Questionable Venus Surface Photograps

"Ron Miller" wrote...
in message ...

"Flying _Naked_People" http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm
wrote in message ...

Bull****! NASA even **admits** their photos are colorized! Are you insane?

No. You are confusing "colorization"---where a black and white image has
color artificially and arbitrarily added to it by hand, more or less like
someone might tint an old photo---with NASA's use of color enhancement,
where the colors in an exisiting color image are manipulated---enhanced---to
bring out certain features. For instance, by increasing the contrast in a
photo, features can be seen that would be otherwise invisible. Colorization
and color enhancement are two quite different processes.

You seem incensed that I ask questions you can't answer.

Who says they can't be answered? A little more research plus a phone call to
Charles Vick (the leading authority on the Soviet space program, who,
fortunately, lives only a few miles from here), revealed this: The Venera
spacecraft were constructed of pretty much the same materials as most other
Soviet spacecraft---and US spacecraft, too, for that matter. These materials
included (and I've added their melting points in degrees F) stainless steel
(2550), aluminum (1218), copper (1981), titanium (3263), tungsten (6150),
various lightweight copper, magnesium and aluminum alloys (all with melting
points well over 1000), silicon (about 2605 depending the compound), quartz
(for the camera windows---2912) and assorted ceramics. There was no film in
the cameras---they were video. As has been pointed out to you already (and
repeatedly at that), the main protection to the spacecraft was not the
materials used in its construction but the special cooling system built into
it to shield the instruments. And even that managed to last only a few
minutes.

I hope this answers your question.

RM

Fascinating piece of work, Ron!

Thanks!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
A smidgeon of fear and a sprinkle of strife
And a whole lotta love till your cold...
Most everyone here wants to live a long life,
Ah! but nobody wants to get old.

Paine Ellsworth

"Flying _Naked_People" http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm wrote in
message ...
If my questions are uneducated, why can't you and your idiot cronies
answer
them?

Jesus Christ. Look up the word "ambiguous" and try again.

That's question number ONE that you failed to answer.

PROBABLY?? I didn't ask for PROBABLY. That's question #2 you failed to
answer.

Did I ask what they DIDN'T USE? One of the lessons kids learn in HIGH
SCHOOL
is how to ANSWER the question ASKED.

PERHAPS? I didn't ask for PERHAPS. That's question #3 you failed to
answer.

Looks like YOU need a general level High School Science Course.

You see, some of us have a problem with people who ask a question and when
people genuinely try to answer them in good faith, they get comments like
those above.

Actually, we don't have a problem, as we end up ignoring you. Which is a
shame, because most of us are nice helpful people.

--
Angels exist - and this artist has seen them!
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/default.htm

Ron Miller wrote in article
...

"Flying _Naked_People" http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm wrote in
message ...
Ron Miller wrote in article
...

A little more research plus a phone call to
Charles Vick (the leading authority on the Soviet space program, who,
fortunately, lives only a few miles from here),

Oh yeah!!! I forgot I had his phone number on my Palm!

revealed this: The Venera
spacecraft were constructed of pretty much the same materials as most other
Soviet spacecraft---and US spacecraft, too, for that matter. These materials
included (and I've added their melting points in degrees F) stainless steel
(2550), aluminum (1218), copper (1981), titanium (3263), tungsten (6150),
various lightweight copper, magnesium and aluminum alloys (all with melting
points well over 1000), silicon (about 2605 depending the compound), quartz
(for the camera windows---2912) and assorted ceramics. There was no film in
the cameras---they were video. As has been pointed out to you already (and
repeatedly at that), the main protection to the spacecraft was not the
materials used in its construction but the special cooling system built into
it to shield the instruments. And even that managed to last only a few
minutes.

I hope this answers your question.

It's a start, and I thank you. It's rather **apparent** I don't have whatever
"resources" that you have... ISN'T it?

RM

Jarmo Korteniemi wrote in article
...
Once upon a time (Sun, 07 Sep 2003 00:47:50 -0000)
Flying _Naked_People took a deep breath and said:
Why does NASA have to "colorize" its photographs?

*All* the space agencies / organisations which take pictures from
space colorize the pictures taken (if they are in greyscale). Or,
in fact, only some of the images. Anyway, this is done for several
rather good reasons:

1) PR value. Grayscale images = boring, color = interesting. They
sell better. They interest the public and the press more. They
make a person's imagination flow more.
2) Seeing images in "kind-of-real-color" gives the scientists a
"kind-of-real-life" experience of the imaged areas. Makes the
imagination flow again and interpretation easier.
3) Combinations can reveal more details than individual separate
images. See below:

Two images taken from the same area in two separate
wavelengths reveal much detail even individually...

