I'm disappointed

Alain Fournier wrote in news:2PedndoL9
:

Agent Smith wrote:

kT wrote in news:CDQij.2019$aC6.972
@newsfe07.lga:

They're all photographic missions, right? Here's the latest photo
from
this week's fly-by,

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/me...ain/index.html ,

and the resolution looks quite good, but I still can't tell the
difference between Mercury and the Moon.

The Moon is made of cheese, Mercury is grilled cheese :-)

I suppose that Mercury's iron composition must have been deduced by
finding iron lines with reflection spectroscopy. Because of this, I
would think that it's large, metallic heat conduction would be enough to
heat the entire planet, including the shadowed edges around crater rims,
near the poles. Thus it wouldn't make any sense to look for ice in
those regions.

I think that it makes sense to look for watery (actually icy) zones in
the solar system, in the search for life. However, I honestly think
that NASA is making themselves look bad in the eyes of more sensible
scientists, by blowing the "hunt for life" waay out of proportion. I
just had some loser tell me that there is no such thing as a habitable
zone around the sun, because bacteria might be hanging on by a thread,
in extreme environments.

We should search for life, but it's a terrible idea to keep reporting
wild ideas that haven't been properly vetted trough calmer minds.
Sometimes they even report success, as with the bacteria-shaped rock
nodules that were incorrectly reported as proof of bacterial life on
Mars.

If NASA keeps telling people that life exists off the earth, before
they've got **rock solid** evidence for it, they're just going to make
themselves look like The Boys Who Cry Wolf. It's no wonder Christians
are incapable of understanding science. One of their main complaints is
that scientists keep publishing incorrect results, and retracting them
later.

Agent Smith wrote:

I suppose that Mercury's iron composition must have been deduced by
finding iron lines with reflection spectroscopy.

Mass versus size would also be indicative of composition.

Because of this, I
would think that it's large, metallic heat conduction would be enough to
heat the entire planet, including the shadowed edges around crater rims,
near the poles. Thus it wouldn't make any sense to look for ice in
those regions.


You'd have to balance out the heat conduction of iron against the
radiative effect of heat being lost to the sky in the shadow areas and
on the unilluminated side of the planet in its very slow rotation.
Another thing is that the exterior may be a layer of several-meter-thick
meteoric and cometary debris unrelated to the interior of the planet in
its composition, and serving as a insulator over the main iron-rich
planetary composition proper, cutting down its ability to both absorb
and radiate heat.

I think that it makes sense to look for watery (actually icy) zones in
the solar system, in the search for life. However, I honestly think
that NASA is making themselves look bad in the eyes of more sensible
scientists, by blowing the "hunt for life" waay out of proportion. I
just had some loser tell me that there is no such thing as a habitable
zone around the sun, because bacteria might be hanging on by a thread,
in extreme environments.

We should search for life, but it's a terrible idea to keep reporting
wild ideas that haven't been properly vetted trough calmer minds.
Sometimes they even report success, as with the bacteria-shaped rock
nodules that were incorrectly reported as proof of bacterial life on
Mars.


They are still trying to recover from the negative publicity of that
one. At the moment they are "water mad" about Mars, hinting at some sort
of subsurface liquid water flows, even though there is apparently no
volcanic heat source to keep the water liquid, and the surface and
subsurface temps are ideal for the triple state of CO2, with only
pressure being needed to turn CO2 ice into liquid CO2 - which the images
of the "water flows" show as they emerge from the sides of craters and
escarpments at a considerable depth beneath the surface.
The much-vaunted "blueberries" turned out to be meteor impact splash
instead of mineral concretions like "cave pearls".

Pat

Agent Smith wrote:

I think that it makes sense to look for watery (actually icy) zones in
the solar system, in the search for life. However, I honestly think
that NASA is making themselves look bad in the eyes of more sensible
scientists, by blowing the "hunt for life" waay out of proportion. I
just had some loser tell me that there is no such thing as a habitable
zone around the sun, because bacteria might be hanging on by a thread,
in extreme environments.

