- Thank you received: 0
Planet of Art..
16 years 11 months ago #18387
by Trinket
Replied by Trinket on topic Reply from Bob
Trinket, I saw that U2 comparison a while back
it's a family trait to beat dead horses until they reincarnate as mules ..
People are free to believe what they will..
That 1962 U2 cuban missile crisis image versus 1964 Mariner 4 Image
is "clear" evidence of how gullible the few researchers focused on Mars were/are..
Do you honestly believe we had the ability to navigate to mars ?
and this is the best image we could muster back to earth ..
These crucial moments where thought was veered from it's true path
is all I am trying to point out..
On the other hand one might instead just bend over backwards to believe
the NASA version.. but thats a choice..
Wheres all the new high resolution mars globe images from the last half dozen satellites ?
ESA Mars Express included..
it's a family trait to beat dead horses until they reincarnate as mules ..
People are free to believe what they will..
That 1962 U2 cuban missile crisis image versus 1964 Mariner 4 Image
is "clear" evidence of how gullible the few researchers focused on Mars were/are..
Do you honestly believe we had the ability to navigate to mars ?
and this is the best image we could muster back to earth ..
These crucial moments where thought was veered from it's true path
is all I am trying to point out..
On the other hand one might instead just bend over backwards to believe
the NASA version.. but thats a choice..
Wheres all the new high resolution mars globe images from the last half dozen satellites ?
ESA Mars Express included..
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #18389
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />Do you honestly believe we had the ability to navigate to mars ?
and this is the best image we could muster back to earth .. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have a good point, but this is what I'm saying.
Height of U2 camera:
70,000 ft
Height of MOC Camera (Skullface):
400.56km or
1,314,173.23 feet
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r16_r21/images/R19/R1901775.html
Height of HiRISE Camera:
251.56km or
825,328.084 feet
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/TRA_000878_1410
Does it matter to the extent that it would cause this fuzzy image from 1964 Mariner 4 Image? Probably not. But all the other images from MOC and HiRISE, who knows. All I'm saying is that if the spacecraft could take pictures from 70,000', maybe we could see nose hairs.
I'll tell you something though. This is something you could work with if you really wanted to prove your point. Prove that from the roughly 1,000,000' distances the spacecraft are taking images from, that their results should be as clear as the old U2 images from 70,000'. I don't think that should be that hard to do.
I would start by finding out the resolution of the U2 images. That alone might tell you all you need to know. But from there, a few calculations would turn this into an apples and apples comparison.
My Nikon camera has a pixel resolution of 0.08382mm (at 300dpi) compared to the MOCs 3 to 5 meters or the HiRISE's 25cm, but obviously I wouldn't be able to image details from 70,000' let alone 1 million feet. So, you would need to take all the imaging parameters and camera specs into account to come up with one conclusion about the comparisons. Like I said, that should be fairly straightforward to make your case. But, just the U2 images alone doesn't really mean anything. That's sort of like if I posted another picture of my cat Sparky and said, "how come they can't do this?", without making the proper comparisons.
rd
<br />Do you honestly believe we had the ability to navigate to mars ?
and this is the best image we could muster back to earth .. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have a good point, but this is what I'm saying.
Height of U2 camera:
70,000 ft
Height of MOC Camera (Skullface):
400.56km or
1,314,173.23 feet
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r16_r21/images/R19/R1901775.html
Height of HiRISE Camera:
251.56km or
825,328.084 feet
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/TRA_000878_1410
Does it matter to the extent that it would cause this fuzzy image from 1964 Mariner 4 Image? Probably not. But all the other images from MOC and HiRISE, who knows. All I'm saying is that if the spacecraft could take pictures from 70,000', maybe we could see nose hairs.
I'll tell you something though. This is something you could work with if you really wanted to prove your point. Prove that from the roughly 1,000,000' distances the spacecraft are taking images from, that their results should be as clear as the old U2 images from 70,000'. I don't think that should be that hard to do.
I would start by finding out the resolution of the U2 images. That alone might tell you all you need to know. But from there, a few calculations would turn this into an apples and apples comparison.
