Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Publishes a Thousand Photos of Mars (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-wallpaper dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Engadget: NASA has released a huge number of high-resolution photos of Mars captured from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's HiRise camera, which has been capturing images of the planet since 2005. The latest dump consists of over a thousand images that can familiarize you with the red planet's many craters, impact sites, dunes, mountains, ice caps and other features. You can view every single photo captured on HiRise's official website. Popular Science mentions that every 26 months or so, Mars and the sun are on the opposite sides of the Earth, allowing MRO to transmit a massive amount of photos from the planet's surface.

62 comments

  1. Fascinating by DatbeDank · · Score: 2

    I could spend hours staring at these images. Just in time too, I needed a new desktop background!

    I look forward to the day we go to Mars and meet up with the various probes and rovers we sent there.

    1. Re: Fascinating by aevan · · Score: 2

      Proof the Mun landings were staged

    2. Re: Fascinating by Rei · · Score: 1

      t will never happen. We're not going to Mars anytime soon. Humans haven't even been to the moon yet. The moon "landings" were filmed on a large set.

      But how will we ever manage to prove that the moon landings were faked if we never travel to the place on Mars where they were filmed?

      --
      No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
    3. Re: Fascinating by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You seem to have some vocabulary problems. Crossing the speed of light is a scientific impossibility. Landing people on the Moon is merely hard.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am greatly entertained by the results of dropping the Google streetview guy onto the surface map showing where the photo was located.

      Also, the pictures are remarkable.

    5. Re: Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Landing people on the Moon is merely hard.

      A soft lading might be preferable, but whatever works.

    6. Re: Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never happen. We're not going to Mars anytime soon. Humans haven't even been to the moon yet. The moon "landings" were filmed on a large set. I know you like to deny science and pretend that humans have been to the moon, but it's a scientific impossibly. And if we haven't been to the moon, we sure as hell aren't going to Mars anytime soon. Take your pseudoscience about moon landings and shove it up your ass, fucker. Stop lying to our children and teaching them to believe your pseudoscientific bullshit. Fuck you!

      You do realize the rovers drove for several miles (who knew they made sets that large, with all that soil and bouldering mysteriously absent anywhere on earth?), complete telemetry data (tracked by several nations and amateurs all over the globe) and transcripts for every moment, and there are literally dozens of hours of complete footage that aren't cherry picked 10 second youtube clips, right?

      No. You don't. Because you're lazy and ignorant. That is nobody's fault but your own.

    7. Re: Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the rovers drove for several miles (who knew they made sets that large, with all that soil and bouldering mysteriously absent anywhere on earth?)

      You probably think that Star Trek was a documentary. "Gee, how could you ever make low-quality clips and stills look like a dune buggy is going for miles over unusual terrain? That's UN-possible!"

      complete telemetry data (tracked by several nations and amateurs all over the globe)

      Which one, of course says absolutely nothing about humans, and two, gee, nobody's ever tricked amateurs or even professionals with radio fakery before!

      and transcripts for every moment

      Wow, you got me. If there's ever been indisputable proof of anything, it has to be transcripts! I'm sold.

      Also, we really should send a rescue team to Gilligan's Island. Those poor people!

      and there are literally dozens of hours of complete footage that aren't cherry picked 10 second youtube clips, right?

      My favorite is the blooper reel where Armstrong accidentally drops one of his gloves and the one where Buzz gets tangled up in the wires they use to help him hop.

    8. Re: Fascinating by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It will never happen. We're not going to Mars anytime soon. Humans haven't even been to the moon yet. The moon "landings" were filmed on a large set. I know you like to deny science and pretend that humans have been to the moon, but it's a scientific impossibly.

      To fake the moon landing they still had to go to the moon and build a huge fuckoff rocket so when people say how did you get there? they can say with that huge fuckoff rocket you watched us launch and then was tracked by a whole bunch of different people.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re: Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you realize that the number of people that would've been involved would've meant a leak would have been a certainty

    10. Re: Fascinating by motorhead · · Score: 0

      Don't say that to Buzz Aldren.

