ChrLzs Posted March 16, 2014 #76 Share Posted March 16, 2014 .....Why send a human to do what a robot can do for a fraction of the costs, dangers, etc. and which can it spend years doing without having to worry about getting it back safely? Wait.. what?... ..from the wonderful but sometimes painfully poignant XKCD, no 695 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunspot Posted March 16, 2014 Author #77 Share Posted March 16, 2014 We will have to wait for the RAW image to become available... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 17, 2014 #78 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) We will have to wait for the RAW image to become available... I think these are as good as it gets with these images but if RAW is available then I don't think it will improve your chances here. It doesn't resemble a real mollusk or ammonite at all as the chamber segments are all about the same size and it isn't curled up. Edited March 17, 2014 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted March 17, 2014 #79 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) We will have to wait for the RAW image to become available... Does Curiosity take RAW images?I think the Mars rovers all save images as high quality JPEGs and that's what gets beamed back to earth. I don't think RAW (lossless compressed image format similar to what some digital cameras can use as opposed to JPEG) images are saved or used at all by any of the rovers. Edited March 17, 2014 by JesseCuster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted March 17, 2014 #80 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I think these are as good as it gets with these images but if RAW is available then I don't think it will improve your chances here. It doesn't resemble a real mollusk or ammonite at all as the chamber segments are all about the same size and it isn't curled up. However you can't deny it is in a spiral shape for sure, clearly visible. Now ask yourself when in nature stones or structures are spiral shaped and naturally occurring ... Without no media trumpets this object went unseen out there and totally disregarded, i would personally say from everything else i know and seen Mysterious on Mars so far this thingy is by far the most potential to prove existent life on mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted March 17, 2014 #81 Share Posted March 17, 2014 However you can't deny it is in a spiral shape for sure, clearly visible. Now ask yourself when in nature stones or structures are spiral shaped and naturally occurring ... Without no media trumpets this object went unseen out there and totally disregarded, i would personally say from everything else i know and seen Mysterious on Mars so far this thingy is by far the most potential to prove existent life on mars. I disagree with your assesment. Nasa scientists are fully capable of recognising an important find, moreso than anyone in the media or any 'armchair' observer. That they are not investigating is evidence enough that there is nothing worthwhile there. From your statement, one could assume you deem yourself to be more capable than any of the rover team in recognising signs of life or what the rover should be doing. I believe I would let the trained scientists handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted March 17, 2014 #82 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) I disagree with your assesment. Nasa scientists are fully capable of recognising an important find, moreso than anyone in the media or any 'armchair' observer. That they are not investigating is evidence enough that there is nothing worthwhile there. From your statement, one could assume you deem yourself to be more capable than any of the rover team in recognising signs of life or what the rover should be doing. I believe I would let the trained scientists handle it. That is a very wrong assumption. I bet only a small % of the pics the rover takes are properly analysed. We are simply talking of the human factor here and literally tons of details can escape attention and the necessity of zooming every each photo . Speaking of experts vs. armchair explorers; Often these pics are simply pushed online for crowdsourcing which is a perfect method of using millions of eyes freely. The only problem here is by the time they are released to the public and one finds an anomaly worthwhile investigations the rover is no longer around ... Edited March 17, 2014 by qxcontinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 17, 2014 #83 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Does Curiosity take RAW images? I'm not sure about the other cameras - it would surprise me if they didn't use raw/FITS format for some of the more mission critical imagery. But as far as I am aware, the navcams simply don't do RAW, so in the case of these images - no. These are not images intended for high level analysis, and frankly, the quality of the sensor and lens means it would be a bit of a waste... I think the Mars rovers all save images as high quality JPEGs and that's what gets beamed back to earth. I don't think RAW (lossless compressed image format similar to what some digital cameras can use as opposed to JPEG) images are saved or used at all by any of the rovers. I'd love it if we did have the raw image to compare it to the jpeg... so if anyone knows better, feel free to chip in. Once upon a time NASA monitored forums and would occasionally chime in. Nowadays with budget cutbacks and the huge increase in enquiries they get as every armchair expert sends them emails, you'll be lucky to get an automated reply. When I have a bit more time I'll look deeper, but given that NASA calls these 'raw' images even tho they are jpegs, I'm guessing that they are as 'raw' as we'll ever get. I'm annoyed at NASA for using that term when presenting jpegs - it is very misleading. I actually emailed them about this, but as I said above, it's a different (and disappointing) NASA nowadays, and I got a non-relevant reply back that obviously involved no human reading it.. I think I know where the stupid Microsoft paperclip got employed after it got the sack from Office... (some oldsters here will get that.