My Nikon camera has a pixel resolution of 0.08382mm (at 300dpi) compared to the MOCs 3 to 5 meters or the HiRISE's 25cm, but obviously I wouldn't be able to image details from 70,000' let alone 1 million feet. So, you would need to take all the imaging parameters and camera specs into account to come up with one conclusion about the comparisons. Like I said, that should be fairly straightforward to make your case. But, just the U2 images alone doesn't really mean anything. That's sort of like if I posted another picture of my cat Sparky and said, "how come they can't do this?", without making the proper comparisons.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #18390
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
Ok, here's a little ballpark calculation. Don't take this too literally, but it's definitely the right order of magnitude.
From 1.314 million feet (40,050,720 cm) the HiRISE's pixel resolution is roughly 25cm.
25/40,050,720 = 0.00000062 is the ratio of pixel resolution to distance to the camera.
Multiply 70,000 feet by 0.00000062 and you get 0.0434 feet (13.228mm or 1.3228cm) which is roughly what the HiRISE pixel resolution would be at 70,000 feet. As I said my Nikon image of Sparky had a pixel resolution of 0.0838mm so the HiRISE images from 70,000' would still be two orders of magnitude worse, but from a considerable distance farther. However, it would be more than twice one order of magnitude better than the current Mars HiRISE images, which is pretty damn good, and a site better than the U2s, in which we can only see building size objects.
Or to put it another way, move the HiRISE to 70,000' and while it wouldn't be able to see Sparky's whiskers, it would be able to see her nose.
So, in my opinion, the whole U2 analogy goes south when you look at the distance differences.
Added note: It just occurred to me that I can't really say for sure if moving either the MOC or the HiRISE closer to the planet would have the results I'm describing. It's quite possible that they were designed to take the images they are taking from the distances they are taking them from, and that moving closer doesn't mean higher resolution. I really don't know that, but I believe as a "thought experiment" what I'm saying is valid.
rd
From 1.314 million feet (40,050,720 cm) the HiRISE's pixel resolution is roughly 25cm.
25/40,050,720 = 0.00000062 is the ratio of pixel resolution to distance to the camera.
Multiply 70,000 feet by 0.00000062 and you get 0.0434 feet (13.228mm or 1.3228cm) which is roughly what the HiRISE pixel resolution would be at 70,000 feet. As I said my Nikon image of Sparky had a pixel resolution of 0.0838mm so the HiRISE images from 70,000' would still be two orders of magnitude worse, but from a considerable distance farther. However, it would be more than twice one order of magnitude better than the current Mars HiRISE images, which is pretty damn good, and a site better than the U2s, in which we can only see building size objects.
Or to put it another way, move the HiRISE to 70,000' and while it wouldn't be able to see Sparky's whiskers, it would be able to see her nose.
So, in my opinion, the whole U2 analogy goes south when you look at the distance differences.
Added note: It just occurred to me that I can't really say for sure if moving either the MOC or the HiRISE closer to the planet would have the results I'm describing. It's quite possible that they were designed to take the images they are taking from the distances they are taking them from, and that moving closer doesn't mean higher resolution. I really don't know that, but I believe as a "thought experiment" what I'm saying is valid.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #20772
by Trinket
Replied by Trinket on topic Reply from Bob
Rd
in 1960 dollars the u2 cost approx 1 million per plane..
Mariner 4 in "1960" dollars cost approx 83.2 million
It wasn't an apples to apples comparison.. It is a simple display of technological ability of
the time period and good old fashion common sense .. they could afford better optics ?
If you want to see a clear case a fraud I would be glad to discuss spirit or Opie Images..
Bob
in 1960 dollars the u2 cost approx 1 million per plane..
Mariner 4 in "1960" dollars cost approx 83.2 million
It wasn't an apples to apples comparison.. It is a simple display of technological ability of
the time period and good old fashion common sense .. they could afford better optics ?
If you want to see a clear case a fraud I would be glad to discuss spirit or Opie Images..
Bob
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #20775
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
Trinket, here's an article copied from the Canadian Space Agency's website, chronicling the attempts to explore Mars by us and the Russians.
The Mariner 4 is the first one to make it there successfully. So, while it's true that the picture is blurry, who knows what went wrong. They were probably pretty excited that they actually made it there ahead of the Russians. Maybe during the blast off the optics got out of alignment. I really don't know, but on the other hand airplanes were pretty standard fare already, and they could use known existing optics technology on the U2 but had to invent the one that would travel into space and take pictures of Mars from a many hundreds of miles away.