      --
      Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
  2. Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How does this affect anyone? Nobody is going to visit these sand dunes and other topographical features anytime soon. We're not going to Mars for awhile and we're really not making much progress. Even so, it's a dead planet that's not capable of sustaining human life. How does this affect anyone at all? This doesn't affect me and it doesn't affect anyone I know. It's a complete waste of money, time, and effort. Can anyone explain why this matters? Now, I know you'll censor my post to -1 to avoid the question and pretend like it doesn't exist. But it's an important question: why does this matter at all? Can anyone explain how this affects me? I think not! But I expect to be censored to -1 almost instantly.

    1. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Me-me-me-millennial talking. Quick! Everybody pay attention! He's important because... BECAUSE! Soooo special snowflake! Everybody's a winner!

    2. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up. Act your age, baby boomer. I know you're upset because you're past your prime and are fading into irrelevance. But, for the rest of us, who actually have some useful years left, please go away. How typical of entitled baby boomers to whine and moan about how anyone younger than them doesn't give them the respect and obedience they think they're entitled to. You have an excessively inflated sense of self importance and sure do a lot of whining. Get lost!

    3. Re:Simple question by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Knowledge is its own reason.
      Also, the pictures are really pretty.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Simple question by Rei · · Score: 1

      I could get you pretty pictures for vastly cheaper. ;)

      Seriously, though, while I think the exploration is great, the fact that NASA has morphed into the All-Mars Channel is kind of annoying for those of us who prefer other destinations in the solar system (for me, it's Venus and Titan with a little Enceladus, Europa and Io on the side)

      --
      No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
    5. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha you wish it were true, hunh? And we should believe your bullshit? Too bad I can't blow a raspberry at your zitridden noggin.

    6. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Har har. Slave away on your little keyboard, millennial outsourced automated monkey boy. You'll never have it as good as my generation and you'll NEVER be able to retire! Our best days may well be behind us but your worst lie ahead!

    7. Re:Simple question by ledow · · Score: 1

      Pretty much every space mission has been a great driver of technology. We invest in space because it returns science, but it also lets us invest big in technologies needed to obtain that science.

      You know how Formula 1 / Rally Driving has absolutely NO BEARING on your life? Apart from the airbags. And the automatic seat restraints. And the ABS. And disc brakes. And speed cameras (invented for race track timing). And gearing systems. And fuel efficiencies. And aerodynamics. And tyre design. And...

      Back in my grandfather's day, the Formula 1 engines had the same size, capability, speed, etc. as the car you drive today. (And yet you have ABSOLUTELY NO NEED of that on an ordinary road, your car can probably beat a Formula 1 car of old - because the tech your car has now is better than they had then even with stupendous budgets, all the emissions they were spewing out and specialist fuels).

      Now you could argue that it would happen without, but someone has to buy the expensive, stupendous specification hardware that's rare, new, hard to make, etc. before it can become mass-market. NASA have been doing that for decades.

      Their investment gives you insight into everything from Earth geology and solar flares, to medicine and air travel. Just as a part of doing what they do, as a side-line to actually testing theories.

      Until the Navy was convinced, early GPS satellites had a button to switch off "relativitistic effects". Nobody believed some whacko with funny hair to the point they put in an option to see if he was right. He was. Or now your GPS would be so inaccurate as to be useless. Testing that theory, launching that satellite, letting you see where you are on the Earth have all come about because of the space programme. And the technology used to go around Mars and take photos is no different to that to go around Earth and do the same. The only difference? They invest much more in the Mars one, which filters back to become commodity hardware for you in 20-30 years time and lets you have things like Google Earth.

      Visiting planets is really the antithesis of the space programme's science aims. It's not necessary, planned or even cost-effective. We only went to the Moon to show off and haven't been back in 40 years. But the technology to get you there, and the technology to know what to expect when you're there, and the technology to send probes to all these places is giving you a headstart on the next generation of technology.

      You've already benefited from it. Your children will benefit from the Mars missions. And, eventually, someone will touch down on Mars. But if we left it until it was easy and never needed any tests before we do these things - lots of people would die, and it would be a lot further off.

      The fact is that some experiments on the ISS, on the Apollo missions, and the Mars landers are done purely because we need to make sure. We guess that we know about gravity, effects on the body, composition of minerals, data transmission through space, the particles the Sun is throwing out, the pattern of our orbit and all those other things that do actually matter in your everyday life, whether YOU use them or not. But until we actually get out there and test outside of the Earth, we can never be sure.