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted March 17, 2014 #84 Share Posted March 17, 2014 That is a very wrong assumption. I bet only a small % of the pics the rover takes are properly analysed. We are simply talking of the human factor here and literally tons of details can escape attention and the necessity of zooming every each photo . Speaking of experts vs. armchair explorers; Often these pics are simply pushed online for crowdsourcing which is a perfect method of using millions of eyes freely. The only problem here is by the time they are released to the public and one finds an anomaly worthwhile investigations the rover is no longer around ... No, your assumptions are wrong. The rovers weren't sent to Mars to travel the country side taking pictures along the way. This is a scientific expedition. The cameras are there for the team to scrutinize and then decide what to do. There is a general outline of goals, but any interesting rocks can change the plans, as has happened several times in the past. The pictures are not published to gain extra sets of eyes, they are released to garner continued support from the public. That you think NASA wants the 'free' input is as rediculous as your notion that they don't emphasise the 'alien factor' enough. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDZ Posted March 17, 2014 #85 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The img we have of the object compared to imgs of terrestrial objects of similar design should be all that's needed for anyone of average intelligence, such as myself, to stop and at least say, holy cow, they are alike, there could be something hugh here and should be investigated to the conclusion. Instead lots of the usual handwaving dismissals we've been conditioned to believe must always be the correct conclusion of every anomaly is in full force. To continually insist there MUST be some alternate explanation for why these objects appear so similar is not logical and frankly, reeks of desperation to avoid admitting the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted March 17, 2014 #86 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) No, your assumptions are wrong. The rovers weren't sent to Mars to travel the country side taking pictures along the way. This is a scientific expedition. The cameras are there for the team to scrutinize and then decide what to do. There is a general outline of goals, but any interesting rocks can change the plans, as has happened several times in the past. The pictures are not published to gain extra sets of eyes, they are released to garner continued support from the public. That you think NASA wants the 'free' input is as rediculous as your notion that they don't emphasise the 'alien factor' enough. Ok you have a point. But my next question is; when these findings occur and there are good leads worthy of further analyses, by doing so, the result wouldn't be potentially providing the same answers as the purpose or the main reason of the mission? You know the big picture is always formed by the sum of all details. In our case, a simple closer snap shoot could answer humanities biggest question; was there any life out there? Edited March 17, 2014 by qxcontinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 17, 2014 #87 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I'm not sure about the other cameras - it would surprise me if they didn't use raw/FITS format for some of the more mission critical imagery. But as far as I am aware, the navcams simply don't do RAW, so in the case of these images - no. These are not images intended for high level analysis, and frankly, the quality of the sensor and lens means it would be a bit of a waste... ChrLzs, the image in question was taken by the Mast Camera (note the mcam in the URL), not the hazard avoidance camera, so it is a science camera. Here are some specs for that particular camera that possibly you can decipher as it is above my level of expertise. http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mastcam/ Also, if you miss Clippy you can revive him! http://www.businessinsider.com/clippy-microsofts-talking-paperclip-is-back-and-linus-torvalds-loves-it-2013-5 @AZDZ Ammonite shells are generally in a very tight spiral whereas that thing on the rock is almost square in shape with just a bit of spiral at one end. Second, amminoid shells ALL go from a very tiny chamber,. to accommodate the baby animal to progressively larger chambers for the growing animal to reside in. That thing on the rock shows no such characteristic except, once again, a bit at the one end. These are the two main reasons I can't see this as a fossil. Someone had mentioned the color difference between the thingie and the rock but the color of the thingie looks to be the same as the soil around the rock. Also, since this was image was taken by a science camera I would guess someone viewed it and identified the thingie but I don't know of a way to verify that. I'd love to hear what a geologist or paleontologist would have to say about our discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted March 17, 2014 #88 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) The img we have of the object compared to imgs of terrestrial objects of similar design should be all that's needed for anyone of average intelligence, such as myself, to stop and at least say, holy cow, they are alike, there could be something hugh here and should be investigated to the conclusion. Instead lots of the usual handwaving dismissals we've been conditioned to believe must always be the correct conclusion of every anomaly is in full force. To continually insist there MUST be some alternate explanation for why these objects appear so similar is not logical and frankly, reeks of desperation to avoid admitting the obvious. You are the one handwaving. What you are suggesting is that the rover team is full of incompetants who can not make a correct decision as to what should be investigated. You are further suggesting that you are better qualified to make these decisions. I, for one, am of the belief that these people know far more about what they are doing than you, me, or any one else on this forum, and are, most likely, of above average intelligence. Do you really think that these scientists are missing what you alone discovered? Maybe you're too young to remember all the excitement years ago over the possible fossilised remains of bacteria found inside a Martian rock, but it was such a big deal president Clinton announced it in a press conference. Something like what you