2
   

Did NASA give wrong size of pixels in microscopic images of MER?

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:33 am
Did NASA give wrong size of pixels in microscopic images of MER?

NASA said Mars Exploration Rovers (MER)
Opportunity and Spirit take microscopic images at 30 microns per pixel.
However, I often found that pixel size was about ten times too large for many fossil cells/tissues discovered in the microscopic images taken by the two MERs. One recent example is Figure 1:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
Image source (note 1):
http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/images/1MP962IOF76ORTPOP2957L257F2.jpg
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS

In above Figure 1, I marked two complete osteons with Haversian canals, lacunae,etc., but found later they were ten times too large according to the pixel size given by NASA. Another example is
Figure 2: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

I repeat: this discrepancy with reality has happened since day 1 of MER’s landing on Mars. Something is terribly wrong.

Note 1: NASA recently made public many newly colorized microscopic images taken by MER Opportunity, displayed at http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/merges.html


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,728 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:03 am
@bewildered,
So now you're claiming that the data isn't correct because it doesn't fit with what you want to think is there? You're too much. Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:16 am
bewildered wrote:
Something is terribly wrong.


Oh yeah, truer words were never written. The problem, however, does not lie with NASA and their pixilation.
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 03:22 am
@rosborne979,
Added on March 2, 2011:
Surely osteons; no minerals match them

Google images contain numerous nano-sized and micron-sized mineral images (note 1). But no mineral images match the following structures, which resemble instead osteon and blood vessel remains:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
Image source (note 2): http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/images/1MP962IOF76ORTPOP2957L257F2.jpg
Photo Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS

Note 1: numerous search results for mineral SEM at http://www.google.com.tw/images?hl=zh-TW&biw=796&bih=420&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=mineral+SEM&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Note 2: see also Sol 962/961 images at http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/merges.html



rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 05:33 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

bewildered wrote:
Something is terribly wrong.


Oh yeah, truer words were never written. The problem, however, does not lie with NASA and their pixilation.

Understatement Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:53 pm
@bewildered,
Quote:
Did NASA give wrong size of pixels in microscopic images of MER?
No one gives sizes of pixels. There is no reason to.
Pixels aren't "sized" they are merely the smallest element of the picture.

A picture taken at 10x magnification will have the same pixel size as one taken at 100x magnification. The difference is how many pixels it will require to show an item.

Are you unfamiliar with how magnification works? It seems so.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 03:39 am
@bewildered,
Added on March 4, 2011:
Apology: NASA was right, but…

I have re-checked above-mentioned figures many times and found NASA was right about the actual width of microscopic images taken by MERs. Those images were taken at 30 microns per pixel.

However, I still believe fossilized remains of blood vessel and osteons are contained in the subject image newly interpreted at:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 11:09 am
Sorry, I have given up my previous claims on the discovery of blood vessel and osteons. Instead I concentrate on my firm belief about the discovery of muscle (meat) on the organ and tissue levels. Anyway, one fossilized muscle is enough to prove the existence of Martian animal in the past.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Rovers on Mars - Discussion by edgarblythe
Propeller in Mars image - Discussion by gungasnake
EEEK! BEWARE Martian Spiders!! - Discussion by tsarstepan
Successful New Landing on Mars - Discussion by edgarblythe
Life on Mars - Discussion by gungasnake
NASA's Next Steps in the Journey to Mars - Discussion by OregonFlyBy
LIVELY MARS - Discussion by Setanta
NASA image: clear/obvious pyramid - Discussion by gungasnake
Foundations of Mars - Discussion by gungasnake
Mars bunker and sphinx - Discussion by gungasnake
India's Mars Orbiter Spacecraft - Discussion by Brandon9000
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did NASA give wrong size of pixels in microscopic images of MER?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 05:59:22