Water on Mars! APOD image gives irrefutable proof

[kucharek]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050401.html

[Hazzard]

Funny.......hrm...

[frogesque]

#4

[lyford]

I fell for it - it takes several cups of coffee before I realize what day it is. #-o
(I'm not a good person to have on the morning shift at the reactor...)

[Tman]

Hi Lyford, you get my deepest sympathy

I got my trauma today here: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...c=821&st=0

[lyford]

Hi Lyford, you get my deepest sympathy

I got my trauma today here: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...c=821&st=0

Yes, that is a good one too!

Though my skeptical alarms should have gone off when kucharek used the word "irrefutable" in the thread name.... that's a clue word

[moxy1]

all kidding aside. This is an interesting image from MOC.

[MythozDog]

all kidding aside. This is an interesting image from MOC.

I have a question( probably a stupid one) about some ESA pics that look like standing water?

Those hi-res pictures from the ESA series, I think, look like deep water blue holes, maybe like something you would see in connection with thermal vents. I know that standing water on Mars would be a hard sell but zooming in on the edges of these pics surely looks like shore lines or waters edge markings. Is there a way that thermal vents could keep pools of water, hot enough to prevent freezing yet show no clouding or water vapor in the area. Would it evaporate fast enough to dissipate without evidence? Any thoughts on that :-?

[MythozDog]

Moxy1, I Sent you a PM but not sure it went through. Let me know if you get it! Thanks! MD

[MythozDog]

This was the image that looks so much like standing water. You can almost see the shore line. Zooming in on the hi-res image of this pic is quite interesting.

[Gullible Jones]

You sure that isn't false-color?

[MythozDog]

ESA would have to answer that. I'm not sure?

[Wolverine]

Reull Vallis - HRSC image 15 January 2004
This picture was taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) onboard ESA's Mars Express orbiter, in colour and 3D, in orbit 18 on 15 January 2004 from a height of 273 km. The location is east of the Hellas basin at 41° South and 101° East. The area is 100 km across, with a resolution of 12 m per pixel, and shows a channel (Reull Vallis) once formed by flowing water. The landscape is seen in a vertical view, North is at the top.

Hi-res

See related SpaceDaily article for more.

[MythozDog]

Thanks for the additional information Wolverine. Although, it said that the image had been reduced for the internet, it didn't mention any color modification? What would create such a dark blue depth of color? Other areas of depth around the planet may be in shadow but these pics seem to be different?

[Tranquility]

all kidding aside. This is an interesting image from MOC.

Is it just me or does this picture look too much like a segment of a torn leather couch?

[MythozDog]

Looks like the vinyl top on my old GTO!


If this is a Mars pic though, it looks pretty interesting!

[Wolverine]

Thanks for the additional information Wolverine. Although, it said that the image had been reduced for the internet, it didn't mention any color modification? What would create such a dark blue depth of color? Other areas of depth around the planet may be in shadow but these pics seem to be different?

Have you "had time" to read the Hoagland debunking yet? The following two sections thereof contain excellent information about color issues as well as links to additional materials:

What Color is Mars?
The Green Planet?

Further, there's a heap of info on ESA's Mars Express pages you may examine. For example, from here:

Are the colour photographs processed?

Yes, the images have been processed but that is quite normal. We are not taking colour photographs, we have to combine the different colour channels which requires processing time. Each of the four colour channels operate with a filter of different wavelength (red, green, blue and infrared) and produce data sets which have to be combined and calculated on to a digital elevation model.

The colour channels are absolutely real, but they do not reflect the true colour as we would see it with our eyes. These views can be obtained by processing the data, which does not mean ‘faking’ the colours, but fitting them to standard spectral curves which we know. We adjust the obtained colour image data to a standard spectral curve derived from Earth-based observations in terms of wavelength and intensity.

If we have dust, haze or other atmospheric conditions, various wavelengths get partially filtered. Obviously, images get more blurry and some colours become more dominant. Sun-exposed slopes reflect or absorb light in a different way to dark slopes or dark material (such as dark spots of possible sediments seen in some images).

