A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is NASA lying to the public?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 24th 04, 10:29 PM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay

Jay Windley wrote:


He
simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. He applies
basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods have
been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the
actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries
foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the
imaging problem might be wrong.


Your argument is identical with Hoaglands, but with opposite conclusions
proving how much of a kook you are.


That's exactly how Hoagland wants you to approach his material. He wants
you to skim it and come away with the notion that with all that fancy
language and "analysis", he must have something to say.


Exactly like your 'fancy language image analysis'.

Oh, sure -- he
reports some legitimate findings every so often,


The kook admits that Hoagland can be correct?

just so he can't be totally
dismissed.


Whats the matter, the blue sky getting in the way of your pink Martians?

But the stuff he claims as exclusively his turns out to be smoke
and mirrors.


Looking into the kook mirror I see.


When you dig, you find that the "analyst" claiming false-color skies has
taken the raw data through each filter, obtained from NASA, and tried to
duplicate NASA's photo reconstruction.


Every image taken by Viking and released by NASA shows not only a blue
sky, but they do not have the exceptionally poor quality resolution and
contradictory colors released by the current mission.


He has the green component (535 nm) and the blue component (482 nm). But
instead of a visible red component (ca. 650 nm) he has used the
near-infrared component (753 nm). Instead of trying to reconstruct a
defensible approximation of the visible spectrum (which can be -- and
commonly is -- done using the first three wavelengths I mentioned), he has
merely "promoted" the infrared to the red. A filter centered at 753 nm will
not have a bandwidth sufficient also to pick up visible red at 650 nm, which
is the wavelength corresponding to the three-color reconstruction method the
author has used, i.e., the "red" in Photoshop.

NASA would have been faced with a similar problem: how to turn infrared
into red. As has been repeated said, getting true color images from random,
exotic slices of the spectrum -- visible and otherwise -- is very difficult.
Even the standard RGB color system doesn't always get it right, even for
Earth's sky.



Whatever algorithim NASA used to generate a red-end signal
from the infrared obviously "pinkified" the sky too much.


Obviously not in other images released by NASA and shown at
international conferences. Below is more fancy foot work by this
obvious kook.

But to say this
is evidence they are "lying" about the color of the sky is pure garbage.


You still don't explain why the Martian sky is blue in the Viking images
according to your pink Martian 'wavelengths' bs.

NASA doesn't claim the color in that picture is spot-on.


Yes they do, in fact they claim the pictures to the most accurate
possible in every image released, funny the colors of the sky on Mars go
from orange, to dusty red, to white, to blue, to dusty yellow, depending
on which web site has 'corrected' the images.

Nor in any of the
photos where L2 data has been transformed into visible red.

The author goes on to argue that the sky has been painted over in the image,
with some false color.


No that was your argument. You said 'wavelengths' make everything
appear pink on Mars. But when faced with the released image of the blue
sky, you now claim that this is 'an argument that the image was painted
over'. Stay on the same page if possible please.

He notes that the noise in the original images
hasn't been preserved in the final image. The original data is obviously
noise, regardless of where it comes from. It's not inappropriate simply to
filter the noise in the original signals and then do the color correction
from there. That *is* an adjustment to the image, but it's not a lie. Is
the image *more* correct with noise in it?


More fancy footwork in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion.


Hoagland's "wrong lander color" arguments are just the same.


As is your pathetic attempts to 'explain away' the blue sky on Mars?

His comparison
to the shot taken in the lab uses the same red, green, and infrared bands,
and is therefore not really a true-color image.


The shot in the lab is not a 'true' color image? What a kook.

It's pinkified because the
650 nm signal had to be inferred from 752 nm data. That's why it's labelled
an "approximate" true color image. It is exactly as I said -- the
photograph you're seeing is taken by a camera seeing a different spectrum
that what your eyes naturally see.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg

Now the question is not why different versions of the photos are available
from NASA or from any other source or why you can plausibly create these
different versions.



