A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 12th 08, 12:14 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 12:17 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Jim Newman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 12:23 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 12:54 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Jim Newman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 03:17 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 07:37 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 08:58 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 10:15 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Jim Newman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 11:44 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
Andrew Robert Breen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 12:41 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.astronomy,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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

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
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ? BradGuth Policy 138 January 7th 09 07:11 PM
CHANDRAYAAN = ? Photoshop + cut and paste ? BradGuth History 143 January 7th 09 07:11 PM
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit Pat Flannery Policy 18 November 15th 08 08:05 PM
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit Pat Flannery History 18 November 15th 08 08:05 PM
ISRO and NASA Sign MOU on Chandrayaan-1 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 May 10th 06 03:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM.


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.