We should search for life, but it's a terrible idea to keep reporting
wild ideas that haven't been properly vetted trough calmer minds.
Sometimes they even report success, as with the bacteria-shaped rock
nodules that were incorrectly reported as proof of bacterial life on
Mars.

If NASA keeps telling people that life exists off the earth, before
they've got **rock solid** evidence for it, they're just going to make
themselves look like The Boys Who Cry Wolf. It's no wonder Christians
are incapable of understanding science. One of their main complaints is
that scientists keep publishing incorrect results, and retracting them
later.

That's a very superficial interpretation of the history of this subject.

The fact of the matter is that NASA wasn't planning to report the "Mars
bacteria" findings when they did. They were going to subject the story
to a lot more internal review. But the story leaked to the media and a
journal was going to run with it, and other media outlets began to
suspect a NASA coverup. NASA hastily convened a press conference to
report the findings to try to head that off.

NASA can't win here. They can either keep preliminary findings quiet
while under internal review and be accused of a coverup, or they can be
open and be accused of crying wolf. They have chosen the latter
strategy, and in my opinion, they were entirely correct to do so.

I'm also disappointed.

Just little old me wondering, as to why our spendy MESSENGER color is
being intentionally turned off, and as to why their dynamic range
remains as so pathetic?

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108821596M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108826105M.png

Here's that one of Venus that's about as wussy pastel worth of color
and of pathetic DR as you can possibly get.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...=2&image_id=88
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...ch%20Image.jpg

Remember the Earth flyby, where our moon was out of frame and
otherwise either too physically dark or invisible, however the pastel
color image of Earth looked very nifty.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...galapagos.html
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...lapagos_lg.jpg
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pre...005/050826.asp

- Brad Guth



On Jan 16, 8:37 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com wrote:
kT wrote :



Agent Smith wrote:

After searching for two years for a copy of the September 1975 issue
of Scientific American, which had the Mariner photos ofMercury,
suddenly I find out that there is a brand new satellite arriving at
the planet, right now. So all my effort was wasted, and soon we'll
be flooded with photos infinitely better than the ones I just busted
my butt to find.

I just checked their website :

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/mer_flyby1.html

This isn't that kind of mission, it will be quite a while before you
get 'flooded' with photos. I remember the earlyMercuryflybys, we
were all amazed when some guy realized they were going to get two more
flybys for free, does anyone happen to remember who that was? That's a
real story.

That was what really started the whole multiple flyby craze.

They're all photographic missions, right? Here's the latest photo from
this week's fly-by,

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/me...ain/index.html,

and the resolution looks quite good, but I still can't tell the
difference betweenMercuryand the Moon.

They did it just to upset you...
On Jan 18, 7:49*am, BradGuth wrote:
I'm also disappointed.

Just little old me wondering, as to why our spendy MESSENGER color is
being intentionally turned off, and as to why their dynamic range
remains as so pathetic?

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 scope and depth of our digital images, or as limited as to
whatever they see fit to share?

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/...p?gallery_id=2
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108821596M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108826105M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...26040M_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 knew of 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 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 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 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/...=2&image_id=88
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...ch%20Image.jpg

Remember the Earth flyby, whereas our 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 still quite nifty.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...galapagos.html
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...lapagos_lg.jpg
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pre...005/050826.asp

Is this lack of color imaging because of Mercury being so gush darn
moon like, with similar crater upon crater terrain and a low amount of
albedo, but otherwise offering a deposited and local mineral rich
geology, and subsequently colorful surface as 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).
- Brad Guth

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 of our digital images, or merely as limited
as to whatever pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of such limited
DR to boot?

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/...p?gallery_id=2
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108821596M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108826105M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...26040M_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 knew of 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 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 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 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/...=2&image_id=88
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...ch%20Image.jpg

Remember the Earth flyby, whereas our 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 still quite nifty.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...galapagos.html
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...lapagos_lg.jpg
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pre...005/050826.asp

Is this lack of color imaging because of Mercury being so gush darn
moon like, with similar crater upon crater terrain and a low amount of
albedo, but otherwise offering a deposited and local mineral rich
geology, and subsequently colorful surface as 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).