Oh ofcourse not, another that doesn't compute with your pink Martians
must not be considered.

The question is whether NASA is *deliberately* doing
this in order to deceive.


And what other purpose would turning up the red filter acomplish other
than to decieve? And all this time we thought Martians would look
green, but Jay has corrected us to see the proper pink pigmentation.

The question of filters and wavelengths is
sufficiently hairy in this imaging context to allow room for interpretation,
for differences of opinion, and for equally justifiable technical approaches
in different cases.


Ah now you aren't so sure about Martians being pink after all.

In fact, it's sufficiently hairy in normal Kodak
terrestrial photography to make this a concern for photographers trying to
get color reproduction right. But Hoagland doesn't buy any of this. To him
it *has* to be deliberate deception.


Yes well why don't you write into Hoagland and explain to him why
Martians are pink instead of green. I am sure you will give him
something to laugh about.


When you study Hoagland's past, you see why he leaps to that conclusion.


Again its not about science anymore, its about the person. Kook tactic
number 1.

With Hoagland it's all about making NASA look bad.


That is a lie, NASA looks bad without any outside help.

NASA committed the
unpardonable sin of failing to realize Richard Hoagland's genius when
Hoagland was working closer with them, and now Hoagland is making them pay.
Hoagland demands to be recognized, and if he can't do it within NASA he'll
do it against NASA.

The only way Hoagland can make the "NASA is lying" hypothesis stick is if he
makes it seem like reconstructing these photos is child's play, that any
yutz with Photoshop and a spare afternoon can do it. That way NASA's
"failure" to have One True Color Scheme seems suspicious.


Its not suspicious in the least, NASA has informed everyone that
'getting accurate color images is very difficult, even though a color
palette would serve no useful purpose'.

But that only
washes if Hoagland's readers don't know anything about how true color is
approximated in imaging using "slices" taken at key points along the visible
spectrum, or how difficult it is to get accurate visible spectrum data when
some of those samples are taken from outside the visible range. We need
those wavelengths for science, but they aren't the best for National
Geographic covers.


Your pathetic lesson is beginning to sound more and more anxious, I
wonder why?


| And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
| palette on all landers?

Spirit and Opportunity have color palettes,


No they don't.

but they don't appear in every
photograph


They don't appear in any image whatsoever.

because you can't simultaneously point the camera at the palette
and at what you're interested in.


Well that explains why NASA said, a 'color palette would serve no useful
purpose', and now that Jay has clarified for all to see why Mars is more
accurately pink, we should all disregard those blue sky images as faulty
science, and all those websites with images showing Mars with a green
and grey landscapes to be deliberate hoaxes. Ofcourse don't forget the
recent image of Mars taken by Hubble which shows a blue atmosphere and
white polar caps, Jay has now informed us that those are 'faulty' color
images.

What a kook!

  #32  
Old July 25th 04, 03:30 AM
Odysseus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dude wrote:

I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.

Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the
debate?

Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".

See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.

--
Odysseus
  #33  
Old July 25th 04, 03:43 AM
Wally Anglesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Odysseus" wrote in message
...
dude wrote:

I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color

palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the

palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.

Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the
debate?

Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".

See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.



And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:

"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras before
launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected off
Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the cameras
' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars, we
carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct, we
will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have their
colors properly displayed."


Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else is
just nitpicking.



  #34  
Old July 25th 04, 03:53 AM
dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wally Anglesea" wrote in message
news

"Odysseus" wrote in message
...
dude wrote:

I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color

palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the

palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.

Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the
debate?

Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".

See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.



And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:

"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras before
launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected off
Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the

cameras
' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars, we
carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct,

we
will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have their
colors properly displayed."


Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else is
just nitpicking.


Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that end the
whole debate???





  #35  
Old July 25th 04, 03:59 AM
Wally Anglesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dude" wrote in message
...

"Wally Anglesea" wrote in

message
news

"Odysseus" wrote in message
...
dude wrote:

I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color

palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of

the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the

palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.

Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end

the
debate?

Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".

See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.