are suggesting would create even more excitement, and result in a bigger budget for future programs. Edited March 17, 2014 by Gaden 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 18, 2014 #89 Share Posted March 18, 2014 ChrLzs, the image in question was taken by the Mast Camera (note the mcam in the URL), not the hazard avoidance camera, so it is a science camera. Here are some specs for that particular camera that possibly you can decipher as it is above my level of expertise. http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/ Thanks Merc - I was confusing two threads. That tech page was very useful, but it looks as though we have lost the chance to see the true raw image. The way it works is that this camera has an 8Gb memory limit (rather like a typical digital camera). While it *can* and does initially take RAW, uncompressed images, it generally does *not* send those back to earth due to the transmission requirements - they have to allocate out the bandwidth carefully. So the raw images are compressed by the camera's supporting electronic images and the compressed versions are the ones normally sent back to Earth, before the camera's memory is 'formatted'. This image is, obviously, quite compressed. A raw version of it would have existed, but whether NASA were interested enough to request the raw version before the 8Gb got its periodic clean out for the next lot of images.. well, we don't know. Finding out, unless you were a genuine investigative organisation partnered with the project, is probably impossible. Note that the raw image would be better, but only by a factor of maybe 2x. And now, it is probably gone. Also, if you miss Clippy you can revive him! http://www.businessinsider.com/clippy-microsofts-talking-paperclip-is-back-and-linus-torvalds-loves-it-2013-5 Oh dear god, nooooo!! In a life long ago I used to teach the early versions of Word, and those bloody wizard things were far worse than useless, imnsho. "It looks like you are writing a letter!" grrrrrrrr. @AZDZ - apart from Merc's and Gaden's good points, can I also ask you this - given the hundreds of thousands (millions, billions?) of bits of randomly patterned and weathered rock that are captured in these huge galleries of images, how many times should 'interesting' (pareidolic) shapes appear? Have you never watched the clouds? Did you feel the need to investigate the bunny rabbit or dragon? I'm not trying to be a smartaz, I'm just pointing out that there are guaranteed to be far, far too many 'things' that show up and look interesting enough to warrant investigation. Those guys have to make the call, not us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunspot Posted March 19, 2014 Author #90 Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) I think these are as good as it gets with these images but if RAW is available then I don't think it will improve your chances here. It doesn't resemble a real mollusk or ammonite at all as the chamber segments are all about the same size and it isn't curled up. Yes, it sends RAW images to Earth, the first 449 days worth are available here http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/ in PNG or .IMG formats are availble So we just have to wait for those to appear. I didn't say it was definately a shell or something only that it is a very "interesting" looking object and NOT the product of JPG artefacts. Edited March 19, 2014 by sunspot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 19, 2014 #91 Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Yes, it sends RAW images to Earth, the first 449 days worth are available here http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/ in PNG or .IMG formats are availble So we just have to wait for those to appear. I didn't say it was definately a shell or something only that it is a very "interesting" looking object and NOT the product of JPG artefacts. Thnaks for the info and hey, if it is a fossil of some kind you'd be famous! No harm in looking and we all got a llittle smarter on how the rover works Edited March 19, 2014 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 19, 2014 #92 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Yes, it sends RAW images to Earth, the first 449 days worth are available here http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/ in PNG or .IMG formats are availble So we just have to wait for those to appear. I didn't say it was definately a shell or something only that it is a very "interesting" looking object and NOT the product of JPG artefacts. Well done Sunspot! Consider yourself redeemed.. When I have time, maybe in a few hours, I'll join up to that site and see whether we can indeed get at the raw version - seriously, I'd love to do that as I think it will help illustrate the points I've tried to make.. And if it doesn't, or shows something obviously anomalous I shall happily eat humble pie and I'll have learnt something new - my favorite pastime.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pericynthion Posted March 19, 2014 #93 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Well done Sunspot! Consider yourself redeemed.. When I have time, maybe in a few hours, I'll join up to that site and see whether we can indeed get at the raw version - seriously, I'd love to do that as I think it will help illustrate the points I've tried to make.. And if it doesn't, or shows something obviously anomalous I shall happily eat humble pie and I'll have learnt something new - my favorite pastime.... Hi ChrLzs, Just FYI, the Sol 551 data for won't be released to the Planetary Data System until August 1, so it'll be a while before we can see a better quality version of this image. It'll almost certainly be an 8 bit per channel JPEG, but at a higher quality level than the quick-look images currently on the MSL web site. It is possible to downlink a Mastcam image as an 8-bit or 12-bit grayscale image without the onboard Bayer interpolation color processing, but I don't think that's done very often. If it's sent down as a color image, it's in 8 bit per channel JPEG format. The level of compression is selectable. And just to clarify for everyone, the "raw" images on the JPL site are auto-stretched, highly-compressed quick-look JPEG versions of the received files intended only for public relations browsing. They aren't the original science/engineering data files. The original data