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

In article 02,
Agent Smith wrote:

After searching for two years for a copy of the September 1975 issue of
Scientific American, which had the Mariner photos of Mercury, suddenly I
find out that there is a brand new satellite arriving at the planet, right
now. So all my effort was wasted,

Not at all! The past history is always interesting!

and soon we'll be flooded with photos infinitely better than the ones
I just busted my butt to find.

The new photos won't be THAT much better! You cannot expect them to
resolve individual atoms on the surface of Mercory, for instance.
So while they can be expected to be much better, they're still "only"
finitely better.....


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

(Paul Schlyter) wrote in
:

In article 02,
Agent Smith wrote:

After searching for two years for a copy of the September 1975 issue
of Scientific American, which had the Mariner photos of Mercury,
suddenly I find out that there is a brand new satellite arriving at
the planet, right now. So all my effort was wasted,

Not at all! The past history is always interesting!

and soon we'll be flooded with photos infinitely better than the ones
I just busted my butt to find.

The new photos won't be THAT much better! You cannot expect them to
resolve individual atoms on the surface of Mercory, for instance.

Whaaaa....? Why, I only sign my IRS check because I'm certain that, on
Mercury, NASA will find the specific atom of Plutonium that contains the
universe which Archimedes Plutonium has shown to contain a species just
like ours. I'm sooo disappointed.

But I must say that I do like your sci-fi imagery. Now you've got me
pondering a hypothetical imaging system with a tunnelling microscope as
an extra stage, connected to a high-res optical system, that can do what
you just said.

Good work Felix; I'm putting you in for a medal. Send me three grand,
and I'll tell my lawyer to submit the patent application, in both our
names.

So while they can be expected to be much better, they're still "only"
finitely better.....

Just hyperbole. I read a lot of senses-shattering literature in my
youth, and it's colored my writing style. By "infinitely," of course I
mean "as much better as today's digital technology is from that of the
70's." Raise '2' to the exponent of the the number of eighteen month
Moore cycles since '75, and you'll get my definition of what infinity
is, as calculated by Ganow's Hottentott scale, described in "One, Two,
Three, Infinity." Counting slowly in my head, by '1's, that's as far as
I can go before my mind wanders.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:10:45 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Paul Schlyter) wrote in
:

In article 02,
Agent Smith wrote:

After searching for two years for a copy of the September 1975 issue
of Scientific American, which had the Mariner photos of Mercury,
suddenly I find out that there is a brand new satellite arriving at
the planet, right now. So all my effort was wasted,

Not at all! The past history is always interesting!

and soon we'll be flooded with photos infinitely better than the ones
I just busted my butt to find.

The new photos won't be THAT much better! You cannot expect them to
resolve individual atoms on the surface of Mercory, for instance.

Whaaaa....? Why, I only sign my IRS check because I'm certain that, on
Mercury, NASA will find the specific atom of Plutonium that contains the
universe which Archimedes Plutonium has shown to contain a species just
like ours. I'm sooo disappointed.

But I must say that I do like your sci-fi imagery. Now you've got me
pondering a hypothetical imaging system with a tunnelling microscope as
an extra stage, connected to a high-res optical system, that can do what
you just said.

Good work Felix; I'm putting you in for a medal. Send me three grand,
and I'll tell my lawyer to submit the patent application, in both our
names.

So while they can be expected to be much better, they're still "only"
finitely better.....

Just hyperbole. I read a lot of senses-shattering literature in my
youth, and it's colored my writing style. By "infinitely," of course I
mean "as much better as today's digital technology is from that of the
70's." Raise '2' to the exponent of the the number of eighteen month
Moore cycles since '75, and you'll get my definition of what infinity
is, as calculated by Ganow's Hottentott scale, described in "One, Two,
Three, Infinity." Counting slowly in my head, by '1's, that's as far as
I can go before my mind wanders.



2 years of searching for the Sept. 1975 issue of Scientific American?
I found it in 30 seconds on a google search.

http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=131737915&aid=frg

Maybe the price is higher than you care for, but it's out there.