And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:

"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras

before
launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected

off
Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the

cameras
' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars,

we
carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct,

we
will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have

their
colors properly displayed."


Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else

is
just nitpicking.


Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that end the
whole debate???


Mad ":scientist" isn't interested in debate, or science, or the truth. There
is no debate.
He just has a huge conspiracy chip on his shoulder.


  #36  
Old July 25th 04, 05:32 AM
dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"dude" wrote in message
...
|
| I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would
| make me nervous......

But you seem to be trying to change the subject and talk about some other
conspiracy theory, and trying to put words in my mouth about it. That

makes
*me* nervous. I'm not about to delve into the Warren Commission and lone
gunmen.


Sorry, I was just throwing in some fun stuff there. I didn't really want to
go off on a tangent...




| To make a valid argument you should list what
| Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color

Hoagland says the reason is because NASA is lying and secretly

manipulating
photographs behind the scenes. Does he have any proof? No, he just has a
straw man argument based on ramshackle attempts at image analysis. He
simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging.


Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the
Martian sky color?

He applies
basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods

have
been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the
actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries
foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the
imaging problem might be wrong.

| I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel
| like digging through his explanations..

That's exactly how Hoagland wants you to approach his material. He wants
you to skim it and come away with the notion that with all that fancy
language and "analysis", he must have something to say. Oh, sure -- he
reports some legitimate findings every so often, just so he can't be

totally
dismissed. But the stuff he claims as exclusively his turns out to be

smoke
and mirrors.

When you dig, you find that the "analyst" claiming false-color skies has
taken the raw data through each filter, obtained from NASA, and tried to
duplicate NASA's photo reconstruction.

He has the green component (535 nm) and the blue component (482 nm). But
instead of a visible red component (ca. 650 nm) he has used the
near-infrared component (753 nm). Instead of trying to reconstruct a
defensible approximation of the visible spectrum (which can be -- and
commonly is -- done using the first three wavelengths I mentioned), he has
merely "promoted" the infrared to the red. A filter centered at 753 nm

will
not have a bandwidth sufficient also to pick up visible red at 650 nm,

which
is the wavelength corresponding to the three-color reconstruction method

the
author has used, i.e., the "red" in Photoshop.

NASA would have been faced with a similar problem: how to turn infrared
into red. As has been repeated said, getting true color images from

random,
exotic slices of the spectrum -- visible and otherwise -- is very

difficult.
Even the standard RGB color system doesn't always get it right, even for
Earth's sky. Whatever algorithim NASA used to generate a red-end signal
from the infrared obviously "pinkified" the sky too much. But to say this
is evidence they are "lying" about the color of the sky is pure garbage.
NASA doesn't claim the color in that picture is spot-on. Nor in any of

the
photos where L2 data has been transformed into visible red.

The author goes on to argue that the sky has been painted over in the

image,
with some false color. He notes that the noise in the original images
hasn't been preserved in the final image. The original data is obviously
noise, regardless of where it comes from. It's not inappropriate simply

to
filter the noise in the original signals and then do the color correction
from there. That *is* an adjustment to the image, but it's not a lie. Is
the image *more* correct with noise in it?

Hoagland's "wrong lander color" arguments are just the same. His

comparison
to the shot taken in the lab uses the same red, green, and infrared bands,
and is therefore not really a true-color image. It's pinkified because

the
650 nm signal had to be inferred from 752 nm data. That's why it's

labelled
an "approximate" true color image. It is exactly as I said -- the
photograph you're seeing is taken by a camera seeing a different spectrum
that what your eyes naturally see.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg

Now the question is not why different versions of the photos are available
from NASA or from any other source or why you can plausibly create these
different versions. The question is whether NASA is *deliberately* doing
this in order to deceive. The question of filters and wavelengths is
sufficiently hairy in this imaging context to allow room for

interpretation,
for differences of opinion, and for equally justifiable technical

approaches
in different cases. In fact, it's sufficiently hairy in normal Kodak
terrestrial photography to make this a concern for photographers trying to
get color reproduction right. But Hoagland doesn't buy any of this. To

him
it *has* to be deliberate deception.

