51–60 of 150 posts
I absolutely love this stuff. The photos to me are strangely eerie, and even perhaps a little sinister. I have trouble comprehending the size of other planets, photos like these make me feel uneasy (in an exciting way) because they are strikingly similar to landscapes we might find here on earth - yet it's a completely different planet! I'm no longer looking at mars as a red circle as shown in textbooks, but now as v…
Links to raw images that I posted as a comment on another article: Navcam Left A: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/... Navcam Left A: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/... Navcam Left A: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/... Navcam Right A: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/... Navcam Right A: http://mars.jpl.nasa…
Nice! You can actually use those to make pairs of stereoscopic images. You can even see features not otherwise visible from the raw pictures. It's a shame the left and right camera distances are not the same as a human eye ; it makes the 3D effect a little too strong. I guess it gives their nav software a better depth resolution that way.
I absolutely love this stuff. The photos to me are strangely eerie, and even perhaps a little sinister. I have trouble comprehending the size of other planets, photos like these make me feel uneasy (in an exciting way) because they are strikingly similar to landscapes we might find here on earth - yet it's a completely different planet! I'm no longer looking at mars as a red circle as shown in textbooks, but now as v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that is the reason, the weight of a 16mp sensor or marginally more than a 2mp one. The metal camera supports are much likely to dwarf the sensor weight differences. most of a DSLR's weight is lens and battery(s), both of which are not issues in this case, since the lens would be the same and the power comes from a nuclear battery. NASA couldn't just bolt on a 5DmkIII and expect it to work because the electron…
> That said, the Apollo missions took a not-very-modified Hasselblad camera with them that worked fine, which is why we have much higher resolution pictures of the moon, despite it being decades ago. That and the fact that they used sneakernet, which is still much higher bandwidth than wireless, especially in space.
I absolutely love this stuff. The photos to me are strangely eerie, and even perhaps a little sinister. I have trouble comprehending the size of other planets, photos like these make me feel uneasy (in an exciting way) because they are strikingly similar to landscapes we might find here on earth - yet it's a completely different planet! I'm no longer looking at mars as a red circle as shown in textbooks, but now as v…
Personally I think Venus is the more interesting planet to be exploring
I absolutely love this stuff. The photos to me are strangely eerie, and even perhaps a little sinister. I have trouble comprehending the size of other planets, photos like these make me feel uneasy (in an exciting way) because they are strikingly similar to landscapes we might find here on earth - yet it's a completely different planet! I'm no longer looking at mars as a red circle as shown in textbooks, but now as v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think Venus is the more interesting planet to be exploring
I wonder if eating away at the current atmosphere of venus is more or less technically challenging then the task of creating an atmosphere from scratch on Mars. Since Venus also has way more mass, I'm guessing humans would feel more comfortable there then on Mars.
Looks pretty boring around there. I hope they can find something interesting somewhere around that area. I read that over the whole mission the rover is supposed to drive only ~20 miles, so there better be something interesting to observe :)
