|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
My immediate reaction also was "bandwidth". There's a serious limit as
to how much data can be streamed back to earth, and if the colour information
isn't high priority, it could get suppressed until there's bandwidth to send it.
If it gets overwritten in the interim by more data gathering, tough.
Excluding the earth-orbiting missions, it wouldn't surprise me if the ENTIRE raw
data of all the solar system exploration missions wouldn't fit onto a single
DVD. Or maybe two.
I believe they cottoned on to "data rot" recently with respect to the
moon shots in the 60s and 70s, and are desperately trying to read and salvage
all the mag tapes. I believe all THAT data would fit on a single CD!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
"...the particle mix in the Martian sky is entirely different and gives a
different scattering spectrum..."
Do you have data for this? Has NASA sampled and analyzed the atmospheric
particulates? Seem like that would be the scientific approach.
Rayleigh scattering is due only to particle size, not color.
Please compare atmospheric densities of Mars and Earth, the ask yourself what
keeps that dust up in the air.
"...NASA do not choose the colour channels of their cameras to make the
most satisfying holiday snaps but to give scientists the most useful
data..."
So NASA scientists aren't interested in viewing the blue-green stuff on the
rocks?
Well, perhaps if they are geologists.
Perhaps you could point out the 'useful data' obtained by the color imagery,
that has nothing to do with color balance.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