When you study Hoagland's past, you see why he leaps to that conclusion.
With Hoagland it's all about making NASA look bad. NASA committed the
unpardonable sin of failing to realize Richard Hoagland's genius when
Hoagland was working closer with them, and now Hoagland is making them

pay.
Hoagland demands to be recognized, and if he can't do it within NASA he'll
do it against NASA.

The only way Hoagland can make the "NASA is lying" hypothesis stick is if

he
makes it seem like reconstructing these photos is child's play, that any
yutz with Photoshop and a spare afternoon can do it. That way NASA's
"failure" to have One True Color Scheme seems suspicious. But that only
washes if Hoagland's readers don't know anything about how true color is
approximated in imaging using "slices" taken at key points along the

visible
spectrum, or how difficult it is to get accurate visible spectrum data

when
some of those samples are taken from outside the visible range. We need
those wavelengths for science, but they aren't the best for National
Geographic covers.

| And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
| palette on all landers?

Spirit and Opportunity have color palettes, but they don't appear in every
photograph because you can't simultaneously point the camera at the

palette
and at what you're interested in.


But since there is a palette can't they just calibrate the camera and go or
are you saying for the most accurate interpretations they would need that in
every shot?

Thanks for the informative response though, they can't accuse you of just
being a blind debunker now.........





--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org



  #37  
Old July 25th 04, 05:59 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dude" wrote in message
...
|
| Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that
| end the whole debate???

You would think.

Let me try to state the problem a little more clearly. The cameras on
spacecraft are more generally constructed than cameras we commonly use.
We've discovered that we can approximate nearly every color the human eye
can see using different amounts of only three colors: certain wavelengths
each of red, green, and blue. And so we can create film or other kinds of
light-recording technology that respond only to those wavelengths, greatly
simplifying color photography. Each "component" is represented as an
intensity -- a sort of black and white photograph. If we color each of
those component images with its original color -- e.g., the data from 650 nm
in a certain shade of red -- we can get back the original colors, or close
enough.

But for science, which is what these spacecraft cameras are designed for, we
want more than just those three wavelengths for research. We want to record
light not only in the visible range, but in the infrared and ultraviolet as
well. So we have filters that just let in those wavelengths. We get
intensity maps for them too. But for those wavelengths that are outside the
visible spectrum, can we use them to try to make an image that contains the
colors as we see them with our eyes? The answer is a definite maybe.

Some of the photos that NASA has released don't have a visible red
component. They have an infrared component instead. NASA tries to infer
from the infrared component what the red component, 100 nanometers shorter,
would look like. The author that Hoagland quotes just read back the 750 nm
data at 650 nm with no correction. No matter what NASA might have done
right or wrong in transforming infrared to red, that author is wrong -- he
made no correction whatsoever. NASA knows that no amount of computer
mumbo-jumbo will turn data from 750 nm (near infrared) to perfectly faithful
data at 650 nm (visible red), so they label the photos as "approximate true
color".

There are different ways to try to reconstruct a true color photograph from
data taken at "weird" wavelengths, and none of them is perfect. This isn't
generaly a problem for consumer photography because the films we use have
been thoroughly standardized for visible light photography. But scientists
will, for example, combine data from different wavelengths together in the
computer and come up with an image that isn't exactly a color image, but
which reveals things of scientific interest, like what the chemical
composition of a certain rock is. That's not a "true color" image because
the colors are telling you different information -- the colors in these
images are the results of a formula that combines different wavelength data.
"True color" is any image that tries -- however ineptly -- to get to what
you would see with your natural eyes. But you can't see in the infrared, so
it wouldn't be fair to "shift" that infrared data into the visible spectrum.
But the data is near enough to the visible spectrum that a good guess may
come of it.

