NASA uses Photoshop. I thought so.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I've never seen anything like the picture above come out of NASA.

Go here and click "More Images" a few times: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

And...

Run an image search for hubble photo of horsehead nebula

[mreid]

I knew it!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Not photoshop-ed. Processed. Different. So very very different.

Most likely both.

With the same goal in mind.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Do you own calculator internet tough guy? Do the ****ing math.

The 68 miles of dollar bills is greater than 8,000 miles when compared to the diameter of the earth as depicted in your post.

That is all he is saying. You don't need a calculator to pick up on a big BS stretch of truth for making a point.

All the 50's stuff and the basis for NASA. I am with you.

[masraum]

For instance, here's a few examples of the same pic undergoing post processing. No data is CREATED in the post processing. The data is just coaxed, teased and amplified.

From this site - https://iso.500px.com/deep-sky-photography-guide-part-3/

Original image from camera


in the process of post-processing


Final image

[sc_rufctr]

[LEAKYSEALS951]

Pre-photoshopped original:

[Nostril Cheese]

^ seems legit.

[Cajundaddy]

I don't know. I have been looking at false color images in astronomy my whole life and it doesn't bother me. Most astronomers label it as such but perhaps the PR guys dropped the byline with all the imaging details cause they just like pretty pics.

A lot of astronomy gets done in very narrow wavelengths like infrared to coax out the new discoveries like recent storms on Saturn or exo-planets orbiting another star. These images are valuable to science but "don't look right" to the average joe. False color makes science more palatable to us lay people. The universe is pretty amazing and new discoveries are happening all the time. Water on Mars is a recent biggie. Space-X sticking their landing is another. In both of these cases, Porsche friends from SoCal were right in the middle of it.

One of my friends is a Sr Astronomer at JPL and is probably in Chile imaging Jupiter in infrared right now with one of those monster 20m light buckets to figure out why the atmosphere seems to be undergoing rapid change after 100 years of relative stability. It's a long tedious process to comb these images and reach an understanding. Most of it is pretty boring stuff to the rest of us so when the PR guys punch up an image to give us some eye candy I appreciate it.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Most likely both.

With the same goal in mind.

Nope and nope. But thanks for playing.

You see 1 out of 10,000 images from NASA. They take that 1 out of 10,000 and do a bit of extra color enhancement (just like they used to do at EVERY photo processing shop EVERY day to EVERY picture you sent in), and use it for PR images. The other 9999 images are used for science, and are not processed at all.

Do you think that they are using 1 out of 10,000 images to steal your freaking money? No, I know you don't think that, you and Sammy are just being gadflies.

I'm not going to go into the whole ordeal of how to make a color image from an inherently black and while imaging system, because the web can explain that easier than I can, but if you think that taking several layers, each meant to be a color, and coadding them, with some basic noise removal, field flattening, entropy filtering and color saturation tweaking is "fabricated bedazzlement" or "our gubmint selling us lies for money" or "largely fake" then you will never change your mind.

[flipper35]

Well they forgot to photoshop this one!



The original is here: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Tang

Without NASA there would be no Tang.

'Nuff said.

Poo or Pu? I wish NASA had spent even more...I''m just sayin'

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Nope and nope. But thanks for playing.

You see 1 out of 10,000 images from NASA. They take that 1 out of 10,000 and do a bit of extra color enhancement (just like they used to do at EVERY photo processing shop EVERY day to EVERY picture you sent in), and use it for PR images. The other 9999 images are used for science, and are not processed at all.

Do you think that they are using 1 out of 10,000 images to steal your freaking money? No, I know you don't think that, you and Sammy are just being gadflies.

I'm not going to go into the whole ordeal of how to make a color image from an inherently black and while imaging system, because the web can explain that easier than I can, but if you think that taking several layers, each meant to be a color, and coadding them, with some basic noise removal, field flattening, entropy filtering and color saturation tweaking is "fabricated bedazzlement" or "our gubmint selling us lies for money" or "largely fake" then you will never change your mind.

Not at all, Mike. I'm always open to being educated on stuff like this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Re: "...like they used to do at EVERY photo processing shop EVERY day to EVERY picture you sent in," I don't know about that. I used to take some pretty good photos and I'm not willing to credit the processing shop with any of the glory.

And what about all those times they came back overexposed and with people's heads out of the frame?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Nostril Cheese

Why not read a few books on rocket development instead of posting stuff you find online?