      And, like the LHC, such simple things, tested in unusual scenarios outside our knowledge, have thrown us a lot of curve-balls that we were never expecting, which means we need to look deeper to actually see what's happening before we can rely on our knowledge and start bigger things.

      Nowadays, your PC only operates because of knowledge of quantum-level interactions of the circuits. Without that knowledge, we could guess and do things and then try to compensate for something we don't understand, but it would be expensive, time-consuming, and inefficient. Understanding what's happening there requires confirmation of much larger theories, which is what are tested for in space.

      Think of the Moon, Mars, the ISS, etc. as science labs.

    8. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you anything that you will *not* find that "cure" for cancer, and you will continue to waste our dollars thinking you would.

      Perhaps once your arrogant, egocentric and self-deserving, generation is gone, those who might come after it might have more clue as to what and how.

    9. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, we have Tang.

    10. Re: Simple question by Rei · · Score: 1

      Tang is from China, and Chinese consumers are more into Tang than American consumers are.

      The only real question is, when will China start sending Tang into space?

      --
      No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
    11. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Pretty much every space mission has been a great driver of technology."

      Nonsense. The technology came first. Besides, give us some concrete facts to back your assertion.

      "You know how Formula 1 / Rally Driving has absolutely NO BEARING on your life? Apart from the airbags. And the automatic seat restraints. And the ABS. And disc brakes. And speed cameras (invented for race track timing). And gearing systems. And fuel efficiencies. And aerodynamics. And tyre design. And..."

      Huh? Airbags:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag

      Just a bunch of thinkers and inventors and Navy folk. Your self-styled folklore and mythology about space is fascinating from a sociological perspective, but it is absolutely not grounded in fact and reality.

      You are the typical Space Nutter who is so incurious about reality that he substituted sci-fi for reality.

    12. Re:Simple question by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      How does this affect you (typical north-american way of think where he is the center of the universe)? Well, the explanation is long and I'm not willing to spend time writing it because you will surely ignore it or more likely will not understand it. I'll give you the short version is that "anything can be useful sooner or later" where the part of the "sooner or later" may vary from days to decades.

      And if you keep idle and thinking that you should only do things when you have total certainty that they will have maximum and immediate return, you will continue in the stone age.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    13. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad part is It's true. Millennial's are screwed thanks to overly liberal colleges brainwashing them. Now they go out into the world thinking it's perfectly find to be a debt riddled wage slave their entire lives because big government will take care of the important thinks for them (just like university did).

    14. Re: Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once they start spending their time doing things other than trolling internet forums about how the moon landing was fake, how einstein was a liar and plagiarist, and how tesla was a pigeon.

    15. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post something stupid knowing it will get modded to -1. Good idea. Also, it is not censorship it just means most people don't want to deal with trolls in their default comment view.

    16. Re:Simple question by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does this affect anyone? Nobody is going to visit these sand dunes and other topographical features anytime soon. We're not going to Mars for awhile and we're really not making much progress. Even so, it's a dead planet that's not capable of sustaining human life. How does this affect anyone at all? This doesn't affect me and it doesn't affect anyone I know. It's a complete waste of money, time, and effort. Can anyone explain why this matters? Now, I know you'll censor my post to -1 to avoid the question and pretend like it doesn't exist. But it's an important question: why does this matter at all? Can anyone explain how this affects me? I think not! But I expect to be censored to -1 almost instantly.

      Won't affect you for sure. How sad to live a life without a spark of curiosity.

  3. Popular Science is a joke by Strider- · · Score: 2

    And doesn't know what they're talking about. As long as Mars isn't obscured by the Sun (which also happens every 26 months) the communications with the probes around Mars continues unhindered.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    1. Re:Popular Science is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, since distance and signal strength has nothing to do with data transfer rates.

    2. Re:Popular Science is a joke by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Does director of the Planetary Image Research Laboratory Alfred McEwen know what he's talking about? Because he's the one who actually said it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Popular Science is a joke by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's his mistake! He should have consulted with Slashdot before making decisions like that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: Popular Science is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does director of the Planetary Image Research Laboratory Alfred McEwen know what he's talking about? Because he's the one who actually said it.

