I'm disappointed

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

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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

On Jan 14, 1:39 pm, 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 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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

Without your eye-candy fix, as such it's al pretty pathetic,
especially since so much of the other related science is off-limits or
perhaps just being kept taboo/nondisclosure rated. But isn't that
what our need-to-know NASA is really all about?
- Brad Guth

kT wrote in :

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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

Here's a nice list of the instrumentation. I'm quite impressed by how
much useful stuff they can shoehorn onto a better, faster, cheaper
(BFC?) mission.

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/news_roo...t_Rev11-07.pdf

Agent Smith wrote:
kT wrote in :

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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

Here's a nice list of the instrumentation. I'm quite impressed by how
much useful stuff they can shoehorn onto a better, faster, cheaper
(BFC?) mission.

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/news_roo...t_Rev11-07.pdf

A lot of things have changed in 35 years.

It's all good.

kT wrote in :

Agent Smith wrote:
kT wrote in
:

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,
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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

Here's a nice list of the instrumentation. I'm quite impressed by
how much useful stuff they can shoehorn onto a better, faster,
cheaper (BFC?) mission.

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/news_roo...t_Rev11-07.pdf

A lot of things have changed in 35 years.

It's all good.

By Moore's Law, I get 24 doubling cycles. Since 2^10 ~= a thousand,
2^20 ~= a million, and 2^24 ~= 10 billion. Regarding the advance of
technology over time, I don't think the NSF will cancel my grant for
equating an improvement by a factor of 10 billion with "infinitely
better."

So you're right, and it is all good. But to say that an improvement by
a factor of 10 billion is merely "a lot," would seem to be an
understatement. It looks like I used hyperbole in just the right place.
:]

I'd say "waxed hyperbolic," but I hate it when people use "hyperbolic"
to describe anything other than a conic section.

Can you folks suggest your best swag, as to why these new and improved
Messenger images of Venus are making use of less than 10% of their
dynamic range? (perhaps as little DR as 5% of what's otherwise doable)

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...G.4release.jpg

- Brad Guth


On Jan 14, 1:39 pm, 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 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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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.

kT wrote in :

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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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 between Mercury and the Moon.

Agent Smith wrote:
kT wrote in :

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, 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 early Mercury flybys, 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 between Mercury and the Moon.

Mercury for the most part appears to be a conventional nickel iron
planet, whereas the moon was blasted out of the Earth somehow.

Are you familiar with my 'Meghar' scale of planetary masses?

In this scheme Mercury is a border line planet, stuck right between the
lunar massed planets and Mars massed planets. We are lucky to have these
kinds of examples to extrapolate from.

Agent Smith wrote:

kT wrote in :

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 :-)


Alain Fournier