|
|
Post by 1611kate on May 1, 2015 8:59:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on May 1, 2015 10:20:57 GMT
You would think that they would photoshop a more believable image!!!
That is sooo artificial looking that I feel like eating some greens to detox my mind!!!! Seriously!
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 10:45:09 GMT
preciousjewelExactly my thoughts. I also read the news and the imagery is ridiculous. Mercury is seen as a star from here, but from space it looks dark.  Come on, NASA, why don't you stop spreading artist renditions for photos? And who exactly took a photo of Messenger? It was followed by a camera crew?  Source: Messenger
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 1, 2015 17:06:52 GMT
Thank you 1611kate - very interesting.  From the article sub-headline: Ok, so this probe takes 250,000 pictures of Mercury, a tiny planet near the sun, but we have only one "picture" of the earth from "space". Is Earth just not interesting? EDIT: Ok, I just watched the video associated with the article. It shows shadowed craters on the surface as the probe flies over. Maybe it is just me, but given the brightness of the sun on our Earth at their "93 million-mile-mark", can we imaging how bright the sun would be on the surface of Mercury as close as it is? It is amazing to me that they would not allow for this when creating that video. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 17:44:38 GMT
Nasa has released an image taken by the probe’s Visual and Infrared Spectrometer (Virs) revealing distinct features such as volcanic vents and fresh craters.To highlight the geological features, the images have been overlain on a black and white mosaic from the Mercury Dual Imaging System
The image is a combination of invisible and visible wavelengths
It is not supposed to be representative of what you can see with the human eye
The image has been specifically created to highlight what you cannot see with the human eye
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 18:11:08 GMT
aliveandkickingOh yes, I can definitely see that it is not representative of what you can see with the human eye, and who exactly allows NASA to artistically render images and show satellites in space which were never actually photographed thus manipulating the people that they have images from space which are actually paintings?
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 18:41:37 GMT
aliveandkickingOh yes, I can definitely see that it is not representative of what you can see with the human eye, and who exactly allows NASA to artistically render images and show satellites in space which were never actually photographed thus manipulating the people that they have images from space which are actually paintings? I am supposing you know that artistic impression was never claimed to be anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 18:52:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 19:01:01 GMT
Hello? I didn't hide the source of that image, you just had to click on the image to see its url. What is the big deal? I also provided the source in my original post. On their website they don't say what this is. All pictures are artist concepts, because they don't have anything else. Here is once again the source: www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/altimeter-assists-in-messenger-s-low-altitude-navigation/You can scroll down and see plenty of images and they won't read they are artist concepts. Anyway, all their images are artist concepts and apparently they keep plenty of artists on staff to provide these images. Funny for a space agency to use artists for imagery, but if you think it is okay, great. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 19:21:56 GMT
Come on, NASA, why don't you stop spreading artist renditions for photos? And who exactly took a photo of Messenger? It was followed by a camera crew? Ok, so I am supposing it will remain a mystery to me why you publically asked who exactly took a photo of messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 20:14:57 GMT
aliveandkickingCan't you recognize sarcasm? In fact, most of their imagery is artistic renditions. They don't always say so explicitly but spread those images and in the source it only says NASA. Anyway, why am I explaining to you, when you're obviously blind to that. It is pretty much the same if I went to Paris with a nice digital camera, but only sent home paintings of Paris instead of photographs.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 20:44:36 GMT
aliveandkickingCan't you recognize sarcasm? In fact, most of their imagery is artistic renditions. They don't always say so explicitly but spread those images and in the source it only says NASA. Anyway, why am I explaining to you, when you're obviously blind to that. It is pretty much the same if I went to Paris with a nice digital camera, but only sent home paintings of Paris instead of photographs. Sarcasm? I suppose that is possible even though it does not sound like sarcasm to me. Anyway sarcasm is anger disguised as humour so it is never clear what the message is supposed to be and it is best avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 21:10:58 GMT
Yeah, better avoid it. It would save me some time responding.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on May 2, 2015 18:04:56 GMT
Psychedelic moon.
|
|