      Good point.

      I agree, in a beuracracy like NASA a director wouldn't typically know details like this.

      So lay of Pop Sci, this one looks to be NASA's fault.

    5. Re: Popular Science is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try more learning to interact with other humans, and less dropping acid in your mom's basement.

    6. Re:Popular Science is a joke by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      And doesn't know what they're talking about. As long as Mars isn't obscured by the Sun (which also happens every 26 months) the communications with the probes around Mars continues unhindered.

      Not to mention the phrase in the summary that's just stupid:

      allowing MRO to transmit a massive amount of photos from the planet's surface.

      What the hell do they think the 'O' stands for in MRO? If it's orbiting, it's not sending photos from the planet's surface, it's sending them from orbit. It should say "massive amount of photos of the planet's surface", but we can't actually expect the 'editors' around here to do any actual editing.

      --

      Enigma

    7. Re:Popular Science is a joke by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You're reading it wrong:

      allowing MRO to transmit a massive amount of ( photos from the planet's surface ).

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:Popular Science is a joke by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Re: my earlier reply - oops, no you're not.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:Popular Science is a joke by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Correction! Subruled! Overstained!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. Zip it and share it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could somebody zip the images and share it? I assume these are in public domain, right?

  5. there he is by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, there I see him, on page 694, image 16.319, K'breel, walking somewhere.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Pictures OF the planet's surface... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    not from the surface... this thing is in orbit...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Pictures OF the planet's surface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it beam back uploaded data from surface probes/rovers too?

  7. it never said that it was impossible at other time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    this enables them to get higher bandwidth and the bandwidth is the main limiter of how many images they can transmit from mars, so for these few weeks they get higher bandwidth, which means more images during this time.

    how much higher, no idea.

    it never said that it was impossible at other times, just that this time every n months they can get "massively" more than normally.

    it is too bad the articles stick to terms like massive and hefty and not to actual numbers. the weight of my massive and hefty member might be subjective but amounts of bits transferred back and forth surely are not.

  8. Greetings, Starfighter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greetings, Starfighter . You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan armada.

  9. I smell a conspiracy! Re: Fascinating by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    After looking over 200 of those pictures I find no relicts of ancient civilizations and no obvious alien landings ... must be a conspiracy!

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:I smell a conspiracy! Re: Fascinating by Rei · · Score: 2

      I did find one that contains the complete text of the Wikipedia article on pareidolia.

      You really have to squint to see it, though.

      --
      No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
    2. Re:I smell a conspiracy! Re: Fascinating by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ah, you joined the conspiracy!! Throwing such complicated words at me! My greek is rusty! You insensitive clot!

      Does it not bother you, that they obviously now have even control over wikipedia? Or how else can the text from Mars come into the website?? Hu? Never thought about it?

      You see!!

      P.S. I guess I have to fetch my 30" screen from my fathers place and then I have to replace my nice Orion Nebula desktop image by some Martian deserts :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re: I smell a conspiracy! Re: Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only took two replies before it turned left, I'm so happy. Do you think NASA doctored the photos?

  10. Took them a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to get all those images photoshopped.

    Heck it's 2016 and with all the computing power they are still taking this long.

  11. I can see my house! by sciop101 · · Score: 1

    Sprinkle system left on.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
    1. Re:I can see my house! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Can you see Russia from your house?

  12. Opposite sides of Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just say "closest to each other"??

  13. Too late by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    Too late, I mean yeah, these are great images and all but I saw "The Martian" (Ridley Scott) so I already know exactly what Mars looks like

  14. Delays, Delays... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of Venus.

  15. iCloud Leak by taurenHunter · · Score: 1

    The pictures were allegedly retrieved due to an iCloud leak that allowed celebrities’ phones to be hacked.

  16. High Resolution Images of Cydonia Face by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

    Are missing!

  17. Re:it never said that it was impossible at other t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one can look at eyes on dsn website
    https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html
    and see what data rate they're running at.

    But in general terms, Mars is at 1.5 AU from the sun, Earth at 1AU, so the distance goes from 0.5 AU to 2.5AU.
    Since the dominant term is inverse square law (antenna gains are the same, frequency is the same, power is the same), you get 25 times the peak data rate at closest vs farthest distance.