Who knows what wrong? It's probably documented somewhere. All things considered though, the magnitude of the accomplishment of getting the ship to Mars before the Russians far outweighs the failure of the camera. That's one way of looking at things.
I've seen some pretty wild problems with optics in my years in the semiconductor industry. We once had a period lasting close to a year, where we simply couldn't get the objective lenses made to our specifications, even though they already existed. Couple that with all the necessary software systems needed to pull that off in those days, and it's not all that surprising that something went wrong.
Hell, I once said that during those years if we were making planes instead of measurement tools, they <b>all </b>would have crashed.
Copied from Candian Space Agency:
============================================================
Past Mars Missions: An International Affair
Since 1960, there have been 37 missions to Mars. Attempts to explore the Red Planet have been marked by numerous failures, particularly in the first decade of the space age. What follows is a brief overview of the missions in chronological order. It shows the problems in space exploration and the perseverance of Russian, American, Japanese, European and Canadian researchers, who have been sending probes and devices to Mars for over 40 years. Canada's participation is described in the third section, "The '90s: Learning More about Mars.
First Chapter
The '60s: Beginnings
1960: The first secret attempts
Marsnik 1
(Photo: NASA)
October 10
The launch of Marsnik 1 takes the whole world by surprise, especially the United States. The space probe, secretly launched by the USSR, is designed to investigate interplanetary space and the long-term effects of a long voyage on spacecraft instruments. However, Marsnik 1 does not produce enough thrust at launch and fails to leave the Earth's atmosphere.
October 14
Marsnik 2 is launched four days after its twin and is just as secret a mission. But the probe disintegrates as it leaves Earth's atmosphere.
1962: The Soviets lead the way
October 24, 1962
Sputnik 22, launched during the Cuban missile crisis, causes some concern in the U.S. The probe, intended to fly by the Red Planet and capture images of it, explodes as it goes into Earth orbit. Debris from the spacecraft remains in Earth orbit for a few days and decays in the atmosphere.
November 1, 1962
The mission of the Russian probe Mars 1 is to fly by the Red Planet to capture images of its surface and transmit data on its atmospheric structure and cosmic rays. Halfway through the journey, communication with Mars 1 is lost. The probe now orbits the Sun.
November 4, 1962
The ambitious Sputnik 24 is the first lander ever designed. But the USSR's attempt to manoeuvre it onto the proper trajectory fails and the spacecraft is lost. The Ballistics Missile Early Warning System in the U.S. identifies spacecraft debris in the Earth's atmosphere.
Mars 1 (Photo: NASA)
1964: The U.S. is on board
November 5
The United States joins the race to Mars with Mariner 3. The probe is one of a series of spacecraft intended to fly by the Red Planet, photograph it and study its environment. A malfunction at launch prevents the probe from separating from the launch vehicle and Mariner 3 cannot be put into its trajectory to Mars.
Mariner 4
(Illustration: NASA)
November 28
On July 14, 1965, Mariner 4 succeeds in photographing Mars, returning the first close-up image of another planet. A total of 21 images are returned to Earth. The probe then studies Mars's cosmic environment. The Mariner 4 mission is terminated in 1967 because of damage resulting from a micro-meteor shower.
First close-up image of Mars, taken by Mariner 4. It shows an area of about 330 km by 1,200 km. The barely visible blurred area above the horizon to the left may be clouds. (Photo: NASA)
November 30
Zond 2 is a Soviet orbiter with a variety of scientific instruments. After its launch, two solar panels fail to function. Although the setback does not put an end to the mission, problems persist for the probe: at mid-mission, communication is lost. Zond 2 continues its course after having flown by Mars.
1969: The first set of data is returned
Mariner 6 and 7 (Illustration: NASA)
February 24 and March 27
Mariner 6 and 7 are NASA's second twin Mariner probes. These missions make it possible to examine the components of the Martian atmosphere and determine research parameters for extraterrestrial life. Mariner 6 and 7 return hundreds of images of Mars, including images of canals that for a long time were thought to have been developed by extraterrestrials. The new images from Mariner 6 and 7 show that these are natural geological structures.