The main limitation, of course, is that from orbit we do not have any colour adjustment possibilities as for example, the NASA rovers. They have colour references mounted on their rovers and even they have problems matching their colours.

Long story short: just because certain features "look" blue or green doesn't mean they're water or vegetation.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Past APOD 4/1's:
2004: April Fools Day More Intense On Mars
2003: A New Constellation Takes Hold
2002: Hubble Resolves Expiration Date For Green Cheese Moon
2001: Americans Defeat Russians in First Space Quidditch Match

Prior to the millennium, APOD's sense of humor wasn't that developed, although 1998: Astronaut Kicks Lunar Field Goal, with R1D1 watching from the sidelines, wasn't too bad.

[moxy1]

md> got your pm, and I agree.

Some of the responses one receives on this site border on the comical.

I especially love the stock response "false color".

keep plugging away.

[MythozDog]

md> got your pm, and I agree.

Some of the responses one receives on this site border on the comical.

I especially love the stock response "false color".

keep plugging away.

The Truth Is Out There!

[MythozDog]

Thanks for the additional information Wolverine. Although, it said that the image had been reduced for the internet, it didn't mention any color modification? What would create such a dark blue depth of color? Other areas of depth around the planet may be in shadow but these pics seem to be different?

Have you "had time" to read the Hoagland debunking yet? The following two sections thereof contain excellent information about color issues as well as links to additional materials:

What Color is Mars?
The Green Planet?

Further, there's a heap of info on ESA's Mars Express pages you may examine. For example, from here:

Are the colour photographs processed?

Yes, the images have been processed but that is quite normal. We are not taking colour photographs, we have to combine the different colour channels which requires processing time. Each of the four colour channels operate with a filter of different wavelength (red, green, blue and infrared) and produce data sets which have to be combined and calculated on to a digital elevation model.

The colour channels are absolutely real, but they do not reflect the true colour as we would see it with our eyes. These views can be obtained by processing the data, which does not mean ‘faking’ the colours, but fitting them to standard spectral curves which we know. We adjust the obtained colour image data to a standard spectral curve derived from Earth-based observations in terms of wavelength and intensity.

If we have dust, haze or other atmospheric conditions, various wavelengths get partially filtered. Obviously, images get more blurry and some colours become more dominant. Sun-exposed slopes reflect or absorb light in a different way to dark slopes or dark material (such as dark spots of possible sediments seen in some images).

The main limitation, of course, is that from orbit we do not have any colour adjustment possibilities as for example, the NASA rovers. They have colour references mounted on their rovers and even they have problems matching their colours.

Long story short: just because certain features "look" blue or green doesn't mean they're water or vegetation.

Once Again, Thanks Wolverine! I haven't read them yet but I want to, and I will. I appreciate your input and promise to keep an open mind about the information. ESA's stuff I trust. I think they would go public if for no other reason than to One-Up NASA. NASA's stuff I'm a little less inclined to trust being it's close involvement with our government... who’s credibility is sorely lacking in many areas.

About the rovers matching references...I'm not sure why they are having problems. I'm not saying it's not so, but if they knew the exact colors before it left earth what makes it so hard to just re-adjust their color pallets to match and correct for color. It would seem logical? Unless, something else is at play that is specific to Mars that would skew the results? It's very interesting though. I know individuals even see colors
with slight differences. It's just a matter of time until we do know,though... so, it's not that big a deal long term, just currently controversial.

Re-reading the ESA's explaination...I accept the fact that it must be a problem, harder than it would seem, but with todays super computer technology it would seem to be almost a non issue??? When you have both ESA and NASA struggling with it, though, I'm sure they will come to some kind of standard that will eventually be applied over all otherwise what a pain to process each image individually. :-?

Just one more good reason to send someone to investigate. Wish they would do it sooner rather than later.

[R.A.F.]

Some of the responses one receives on this site border on the comical.

It "borders on the comical" to suggest that what is shown in the images is not free standing water?

[moxy1]

RAF.

I was not referring to your specific post.