gets released in intervals to the Planetary Data System. These files are "raw" in the sense that they are the images as-received from the rover (EDR or Experiment Data Record). They haven't been put through the extensive calibration and correction routines necessary to generate useful science data (RDR or Reduced Data Record). As I mentioned above, the web images have had an automatic histogram stretch applied to make them more viewable, so they're really not quite "raw" anymore. I can give you a quick idea of the relative quality difference we might expect to see. Here's a Sol 323 image from the right Mastcam: Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa...00E1_DXXX&s=323 The following images are 5x enlargements of a small portion of the above image. Original EDR Record JPL Auto-Stretch on Original EDR Image Recompressed Image from JPL Public Outreach Website There is a definite quality loss in the web image, but I'm sure that's necessary in order to keep the image size reasonable for general browsing. The "raw" image was transmitted to Earth as an 8-bit JPEG with a quality level setting of 95/100. I'll try to post more later as time permits. Right now, I have to run. Hope this helps! P. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 20, 2014 #94 Share Posted March 20, 2014 That really illustrates the loss of quality that ChrLzs has been talking about. The difference in colors is drastic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3.0 Posted March 20, 2014 #95 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Hey everyone, take a look at my Tumblr post about some VERY interesting images just down from the Curiosity rover on Mars. First, here is the original image on the NASA Mars rover website http://mars.jpl.nasa...1000E1_DXXX.jpg And my Tumble post about it: http://eosterwine.tu...y-rover-clearly I've been trying to get people to look at it, but so far it's been complete silence. What do you all think???? You are looking at the wrong spot on that rock! Look towards the center, by the projecting out part of the rock. I see a sea sheell like formation right there! Looks very similiar to a Brachiopod sea shell. See the example at the link. http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/fossil/brachiopod/brachiopod02.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 20, 2014 #96 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) You are looking at the wrong spot on that rock! Look towards the center, by the projecting out part of the rock. I see a sea sheell like formation right there! Looks very similiar to a Brachiopod sea shell. See the example at the link. http://skywalker.***...rachiopod02.htm There is a little fossilized gecko at the 8 o'clock position as well. Oy Vey Edited March 20, 2014 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 20, 2014 #97 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Thanks for the clarification and info, Peri! Your example shows more of the same effect, and makes it obvious that we really do need to see the original. I'm glad to hear that it looks like we will get to do that, and just have to be patient. And I'm going to guess that once we see it, that the similarity to some sort of spiral creature will lessen. But I'll also guess that many here (maybe even me..) might still wish that they sent the Rover over to take a closer peek. I often beachcomb, and I tend to waste a lot of time stopping to take a closer look at everything that looks vaguely interesting. 95% of the time, it is nothing that spectacular, but there's always that 5%... It's probably just as well that I'm not on the Nasa team making (..hindering..) decisions.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted March 20, 2014 #98 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) I think we were just so close to find the first life artefact on Mars. It was a spiral structure embedded in the rock. There's no natural occurrences for such form. Edited March 20, 2014 by qxcontinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 20, 2014 #99 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the clarification and info, Peri! Your example shows more of the same effect, and makes it obvious that we really do need to see the original. I'm glad to hear that it looks like we will get to do that, and just have to be patient. And I'm going to guess that once we see it, that the similarity to some sort of spiral creature will lessen. But I'll also guess that many here (maybe even me..) might still wish that they sent the Rover over to take a closer peek. I often beachcomb, and I tend to waste a lot of time stopping to take a closer look at everything that looks vaguely interesting. 95% of the time, it is nothing that spectacular, but there's always that 5%... It's probably just as well that I'm not on the Nasa team making (..hindering..) decisions.. One thing people don't understand is that folks like us will be the most giddy fools when that proof is finally laid out on the table, fully proved and put there for all to see. I hope it is soon and I am ridiculously confident I will see proof of extraterrestrial life before I leave this terrestrial one but if I don't, I am sure my son will, just too many planets out there for us to be alone. Can't wait for the James Webb to go operational. I think we were just so close to find the first life artefact on Mars. It was a spiral structure embedded in the rock. There's no natural occurrences for such form. If there was life on Mars, I doubt it made it past the bacterial stage. That is saying a LOT though. If it is proved that two planets, in the same solar system, contained life. all bets are off. Everything changes. Even if you theorize that life was blasted from one world on to another, the new paradigm stays the same, life is common. I just won't accept anything less than perfect proof, however. Edited March 20, 2014 by Merc14 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted March 20, 2014 #100 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Even more. I would say life in the whole universe would have the same structures and constituents with just tiny differences. There would be dolphins or humans or monkeys on other planets. Never a squid will become smarter flying ufo's. A humanoid yes... It is a universal cosmic rule that our planet was abiding too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now