--------------------- ---------------------
| | | CCCCC |
| XXXXXXX | | AAAAAAA CCCCC |
| XXXXXXXZZZZZZ | | AAAAAAACCCCBCC |
| XXXXXXXZZZZZZ | | AAAAAAACCCCBCC |
| ZZZZ ZZZZZZ | | AAAA CCCBBCC |
| ZZZZ ZZZZZZ | | AAAA CCCBCCC |
| ZZZZ ZZZZZZ | | AAAA CCCBCCC |
| ZZZZ ZZZZZZ | | CCCBCCC |
--------------------- ---------------------

...but combining them shows many more units which can
not be recognized from individual images.

---------------------
| NNNNN |
| MMMMMMM NNNNN |
| MMMMMMMPPPPqPP |
| MMMMMMMPPPPqPP |
| OOOO PPPqqPP |
| OOOO PPPqPPP |
| OOOO PPPqPPP |
| PPPqPPP |
---------------------

The only thing often forgotten about these images is that when
you see one, it looks natural... but in fact it is often a
combination of pictures taken in wavelengths we can not see. For
example, if the camera isn't equipped with a red filter but "sees"
only in IR - the "red" we see in the image is in fact taken in
the IR band. And so on and so on... But it is often close to the
real thing. Educated guesses, you know...

Have there *ever* been photos shown to the public (in color) that have -not-
been manipulated?

I've heard people say mars isn't as red as we've been lead to believe. I would
much rather see the real colors than manipulated ones, but I can understand
why they do it for the sake of getting more detail. I think they should
display both photos side-by-side, rather than just releasing a blood red
planet when there have been reports of blue and green on the real deal!!

I need to see the *true* photos.

And I thank you for answering my question with tons of more respect for
genuine curious questions than many of the loons on this board. I guess they
were BORN knowing how to dodge them!


Jarmo

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarmo Korteniemi

* Planetology group, Astronomy, University of Oulu, Finland
* DLR (The German Aerospace Center), Berlin
- Institute of Space Sensor Technology and Planetary Exploration

* email: jarmo DOT korteniemi AT oulu DOT fi
* tel: +358 (045) 6362264
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Do you believe in astrology? Jupiter exerts less gravitational influence
over a human body than does an angry rhino less than two meters away...

OG wrote in article
...

most of us are nice helpful people.

Look up the word "nice".

David Langlois --- Ball serves Baal -sex wrote in
article ...
So where are the really good quality pictures of those Venera images?
(non-B&W,
non-distorted)

I always assumed that the B&W images were "colorized" with reference to
known
images. I've never seen a good colorized image of Mercury from Mariner 10
nor
of Venus from the Veneras that didn't make me question what they were being
compared with. That funky bronze-yellow color doesn't give me a lot of
confridence.


David
(the colorized verions of Venus radar data show that same funky yellow
coloring
- why? General purpose?)


I am cross-posting this to alt.astonomy. Be careful. There are know-it-alls in
there.

"Flying _Naked_People" http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm wrote in
message ...
David Langlois --- Ball serves Baal -sex wrote in
article ...
So where are the really good quality pictures of those Venera images?
(non-B&W,
non-distorted)

I always assumed that the B&W images were "colorized" with reference to
known
images. I've never seen a good colorized image of Mercury from Mariner
10
nor
of Venus from the Veneras that didn't make me question what they were
being
compared with. That funky bronze-yellow color doesn't give me a lot of
confridence.


David
(the colorized verions of Venus radar data show that same funky yellow
coloring
- why? General purpose?)


I am cross-posting this to alt.astonomy. Be careful. There are
know-it-alls in
there.

There are some highly knowledgeable people here, who you feel you must
insult and disagree with while admiting you have no knowledge of the
subject.
You are a troll, and a very poor one at that.

In article , Douglas A. Shrader
wrote:

"Flying _Naked_People" http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm wrote in
message ...
David Langlois --- Ball serves Baal -sex wrote in
article ...
So where are the really good quality pictures of those Venera images?
(non-B&W,
non-distorted)

I always assumed that the B&W images were "colorized" with reference to
known
images. I've never seen a good colorized image of Mercury from Mariner
10
nor
of Venus from the Veneras that didn't make me question what they were
being
compared with. That funky bronze-yellow color doesn't give me a lot of
confridence.


David
(the colorized verions of Venus radar data show that same funky yellow
coloring
- why? General purpose?)


I am cross-posting this to alt.astonomy. Be careful. There are
know-it-alls in
there.

There are some highly knowledgeable people here, who you feel you must
insult and disagree with while admiting you have no knowledge of the
subject.
You are a troll, and a very poor one at that.

Why doesn't everyone either just ignore or killfile her?If no one
responds to her ranting maybe she will just go away.Bill.

Flying _Naked_People wrote:

Did the Russians use materials stronger than *Lead*? If so, what are those
materials?


Lead is a soft, pliable metal, with a low melting point compared to...

i don't know why i'm bothering to engage you, you're just a stupid
simpleton!


--

Gerry Aitken

....and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16

Flying _Naked_People wrote:

It's rather **apparent** I don't have whatever "resources" that you
have... ISN'T it?

Yep, you clearly have no brain!



--

Gerry Aitken

....and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16