|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
On Nov 11, 1:47 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jim Newman wrote: Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Brad thinks the moon is made of frozen salt water. I kid you not. He has managed to replicate aspects of the Nazi "Welteislehre" cosmology:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre I think it once had a thick layer of salty ice, but then nothing of your DARPA or NASA/Apollo took notice of the sodium within the thin atmosphere, much less found as a mineral on its physically dark surface. ~ BG |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. 100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer than the rest of the rubbish you spout! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
On Nov 11, 3:17 pm, Jim Newman wrote:
BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. 100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer than the rest of the rubbish you spout! You really are quite out of it. Let us know when your bipolar medication kicks in. ISRO claims their planned orbit will be near 100 km. Now if you don't agree with that, take it up with ISRO. ~ BG |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:17 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. 100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer than the rest of the rubbish you spout! ISRO claims their planned orbit will be near 100 km. Now if you don't agree with that, take it up with ISRO. And your original post was questioning the resolution quality of the photograph "Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image" You then squeaked "perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with" You don't do yourself any favours do you! :-) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:42:13 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hagar"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Jim Newman" wrote in message ... BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? GuthBall speaketh through his rectum ... he has no clue. Now and then his sophomoric hallucinations get the upper hand. "Now and then"? It's on a continuous basis. Killfile the poor lunatic. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
"Jim Newman" wrote in message...
... BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 3:17 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. 100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer than the rest of the rubbish you spout! ISRO claims their planned orbit will be near 100 km. Now if you don't agree with that, take it up with ISRO. And your original post was questioning the resolution quality of the photograph "Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image" You then squeaked "perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with" You don't do yourself any favours do you! :-) At great risk of falling into a weird pigeon hole, i must ask you, Jim, wouldn't the presence of any resolution degrading substance that is thickest up to 100km still have an effect no matter if you're 100km, 200km, or 300,000km away from the surface? Sorry, but i see Brad get picked on a lot. And frankly, he does bring much of it on himself. But in this case, it appears to me that you're barking up the wrong tree. Rather than question the resolution degradation issue from the angle of distance from the surface, maybe a concentration upon the question as to whether such a tenuous amount of sodium (even within the 100km limit) would have much of an effect on resolution in the first place? After all, we can get a good bit of detail of the Moon's surface from Earth with a fair telescope. Does the atmospheric sodium content have a significant effect on image resolution? at *any* distance? I doubt it. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." Winston Churchill P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
"BradGuth" wrote in message
... On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. ~ BG The Moon does not have its own atmosphere, but solar wind impacts on the surface sputter off atoms at speeds up to and including lunar escape velocity. An experiment specifically designed to study this is on board Chandrayaan: http://www.chandrayaan-i.com/chandra...oads/sara.html See what it says about this on that page. As the satellite has not yet reached its final orbit, it may not be switched on yet. Certainly, a period of a few days or weeks is normally needed for engineering checks on the instruments. In any event, Brad, are you an Indian tax payer? Or a tax payer of an ESA member state? If not, then you have no right to demand the data be made public to you. Like most space projects involving collaborations with academics, full public release of data is embargoed for a period of time to allow them to study, analyse, and write reports for publication. Academic scentists spend a considerable amount of time and effort proposing, designing and constructing experiment packages, then have to wait for the flight and return of telemetry data. Exclusive right to the data for a period of time is the "payback" for this effort, which affects their academic careers. If you don't like this, well, too bad. It isn't a conspiracy against you. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
Painius wrote:
"Jim Newman" wrote in message... And your original post was questioning the resolution quality of the photograph "Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image" You then squeaked "perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with" You don't do yourself any favours do you! :-) At great risk of falling into a weird pigeon hole, i must ask you, Jim, wouldn't the presence of any resolution degrading substance that is thickest up to 100km still have an effect no matter if you're 100km, 200km, or 300,000km away from the surface? Sorry, but i see Brad get picked on a lot. And frankly, he does bring much of it on himself. But in this case, it appears to me that you're barking up the wrong tree. Rather than question the resolution degradation issue from the angle of distance from the surface, maybe a concentration upon the question as to whether such a tenuous amount of sodium (even within the 100km limit) would have much of an effect on resolution in the first place? After all, we can get a good bit of detail of the Moon's surface from Earth with a fair telescope. Does the atmospheric sodium content have a significant effect on image resolution? at *any* distance? Ask yourself why it is that the 'lunar sodium atmosphere' degradation only affects this image, but doesn't affect images taken from the Earths surface. The photograph in question was taken from near Earth orbit - 311,200km from the moon. The equipment used to take the photograph is /designed/ to be used at a distance of about 100km. When in normal use, the resolution will be 3000x better because the camera will be 3000x nearer. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
In article ,
Mike Dworetsky wrote: See what it says about this on that page. As the satellite has not yet reached its final orbit, it may not be switched on yet. Certainly, a period of a few days or weeks is normally needed for engineering checks on the instruments. The word I'm getting (from one of the instrument PIs, just down the corridor) is that it's about 10 days until the science instruments start taking data. There'll be a period of calibration following that, of course, but the data should be coming in from then. -- Andy Breen Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Post-September, somebody figured out that the Internet was cheaper than babysitters (Dick Gaughan) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?
On Nov 11, 3:54 pm, Jim Newman wrote:
BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 3:17 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image? (it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass filtering) Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with? What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about? Search for the words sodium and moon. That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold nighttime surface. 100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer than the rest of the rubbish you spout! ISRO claims their planned orbit will be near 100 km. Now if you don't agree with that, take it up with ISRO. And your original post was questioning the resolution quality of the photograph "Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image" You then squeaked "perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to deal with" You don't do yourself any favours do you! :-) Why are you looking for that needle in the haystack? What is it about the word "perhaps" that you don't understand? ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ? | BradGuth | Policy | 138 | January 7th 09 06:11 PM |
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ? | BradGuth | History | 143 | January 7th 09 06:11 PM |
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit | Pat Flannery | Policy | 18 | November 15th 08 07:05 PM |
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit | Pat Flannery | History | 18 | November 15th 08 07:05 PM |
ISRO and NASA Sign MOU on Chandrayaan-1 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 10th 06 03:01 AM |