from
Jim Murphy
Mars Pathfinder ASI/MET Science Team
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/a...thout_dust.txt

More
ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-148.txt

So it is scientifically possible to have images of a Blue Sky on Mars.
Added
Mars Pathfinder Images - Scroll down :Interesting clouds formations and colors of the atmotsphere-.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...th_images.html

[Archer17]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Why even post here?
Why not?

Nice answer

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Why do you?

Stupid question. You're on my turf. Do you ask people why they live in their houses too?

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

I hoped to discuss the issue here.

You just bragged about your resume and asked a lot of innuendo-laced questions.

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Someone posting unlogged as Dr. P at GLP commented on the issue in a post of mine, and several people told me it was Phil Plait from Badastro.

I know about the conflict between GLP and Badastro, but I am not here to cause trouble.

Conflict? Call it the legitimate attempt to teach. When people come over here from there asking if Jupiter will really explode, sometimes education is necessary.

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Had you seen the color images at the Mars Man site already?

No.

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

What do you think of his work?

I don't think his site is significant in any way, many of the same images are in this forum.

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

What do you think of the apparent blue?

Why is the sky blue?

Someone beat me to it. Do you honestly think Mars has an Earth-like atmosphere? Is this why you're nitpicking?!? #-o BTW, remember when I said you just ask alot of questions? I just answered another volley of them. Start discussing AA.

[edited twice- to change Martian blue sky query (since it was already addressed) and to fix a poorly constructed sentence regarding "Badastro" who wasn't the BA in this case anyway)

[The Bad Astronomer]

[quote="ArchAngelSomeone posting unlogged as Dr. P at GLP commented on the issue in a post of mine, and several people told me it was Phil Plait from Badastro.
[/quote]

Well, asking me isn't so hard.

No, it wasn't me. I only post there logged in, or unlogged as "Badastro(unlogged)". I hardly ever post there anymore anyway.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Why even post here? I do hope that question was asked tongue firmly in cheek...since I showed up here, I've learned more about philosophical processes and Phil's view of the world and science in general (fer cripes sake, we were discussing the physics of why a trombone works the other day!)...I was a hanger-on over at JREF, but for some reason my bent is more the physical than the philosophical...I'm still there, just less so...but I wander...

My take on why the pictures look different may be so far out in left field it's a foul ball...

The explanation in Bad Astronomy of why the sky is blue has its corollary on Mars. The atmosphere is thinner, the chemical composition is different, so there's much less blue scattering, which makes the red more prevalent. Right?

Not to mention that the pictures we're seeing are being taken with cameras that respond to a different spectrum than the human eye, and the rejiggering to get 'em to look like we'd see them probably never will come exactly right, so there'll always be a little bit of 'odd' to them. Frankly, it ain't that much of a big deal to me. Those of the Hoagland persuasion, IMHO, are just looking for something to make them look special..."Look, I caught the gummint leading us astray again!". These folk really need to get a life...

[Archer17]

Originally Posted by Charlie in Dayton

Why even post here?..

In ArchAngel's defense Charlie, that question was posed by me to him (unless this was aimed at me). His "quoting" style obviously is different than what we're used to. While it's not in my nature to discourage anyone from joining our board and posting here, I asked it in the context of his posts, which IMO questioned NASA's integrity and spurned the replies he was receiving from members of this board.

[Glom]

The answer is quite simple. True colour is quite naf. You have to sex it up a bit. You don't think the Pillars of Creation are true colour, do you? Besides, isn't there the Clementine type thing? The wavelengths used to construct the picture aren't just visible wavelengths.

[dummy]

I really don't agree with the site's claim that their 'true colour' images are better than JPL's. I don't even get the logic behind his arguements.

On one page he claims that merging the L4/L5/L6 give 'perfect colour images that look just like theyre supposed to look' (http://mindspring.com/~madman73/Mars_In_Color.html) yet on another page he merges L4/L5/L6 and gets all kinds of wacky colours (http://mindspring.com/~madman73/Mars_In_Color3.html).

He also fails to mention that the SOL003 merged L4/L5/L6 images colour's look totally different than when you merge earlier SOL's L4/L5/L6 images.

There's a thread on here that links a site explaining in detail why perfect 'true colour' images are hard, if not impossible to make. If you're interested: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10795

Am I the only one that sees no sense on these endless Mars colour conspiracies?

[informant]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

http://mindspring.com/~madman73/Mars_In_Color.html

I must compliment the mad man who runs this site.

He has done a far better job than NASA at providing us with color images from Mars.

Why is that?

Why do the rocks look blue in the so-called true color pictures?

[TinFoilHat]

Why does the guy who runs the "true color" site assume that the L4/L5/L6 color filters precisely match the R/G/B channels in the monitor I'm using to look at his sight? That's the only way his images would be actual true color. Otherwise, they're not guarenteed to be any truer than the ones from NASA.

[ArchAngel]

Since I am imposing on your turf I will leave now.

I expected better here.

One last question:

Would you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy if NASA never gets around to producing a paorama with L4 L5 L6 filters, and would you bother to explain it to a novice if the false images were brought up?

[Glom]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Would you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy if NASA never gets around to producing a paorama with L4 L5 L6 filters, and would you bother to explain it to a novice if the false images were brought up?

Not really. They'll do it if they need to. Since I don't work on MER, I'm not going to assume dirty doings if I don't understand their needs.

Don't go yet. I'm still not entirely clear on your stance. Would you think there is some kind of conspiracy if there was no such pan?

[Gmann]

A great many people have this fixation on what the true colors of Mars are. They are losing sight of the big picture. What is the true make up of Mars? That is the most important point. The sky could be pink with yellow polka dots for all I care, what is important is this:

Is there water/water ice present, and if so, how much and can we access it?

Are there currently some forms of life on Mars?

Have there ever been life forms, and if so, what was their nature?

Was there ever intelligent life? If so, did they leave behind evidence of their existance?

If Mars was a vibrant living place, what happened to it?

All of these issues, and many others that I have not thought of at this time come into play. Water would be essential if we plan to land a research team on Mars. If there is ice/water that we can get to, it would provide a means of survival, and a means of manufacturing fuel to go back and forth. I seriously doubt that NASA is "hiding something" and I also don't buy the "shadow government" thing either. Keep in mind, if NASA was to announce that they had found evidence of past civilization, that would only serve to advance their cause, and give a good reason to launch a manned, or at least, far more aggressive robotic study. In short, hiding the "truth" would be the most counterproductive thing that NASA could possibly do at this point. Jump off the "true color" bandwagon, and get with the real science, that is where the answers live.