My father was a very well-known and revered rocket scientist who designed the 3rd stage separation device that was used on the minute-man II, minuteman III, Polaris, Poseidon, and Nike Hercules nukes.
That invention increased the accuracy of the nukes 10 fold.

He also came up with the 3d carbon/carbon woven billet design with pre-pregnation and post-pregnation in autoclaves that is used to make nearly ever solid fuel rocket nozzle in use today.

He was running a missile guidance test team at white sands before he was 20 years old.

When I was about 13 I remember him talking about a project he was working on, it was an un-manned jet airplane with a conventional or nuke payload, designed to use ground recognition software and guide itself to the target. I was skeptical, how could a computer take pictures of the ground, compare it to pictures in it's memory, and use that info to figure out where it was and where it was goni8g? That was the first version of the cruise missile.

Remember the space shuttle challenger? there were a few modifications made to the solid rocket booster engines to made them safer, one of the modifications was my father's idea and his company made them. This is what he told me about those kick- rings:

We made the ablative insulating rings that covered the flanges of the solid booster segments. The solid booster was made in sections, approximately 12' long by 18' in diameter.
Solid propellant was cast and cured inside the steel cylinders and then machined to the final ballistic configuration.
These segments were shipped by rail from Thiokol in Utah to the Cape where they were stacked with o-rings between the flanges.
After assembly of the motor segments, the "Kick Rings" were used to cover the flanges. The kick rings were ablative insulators designed to prevent the extreme heat from burning through the steel motor cases. The "kick rings" were fabricated by laying up silica-phenolic fabric patterns and then curing in an autoclave. The cured rings were then machined to the final configuration. Each ring was made up of several segments that were assembled into the final ring when installed on the booster motor.

The building where those kick-rigs were made is named after my father and there is a large bronze plaque on the front of that building with his profile and a few sentences about his and contributions to rocket technology.

He has 41 citations from the U.S. patent office. In that industry inventions are owned by the company, not the inventor.

I grew up in the home of a very successful rocket scientist. I know as much or more about the science and experimental projects (successful or failed) than some jackhole who tried to make a quick buck writing a book.

You are the one who does not know jack on the subject but you keep sticking your ignorant nose into it, just to be annoying and because I said something you found unpleasant.
You insist on acting like a tough guy on the internet but that check bounced, you can't pull that off because you exposed yourself for what you are. It's time to stop pretending.

Are you gonna send me a bunch of nasty threatening PMs again and then run away and hide?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Tang

Without NASA there would be no Tang.

'Nuff said.

Tang is a fruit-flavored drink. Originally formulated by General Foods Corporation food scientist William A. Mitchell[1] in 1957, it was first marketed in powdered form in 1959.[2] The Tang brand is owned by Mondelēz International.

Sales of Tang were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn's Mercury flight,[3] and subsequent Gemini missions. Since then, it was closely associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, leading to the misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.[4][5]

wiki.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Not at all, Mike. I'm always open to being educated on stuff like this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Re: "...like they used to do at EVERY photo processing shop EVERY day to EVERY picture you sent in," I don't know about that. I used to take some pretty good photos and I'm not willing to credit the processing shop with any of the glory.

And what about all those times they came back overexposed and with people's heads out of the frame?

That was gremlins.

All of the stuff in Photoshop was designed around things that photo developers did in the darkroom. Dodge, burn, crop, magnify, all things they would do on a regular basis. Unfortunately, most people have never done darkroom stuff before, and don't know how crappy the photos look without any...massaging...done to them.

Even fewer people have worked with astro photos. Some of the "pretty photos" I did involved taking 80-100 actual images, then combining them in various ways to get one final image. That turned out to be 20+ hours of work, and moving several GB of data around. The final image was *processed* but not *faked*.

The rainbow flag and rock music graphics of the flag on the Moon that MTV used to play? THAT was faked.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

one of the modifications was my father's idea and his company made them.

Reinhold Industries?

That overwrites everything in this thread.

My hat is off to your Father, regardless of any wrestling match here.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

My hat is off to your Father, regardless of any wrestling match here.

Hey, I don't want to kill a thread.

Cudo's to Sammy's Dad. Not Sammy. Let's put this in perspective.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by LEAKYSEALS951

Pre-photoshopped original:

Isn't this the dude that had the guitar and sang Bowie's song? Who knew he was in a cage?