These pictures of Mars were taken by Mariner 7 in 1969 on approach to the Red Planet. The circular feature in the upper-centre of the sphere is a 25-km high volcano. In 1969, it was believed that it was a meteorite impact crater. (Photo: NASA)
Mars 69
(Photo: NASA)
March 27 and April 2
Mars-69 521 and 522 are two Soviet orbiters which, upon reaching Mars, would deploy a landing unit to the planet's surface to photograph its environment. Unfortunately, both probes explode at launch, within a month of each other. This is the first attempt by the Soviets at using proton rockets.
============================================================
I'd say it's a safe bet the Russians would have been happy with blurry pictures, considering how many things exploded at launch. That will reak havoc on the optics.
rd
The Mariner 4 is the first one to make it there successfully. So, while it's true that the picture is blurry, who knows what went wrong. They were probably pretty excited that they actually made it there ahead of the Russians. Maybe during the blast off the optics got out of alignment. I really don't know, but on the other hand airplanes were pretty standard fare already, and they could use known existing optics technology on the U2 but had to invent the one that would travel into space and take pictures of Mars from a many hundreds of miles away.
Who knows what wrong? It's probably documented somewhere. All things considered though, the magnitude of the accomplishment of getting the ship to Mars before the Russians far outweighs the failure of the camera. That's one way of looking at things.
I've seen some pretty wild problems with optics in my years in the semiconductor industry. We once had a period lasting close to a year, where we simply couldn't get the objective lenses made to our specifications, even though they already existed. Couple that with all the necessary software systems needed to pull that off in those days, and it's not all that surprising that something went wrong.
Hell, I once said that during those years if we were making planes instead of measurement tools, they <b>all </b>would have crashed.
Copied from Candian Space Agency:
============================================================
Past Mars Missions: An International Affair
Since 1960, there have been 37 missions to Mars. Attempts to explore the Red Planet have been marked by numerous failures, particularly in the first decade of the space age. What follows is a brief overview of the missions in chronological order. It shows the problems in space exploration and the perseverance of Russian, American, Japanese, European and Canadian researchers, who have been sending probes and devices to Mars for over 40 years. Canada's participation is described in the third section, "The '90s: Learning More about Mars.
First Chapter
The '60s: Beginnings
1960: The first secret attempts
Marsnik 1
(Photo: NASA)
October 10
The launch of Marsnik 1 takes the whole world by surprise, especially the United States. The space probe, secretly launched by the USSR, is designed to investigate interplanetary space and the long-term effects of a long voyage on spacecraft instruments. However, Marsnik 1 does not produce enough thrust at launch and fails to leave the Earth's atmosphere.
October 14
Marsnik 2 is launched four days after its twin and is just as secret a mission. But the probe disintegrates as it leaves Earth's atmosphere.
1962: The Soviets lead the way
October 24, 1962
Sputnik 22, launched during the Cuban missile crisis, causes some concern in the U.S. The probe, intended to fly by the Red Planet and capture images of it, explodes as it goes into Earth orbit. Debris from the spacecraft remains in Earth orbit for a few days and decays in the atmosphere.
November 1, 1962
The mission of the Russian probe Mars 1 is to fly by the Red Planet to capture images of its surface and transmit data on its atmospheric structure and cosmic rays. Halfway through the journey, communication with Mars 1 is lost. The probe now orbits the Sun.
November 4, 1962
The ambitious Sputnik 24 is the first lander ever designed. But the USSR's attempt to manoeuvre it onto the proper trajectory fails and the spacecraft is lost. The Ballistics Missile Early Warning System in the U.S. identifies spacecraft debris in the Earth's atmosphere.
Mars 1 (Photo: NASA)
1964: The U.S. is on board
November 5
The United States joins the race to Mars with Mariner 3. The probe is one of a series of spacecraft intended to fly by the Red Planet, photograph it and study its environment. A malfunction at launch prevents the probe from separating from the launch vehicle and Mariner 3 cannot be put into its trajectory to Mars.
Mariner 4
(Illustration: NASA)
November 28
On July 14, 1965, Mariner 4 succeeds in photographing Mars, returning the first close-up image of another planet. A total of 21 images are returned to Earth. The probe then studies Mars's cosmic environment. The Mariner 4 mission is terminated in 1967 because of damage resulting from a micro-meteor shower.
