Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?

"Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?"
Apparently "Mercury's unseen side now seen!" is only available in
those colors of gray. After all this time, and of our hard earned
loot spent, I'm actually rather disappointed in NASA's MESSENGER. Are
we ever going to see the full visible spectrum scope and photographic
color depth and contrast worth of our digital images, or merely as
limited as to whatever gray pixels they see fit to share in B&W and of
such limited DR to boot?

Of course there's always the full scope of UV and IR spectrums of
colors outside of the human eye response, that as such could also be
easily made available, especially if given the same eyecandy hype as
accomplished on behalf of most everything else that's out of our
reach.

Perhaps it's just little old me deductively wondering, as to exactly
why our spendy MESSENGER color imaging potential is being
intentionally turned off or excluded from public review, and as to why
their CCD dynamic range remains as so dismal.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108821596M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...108826105M.png
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...26040M_45M.jpg

Thanks to our "no kid left behind" policy, as of prior to CCD camera
imaging perhaps all of 0.1% of Americans even understood what
photographic spectrum sensitivity and the associated DR(dynamic range)
of B&W or color film even meant. Since the advent of commercial/
consumer CCD cameras and the continued dumbing down of America, I'd
say that fewer than 0.0001% (that's one out of a million) of our
supposedly educated population of mostly snookered and thus easily
dumbfounded village idiots have so much as a freaking clue as to what
either factor of spectrum sensitivity or much less that of what DR
means. Of course this is perfectly good news for those of our cloak
and dagger 'Skull and Bones', as well as for all those faith-based
rusemasters within our NASA, and especially on behalf of those
unfiltered Apollo Kodak moments that somehow never managed to get any
such blue saturated images of our naked and physically dark moon like
those recently accomplished by China and Japan with their quality
bandpass filtered optics.

Here's that other one of Venus by way of MESSENGER that's about as
wussy/pastel worth of color and pathetic DR as you can possibly get,
and still having just enough to call it color, especially weird since
most cell phone cameras would have taken a better color image.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...=2&image_id=88
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...ch%20Image.jpg

Remember the Earth flyby, whereas our easily color spectrum corrected
as a dark-golden-brown moon was intentionally kept out of frame and
otherwise as either too physically dark or perhaps it was invisible
due to their intentionally limited DR usage, however the pastel color
and/or dynamic range limited image of Earth looked quite nifty.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...galapagos.html
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_miss...lapagos_lg.jpg
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pre...005/050826.asp

Is this lack of color imaging all because of Mercury being so gush
darn moon like, with similar crater upon crater morphed terrain and of
a low amount of albedo, but otherwise offering such a deposited and
local mineral rich geology, and subsequently colorful surface as
capably imaged by those spendy mirror optics, whereas at least one of
which having an extremely good set of narrow bandpass filters and/or
spectrum cutoff filters, and with each of those CCD imagers having
such terrific DR(dynamic range of at the very least 4X film and that's
not even including the extra +/- skew of their CCD DR).

So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
mapping Mercury gets under way.

. - Brad Guth

they say the little green men are really gray,so anything is
possible...

On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth wrote:


So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
mapping Mercury gets under way.

. - Brad Guth

Maybe it IS just grey. Think of the moon. They used color cameras
there, and you could see colors on the logos on the astronauts, the
flag, etc. But the landscape was all shades of grey. Much of the
color on Earth is the result of biological activity. On Mars there
apparently was enough oxygen in the atmosphere to oxidize iron, but
there is not a whole lot of color there. So maybe Mercury is like the
moon, and really is just grey. If they have specroscopic sensors,
they can see fine color variations, but these are not what it would
look like to the human eye.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth wrote:


So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
mapping Mercury gets under way.

. - Brad Guth

This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
mission.

du wrote:
This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
mission.

I'm pretty sure this fly-by used all the filters.
Exposure time for each photo certainly didn't need to be much given the
level of illumination provided by the Sun.

Pat

On Jan 20, 12:24 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
du wrote:
This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
mission.

I'm pretty sure this fly-by used all the filters.
Exposure time for each photo certainly didn't need to be much given the
level of illumination provided by the Sun.

Pat

I'd have to agree with that. Remember there was two CCD imagers, and
the very best of mirror optics in addition to one of those CCD imagers
having those nifty filters.

I'd like to review the entire archive of all such images from each of
those cameras, and especially of those using whatever narrow bandpass
filters.

- Brad Guth

On Jan 20, 10:33 am, "du" wrote:
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote in ... On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth wrote:

So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
mapping Mercury gets under way.

. - Brad Guth

This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
mission.

There was plenty of flyby time for accommodating at least a few full
color images.
- Brad Guth

In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom wrote:
The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.

Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...2&image_id=125

"The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
approach with Mercury."

When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
time to gather full color pictures.

A lot of things can happen in 3 years.

Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
aligned perfectly.

It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
software (on Earth).

Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
consumption.

Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.

There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

On Jan 21, 11:25 am, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
wrote:
In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom wrote:

The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.

Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/....php?gallery_i...

The last thing these infowar and disinformation spewing *******s of
NASA's science ****ology ever want to hear is that I'm right. So, you
should expect to get ignored, banished or given a good amount of
whatever lethal flak they can muster.


"The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
approach with Mercury."

When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
time to gather full color pictures.

A lot of things can happen in 3 years.

Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
aligned perfectly.

It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
software (on Earth).

Lots of local PhotoShop efforts can manage to correct for most
anything, as long as those original images are in focus and without
too much motion distortion to start off with.

How the freaking hell did they manage to accomplish all of those Earth
flyby color frames so quickly?


Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
consumption.

Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.

There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".

--http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

99.9% of Usenet folks seem perfectly cozy with their pretending as
being atheists and otherwise as all-knowing at the same time, are
oddly opposed to sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
They get especially testy whenever such new and improved information
rocks their NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP, and of most everything
since getting put at risk.
- Brad Guth

Plonk.


"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 11:25 am, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
wrote:
In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom wrote:

The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow
the
public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.

Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/....php?gallery_i...

The last thing these infowar and disinformation spewing *******s of
NASA's science ****ology ever want to hear is that I'm right. So, you
should expect to get ignored, banished or given a good amount of
whatever lethal flak they can muster.


"The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
approach with Mercury."

When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
time to gather full color pictures.

A lot of things can happen in 3 years.

Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not
have
aligned perfectly.

It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
software (on Earth).

Lots of local PhotoShop efforts can manage to correct for most
anything, as long as those original images are in focus and without
too much motion distortion to start off with.

How the freaking hell did they manage to accomplish all of those Earth
flyby color frames so quickly?


Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
consumption.

Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.

There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".

--http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

99.9% of Usenet folks seem perfectly cozy with their pretending as
being atheists and otherwise as all-knowing at the same time, are
oddly opposed to sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
They get especially testy whenever such new and improved information
rocks their NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP, and of most everything
since getting put at risk.
- Brad Guth