Odd Marking on Mars Rock

Why did Rense post this?

Well...

Sorry, but Jeff Rense, is a dumb A$$, from what I can see, none of his articles, are true, they are just spectulation, from his readers...

Phazers! When was the last Mars movie boom?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by Hamilton]

How big a hall would you need in order to make a believable Mars scenario, when you concider 360 degrees view radius? It all depends on the lense of the camera and the money spent in scenery and lighting, a field America virtually owns.Where are the shots of the night sky with Earth visible in the picture? And all the posters showing exactly that. They have one rover on each side don't they?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

They don't opperate the Rovers when its night time, they can't since like you said, it would be on the other side of the planet. Generaly they shut them down at night although i think Spirit has been doing it's driving at night since they can do that almost on there own. Just give it a heading and it will figure its own way around large rocks.

You'd need a long exposure on the camera to get a good night shot of the stars and i'm not sure how cloudy and or dusty the night sky would be, so not many stars could show up at all.

The same stupid arguments every time. Firstly, according to NASA's own data, all of the equipment is fully operational during the night using the power of the batteries which are charged during the day. Secondly, we are able to see the ground of Mars even from Earth. Why wouldn't a camera on Mars be able to see the night sky? And a silly thing like exposure isn't even a question with a sophisticated camera such as the ones fitted to the rovers. If it's possible to make a picture of the night sky with a cheap digi camera, it is also possible with the cameras up there. Then why aren't there any night shots? It would be great to see the Moons and Earth in it's present constellation. Nightshots such as these would be valuable for astronomers trying to figure out the physics of light and gravity, the size of the Universe and so on.... Why?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Originally posted by Hamilton
Then why aren't there any night shots?

It's not part of the mission, silly.

Seriously, I'd like to see a night shot or two.

They didn't tape it back when they shot it you mean?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

I'd like to see a pepsi can or a Wendy's wrapper or something on Mars...

But seriously. It's kind of a funny though, but I think there is something on Mars intentionally messing up our trips there...

Originally posted by Hamilton
we are able to see the ground of Mars even from Earth.

What?

Why wouldn't a camera on Mars be able to see the night sky?

As simple a reason as dust. You know what its like when there is a very fine mist on an Earth night, even the slightest mist blots out the stars, only the moon is visible. On mars the dust suspended in the atmosphere would do much the same. On a particularly clear night it might be possible, I'm not sure.

It would be great to see the Moons and Earth in it's present constellation.

I agree. There are a few shots from the Mars Global Surveyor of Jupiter and its moons as seen from Mars Orbit, and a shot with the Earth and Jupiter both in frame, quite awe-inspiring stuff.

Nightshots such as these would be valuable for astronomers trying to figure out the physics of light and gravity, the size of the Universe and so on....

No they wouldn't

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by Hamilton
we are able to see the ground of Mars even from Earth.

What?

This picture is taken from Hubble. Might not be 100% terrestrial observing post, but close enough. I could go an find some pictures taken from the ground too if you like. In this and nearly every picture of Mars, you can see the ground, not just clouds or as you put it mist or dust.

Nightshots such as these would be valuable for astronomers trying to figure out the physics of light and gravity, the size of the Universe and so on....

No they wouldn't

And I would love to her your explanation for this one. Row, row, row your boat.....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Ok i wasn't sure on the whole use of power over night. I just remember NASA shutting down the rovers at night. except with spirit now, since it has been doing it's driving at night.

But still. NASA wouldn't be able to give orders to the rover that would be on the night side of Mars, as it would be facing away from Earth. The rovers can almost drive by themselves, but i don't think they can do more then that. I'm not sure if they can be told ahead of time. Perhaps they can. I really don't know.

What does us being able to see Mars from Earth have to do with the rovers taking pics at night?

All cameras need exposure time. Regardless if they are digital or not. All the digital cameras i've seen have the ability to have differnt shutter speeds, if exposure time didn't matter you would only need one setting for your shutter. In order to get a good shot of the night sky you need to have a long exposure no matter what. I'm not saying the rover can't do this, just saying that it would need too. And the dust in the air might prevent it from getting a good shot. But i agree that it would be cool to see. Or even just a shot (day or night) of the moons of Mars.

What drives me up the wall is that they arn't showing all images from mars i think they are covering up for something.

What does everyone else think

ps: walt disney is an evil man

Originally posted by Hamilton

Nightshots such as these would be valuable for astronomers trying to figure out the physics of light and gravity, the size of the Universe and so on....

No they wouldn't

And I would love to her your explanation for this one. Row, row, row your boat.....

marius, as you have said on many times you have basically no understanding of physics or any science whatsoever. Why continue to challenge things of which you have no comprehension?

There is nothing that could be observed from the Martian surface that would assist in 'finding out the physics of light and gravity' or 'the size of the universe'. Thats just ignorance talking. Firstly, the stars as viewed from mars would be no different to those viewed from Earth at different points in its orbit. Secondly, should there ever be a need to have a Martian view on the solar system, the orbiters are in a much better position to do so, with higher powered cameras also. As pointed out MGS has taken shots of Earth and Jupiter.

Also, as pointed out, Earth would be on the other side of the planet during the Martian night. Any other shots of the sky even if possible would be indistinguishable from a shot taken on Earth. Especially with the dinky little PanCam.

Also I reiterate, you know even a light mist on Earth is enough to make it impossible to see the stars.

It seems it may be possible to see stars in PanCam shots of the Martian Night-Sky. Also the PanCam heaters have recently been characterized during the night. Meaning it is now possible to take night-shots. So we might start seeing some Martian Night images before the end of the mission.

So that means DUST is not the hinderance for observing stars?

The marsian dust seems like a nice excuse for quit some things. My question then:

Is this dust always present?
Is this dust present in the whole atmosphere?
( so not only from ground to border of space but also from pole to equator)
Does this dust interact with the clouds visible in some pictures from space (hubble)?
When there is a lot of dust in the air why isn't the snow on the poles red tainted?
When there is no wind is there no dust?


There are maybe some more dusty questions but this fool can't think of any more.

Someone please educate me. Isn't the atmosphere of Mars mostly carbon dioxide?
zebu.uoregon.edu...

And before I continue.. I am NOT saying the mars trip is a hoax. Just a question, and that is why I am asking to be educated (be gentle)
Do physics (or law of thermodynamics) not work the same on all planets?
Why is there a burn mark? Does burning not require heat? which requires O2? Or does carbon dioxide burn?
Am I making sense?
A burn mark means "something" heated up enough to change into "something else" IE leaves a mark from chemical change, would a burn mark be left in a vaccum? And YES I know it is not a vaccum on mars, I am wondering if the burn mark would be created in a vaccum IE nothing to chemically alter.


[Edited on 23-2-2004 by NetStorm]