First close-up image of Mars, taken by Mariner 4. It shows an area of about 330 km by 1,200 km. The barely visible blurred area above the horizon to the left may be clouds. (Photo: NASA)
November 30
Zond 2 is a Soviet orbiter with a variety of scientific instruments. After its launch, two solar panels fail to function. Although the setback does not put an end to the mission, problems persist for the probe: at mid-mission, communication is lost. Zond 2 continues its course after having flown by Mars.
1969: The first set of data is returned
Mariner 6 and 7 (Illustration: NASA)
February 24 and March 27
Mariner 6 and 7 are NASA's second twin Mariner probes. These missions make it possible to examine the components of the Martian atmosphere and determine research parameters for extraterrestrial life. Mariner 6 and 7 return hundreds of images of Mars, including images of canals that for a long time were thought to have been developed by extraterrestrials. The new images from Mariner 6 and 7 show that these are natural geological structures.
These pictures of Mars were taken by Mariner 7 in 1969 on approach to the Red Planet. The circular feature in the upper-centre of the sphere is a 25-km high volcano. In 1969, it was believed that it was a meteorite impact crater. (Photo: NASA)
Mars 69
(Photo: NASA)
March 27 and April 2
Mars-69 521 and 522 are two Soviet orbiters which, upon reaching Mars, would deploy a landing unit to the planet's surface to photograph its environment. Unfortunately, both probes explode at launch, within a month of each other. This is the first attempt by the Soviets at using proton rockets.
============================================================
I'd say it's a safe bet the Russians would have been happy with blurry pictures, considering how many things exploded at launch. That will reak havoc on the optics.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #20589
by Trinket
Replied by Trinket on topic Reply from Bob
www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/clafleur/Spacecrafts-index.html
this is a good reference..
<font size="5"><font color="limegreen">You have a good point, but this is what I'm saying.</font id="limegreen"> </font id="size5">
<font size="5"><font color="orange">Disregard the man behind the curtain ?</font id="orange"> </font id="size5">
<font size="4"><font color="limegreen">I'll tell you something though. This is something you could work with if you really wanted to prove your point.</font id="limegreen"> </font id="size4">
<font size="4"><font color="orange">There is no shortage of lies to be proved when dealing with NASA , there is an endless supply.. </font id="orange"> </font id="size4">
Mariner 4 was the 467th interplanetary craft .. launched off of earth not the first ..
While our avionics may still have been in question , there was never a doubt whether we could take a picture..
any image should have been at least equal in quality to that of a hand held camera of the 1960's ..
I don't recall them saying anything about mariner 4 having trouble. Only how wonderful and mind blowing the images
were. And how excited they were piecing together that data as it came in.. I say it's a joke.. and it's 50 years old and I'm quite sick of it..
While this is not the crux of my case it is just another blatant example from the start that
Mr Magoo was in charge of the Optics..
You state Nasa's data as if it is real and accurate and to be trusted .. (at this late date ?)
Finally after nearly 50 years the fringe can say ?????? ...prove it..
again I would say .. If you want to argue optically I would have to start at spirit and opie ....
Sticking to what I know..
Trinket..
this is a good reference..
<font size="5"><font color="limegreen">You have a good point, but this is what I'm saying.</font id="limegreen"> </font id="size5">
<font size="5"><font color="orange">Disregard the man behind the curtain ?</font id="orange"> </font id="size5">
<font size="4"><font color="limegreen">I'll tell you something though. This is something you could work with if you really wanted to prove your point.</font id="limegreen"> </font id="size4">
<font size="4"><font color="orange">There is no shortage of lies to be proved when dealing with NASA , there is an endless supply.. </font id="orange"> </font id="size4">
Mariner 4 was the 467th interplanetary craft .. launched off of earth not the first ..
While our avionics may still have been in question , there was never a doubt whether we could take a picture..
any image should have been at least equal in quality to that of a hand held camera of the 1960's ..
I don't recall them saying anything about mariner 4 having trouble. Only how wonderful and mind blowing the images
were. And how excited they were piecing together that data as it came in.. I say it's a joke.. and it's 50 years old and I'm quite sick of it..
While this is not the crux of my case it is just another blatant example from the start that
Mr Magoo was in charge of the Optics..
You state Nasa's data as if it is real and accurate and to be trusted .. (at this late date ?)
Finally after nearly 50 years the fringe can say ?????? ...prove it..
again I would say .. If you want to argue optically I would have to start at spirit and opie ....
Sticking to what I know..
Trinket..
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.333 seconds