I bring up Hoagland's past not to make the argument that he's a crackpot and
therefore -- without further investigation -- his ideas should be
discounted. I bring it up to explain why Hoagland is so unwilling to
sympathize with the problems of creating true-color images from data that is
not within the visible spectrum. For data that was taken in the "standard"
wavelengths, the color calibration chart should be sufficient to assure us
that a reconstructed photo is appropriate. But because the calibration
system behaves slightly differently for non-visible light, it's not a
straightforward tweaking of the knob to get a faithfully colored image.

Hoagland has been out to get NASA for many years. This explains why he is
making such a big deal out of this. Rather than acknowledge that the
problem is not a simple, straightforward combination of raw data elements
that can go wrong or be subject to different schools of thought, he goes
right for the jugular and accuses NASA of deliberately attempting to deceive
people. His bread and butter for the past several years has been the Face
on Mars, transparent domes on the Moon, and other accusations of widespread
coverup at NASA. His arguments have to be taken with a grain of salt.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #38  
Old July 25th 04, 06:24 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dude" wrote in message
...
|
| Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the
| Martian sky color?

Possibly, but even regular analog cameras require color correction.

There's a funny story about that from the old Star Trek series. They were
doing makeup tests for the Orion dancing girl (the green chick) and the lab
was unwittingly "correcting" her skin tone, infuriating the makeup artists.

If you go back to the shot comparing the lander in the lab with the lander
on the Mars surface, you can see that the strap is the wrong color in the
onsite shot. You know it's supposed to be a certain color, and you can
tweak the knobs until it comes out that color. But the problem is that the
data that is supposed to render it the correct color -- that energy at 650
nm -- simply isn't there. Making the strap yellow (or whatever it's
supposed to be) by the calibration chart biases the whole image uniformly.
You haven't really accounted for that missing data. You've just adjusted
the tint knob

Another bit of movie magic: Back when we used blue screens to make
traveling mattes, part of the process involved removing the blue film
element -- which of course was perfectly white where the blue was and was
thus useful in making the mattes. But to get the blue data back in the
foreground image without spoiling the separation, the green component was
printed with blue printing lights, and this approximated the original
foreground colors. The green element would be black where the blue had been
in the original scene, so it wouldn't print. But the colors would never
come out exactly they way they were supposed to. You can't substitute green
for blue without wrecking something. But it was deemed close enough for the
general public, and you just knew not to allow certain colors in the
foreground elements.

| But since there is a palette can't they just calibrate the camera and go
or
| are you saying for the most accurate interpretations they would need that
in
| every shot?

To be scrupulously accurate we'd need it in every shot, because the incident
wavelengths can change over time. Light on earth changes wavelength between
sunny and overcast for example. Most people just aren't that picky about
exact color. It's only important if you're trying to get perfect visible
light shots. That's what most of the public is interested in, but that's
not necessarily what the scientists want to see. They're happy working with
the raw elements.

| Thanks for the informative response though, they can't accuse you of just
| being a blind debunker now.........

You're welcome. I may be wrong on occasion, but I'm not blind.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #39  
Old July 25th 04, 10:01 AM
Paul Lawler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
s.com...
Jay

Jay Windley wrote:

He
simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. He applies
basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods

have
been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the
actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries
foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the
imaging problem might be wrong.


Your argument is identical with Hoaglands, but with opposite conclusions
proving how much of a kook you are.


No, this does not "prove" anything. Nor does your incessant yelling of,
"kook" prove anything.


  #40  
Old July 25th 04, 10:03 AM
Paul Lawler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dude" wrote in message
...

Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the
Martian sky color?


They might have a heck of a time finding a 24Hour Photo on Mars to develop
the film.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA is coming along just fine now. Cardman Policy 2 July 8th 04 07:33 PM
Pres. Kerry's NASA ed kyle Policy 354 March 11th 04 08:05 PM
Space Access Update #102 2/9/04 Henry Vanderbilt Policy 1 February 10th 04 04:18 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
NASA Testing K9 Rover In Granite Quarry For Future Missions Ron Baalke Technology 0 October 31st 03 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.