Why Is Hubble Taking Pictures Of Mars?

[funbox]

not many from curiosity eh ArMaP ? saying that, I cant say I've seen too many, unless we include the milky haze around mount sharp


funbox

[zorgon]

So, doesn't that pretty much mean that we should know for sure that Mars does have some sort of atmosphere, and that atmosphere has white to blueish tinted clouds? We can see what we see, and that makes it pretty hard for NASA to deny the facts of this matter doesn't it.   

So who ever said that Mars has no atmosphere and no clouds?



For years I have shown you NASA pictures of clouds and dust devils on Mars. In fact the rovers have lasted as long as they did BECAUSE the winds blow the dust off the solar panels.

NASA has never hidden the fact that there is atmosphere on Mars  and the sky's look BLUE when there is no dust storm. But then Earth skys look red during a dust storm too

NASA also has always said there is an atmosphere on the moon as well  The only point of contention is HOW MUCH


You guys amaze me Never pay attention in class



Clouds Move Across Mars Horizon
Phoenix Lander

[zorgon]

Ice Clouds in Martian Arctic
(Accelerated Movie)



Dust Devil Near Spirit, Sol 446

[funbox]

Ice Clouds in Martian Arctic
(Accelerated Movie)



Dust Devil Near Spirit, Sol 446

interesting the devil leaves little or no destruction in its wake , do you have the link to the individual pics .. wouldn't mind seeing in close

funbox

[A51Watcher]

Ice Clouds in Martian Arctic
(Accelerated Movie)



Dust Devil Near Spirit, Sol 446

Those are indeed a couple of the best shots Z.

Certainly more atmosphere than we were led to believe in the early days.

It looks like you could spend a nice afternoon flying kites there.

[ArMaP]

interesting the devil leaves little or no destruction in its wake , do you have the link to the individual pics .. wouldn't mind seeing in close

Are are the photo IDs for that particular dust-devil.

2n166841247esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841267esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841288esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841308esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841328esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841349esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841369esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841389esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841409esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841429esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841449esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841469esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841489esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841509esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841529esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841549esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841585esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841624esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841667esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841712esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841754esfa9dwp1560l0m1

And a GIF made with those images, without any enhancements.


Edit: I forgot to say that on this page you can see several dust devils.

[funbox]

Are are the photo IDs for that particular dust-devil.

2n166841247esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841267esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841288esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841308esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841328esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841349esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841369esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841389esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841409esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841429esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841449esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841469esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841489esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841509esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841529esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841549esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841585esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841624esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841667esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841712esfa9dwp1560l0m1
2n166841754esfa9dwp1560l0m1

And a GIF made with those images, without any enhancements.


Edit: I forgot to say that on this page you can see several dust devils.

I think Zorgon's gif is a fine example of how image adjustment can bring out the finer detail.... don't you ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

I think Zorgon's gif is a fine example of how image adjustment can bring out the finer detail.... don't you ?

I do, and I also think that, when an enhancement is presented it should be presented as that.

[funbox]

I do, and I also think that, when an enhancement is presented it should be presented as that.

do you consider other scientific tools and instruments also  as enhancements, ie spectrometry , radiography , microscopes, so on and so forth , intermediary's to the electromagnetic spectrum as such, and do they, in your opinion  carry the same ^connotations as the word 'enhancements' in photographic imagery manipulation ?

funbox

[hoss58]

    Great job with the images of the clouds Armap..[grin]  I thought there was plenty of evidence of clouds on Mars , but you just proved that in spades!!



gave you a gold for that !

[hoss58]

OOPS...sorry , you also Zorgon... I knew I had seen cloud  stuff on Mars

[ArMaP]

do you consider other scientific tools and instruments also  as enhancements, ie spectrometry , radiography , microscopes, so on and so forth , intermediary's to the electromagnetic spectrum as such, and do they, in your opinion  carry the same ^connotations as the word 'enhancements' in photographic imagery manipulation ?

What a strange question.

Spectrometry and radiography are, like photography, techniques to capture information.
Microscopes are instruments that can be used in several techniques.
Enhancement in photography imagery doesn't carry any connotation (at least to me), it's an (usually) subjective way of pointing some thing in an image data set by making it more visible, sometimes by reducing the amount of information available in the whole image.

[funbox]

What a strange question.

Spectrometry and radiography are, like photography, techniques to capture information.
Microscopes are instruments that can be used in several techniques.
Enhancement in photography imagery doesn't carry any connotation (at least to me), it's an (usually) subjective way of pointing some thing in an image data set by making it more visible, sometimes by reducing the amount of information available in the whole image.

there's no subjectivity from Photoshop's perspective, enhancements are based around algorithms,, mathematical equations ,.. the computer does not have the luxury of subjectivity, in cannot by its own choosing make a photograph more anomalous via its own volition ,

amplification , interpolation of size , colours, contrast. all controlled by the machine..

the user can bend data from all machines, so really its the user that is the final filter

do you ever question data sets that aren't so easily scrutinised, as say, a photo , in relation to say, the data sets from other instruments on the  rover..

do you think the data set from the rover climate monitoring instruments , corroborate with what you see ?

a strange question ? ..pure fiction

funbox

[ArMaP]

there's no subjectivity from Photoshop's perspective, enhancements are based around algorithms,, mathematical equations ,.. the computer does not have the luxury of subjectivity, in cannot by its own choosing make a photograph more anomalous via its own volition ,

amplification , interpolation of size , colours, contrast. all controlled by the machine..

Perspective, amplification, interpolation of size (I suppose you mean resampling), change of colour(s) and contrast are not, in themselves, enhancements, they are tools that can be used to enhance an image or part of an image. Yes, they are based on algorithms, but what the user chooses to do with them is not.

the user can bend data from all machines, so really its the user that is the final filter

Obviously.

do you ever question data sets that aren't so easily scrutinised, as say, a photo , in relation to say, the data sets from other instruments on the  rover..

The same thing as with photos, when those data sets are presented in non-scientific formats, like a chart on an web page. Highly compressed JPEGs is not the original format used, so I look for the original format.
A pretty chart is not the original format, so I will look for the original format (usually just raw data in some tabular form).

do you think the data set from the rover climate monitoring instruments , corroborate with what you see ?

With what I see where?

a strange question ? ..pure fiction

To me is a strange question, as I don't see the relevance.

[funbox]

The same thing as with photos, when those data sets are presented in non-scientific formats, like a chart on an web page. Highly compressed JPEGs is not the original format used, so I look for the original format.
A pretty chart is not the original format, so I will look for the original format (usually just raw data in some tabular form).

that's not what I meant , I mean the numbers/ hard data , instruments of almost non variability within their accepted variations , take temperature for example .. do you cast your eye on these solid number as you would a photograph of mount sharp, do you question the numbers? , try to correlate them with what you see in the cam pics ?

With what I see where?

see above

To me is a strange question, as I don't see the relevance.

and now ?

funbox