It will just be redder because of the dust in the air, but they will probably be on NASA's site somewhere.

You do know why they are 'white balancing' them right?

The white balance is to help identify minerals.

Awesome hi def pictures coming in are awesome to say the least!

Do you happen to know where the processing is done? does the rover send back what would be akin to a RAW file from a digital camera? or does it send back processed data?

Well the sensor in a smartphone can deal with RAW, but in general smartphones will process and never give you back RAW. (What I am referring to is more on Digital SLR's).

What you are saying is that it will send back what is essentially a jpg. From a data bandwidth perspective, that makes sense, but from an image flexibility perspective, it might be nice to be able to bring back the raw data, at least as an option.

Im wondering if while in flight to Mars if they took any pics of space that we could not get from earth?

If you look closely you can clearly see a rattlesnake on the bottom left as well as a dune beetle.

GTFO. That's Jalalabad at 5am.

@ Cheetah: Yes, Mars and Jalalabad do have a few things in common, including:

1) desolate landscapes

2) no intelligent life to be found

How impressive, and redundant at the same time. There is nothing there SHOCKER!! Venus is much more earth like than Mars IMO. These pics look just like the movies. Predictable nothingness.

I understand white balance and what not,but why "tweak" the pics can we not just see it in original form?

If you look closely you can clearly see a rattlesnake on the bottom left as well as a dune beetle.

I found Waldo!

@ armando; Yes I see it too! lol rattlesnake,good first target for the laser.lol

Venus is most definitely not Earth like. They are similar in size, but that's it. It rotates very slowly...I think the day is something like 45 earth days long. The air pressure is something like 90 times that of earth...which would crush you. The temperature is roughly 850 degrees fahrenheit, and the atmosphere will dissolve your body. Mars has a nearly a 24 hour day. Temperatures that can get as high as a nice spring day, and an atmosphere that won't dissolve your body...in fact, if you increase the air density on Mars, you would be able to walk around on the surface with nothing more than a fireman's breathing mask. Venus more earth-like than Mars? Not even close. It would be easier to live on Pluto than it would be to live on Venus.

Yeah but they censored the picture of the GIANT SAND WORM by placing that black box in the middle of the panorama.

STOP THE COVER UP!

There will be worms.

I think the day is something like 45 earth days long.

It's even crazier: a Venusian day is 243 Earth days long, longer than it takes to complete one orbit around the sun (225 days).

@ z; I believe you are most definitely wrong.lol Venus has about the same gravity,greenhouse effects,volcanoes.

For a planet that was once thought to resemble Earth, to one that was thought to
be completely dissimilar, the tables have turned again. Thanks to Venus Express,
Taylor now describes Venus as "Earth's twin, but separated at birth."

Try to keep up sir.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMS9773R8F_index_0.html

Coral,

All the facts I laid out are well established (aside from the length of the day). Venus is a hell that cannot support earth life. That article doesn't contradict any of those facts. Your quote from the article is just a flowery PR statement.

@ z; Wrong again sir, and please at least cite a source,not that you are wrong on your info, but more than your word would be nice. Also in my post I stated IMO, because it is up for debate, and not factual any longer as you are trying to make it.

Once again please keep up sir,please cite your source.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3299936/Venus-may-sustain-life-say-scientists.html

Coral Taxi

The only similarity between Earth and Venus is: Venus and Earth are similar in size, composition, and mass. Other aspects of Venus are almost mirror opposite to Earth.

Perhaps of you were talking about several billion years ago then you may have a case, however Mars was in the same situation.

Today Venus is more like hell, its cloud cover consists of Sulfuric acid, an atmosphere made up of mostly Carbon dioxide and at the surface a rather uncomfortable surface atmospheric pressure of around 92 times that of Earth. Although you'll be pleased to know you would also enjoy balmy summer weather of around 860° Fahrenheit. So if you wanted to some cooking on the grill it would make it necessary to have something to cool the oven to baking temperature.

Its day (243 Earth days) is longer than its year. So on Venus Christmas would infact happen every day other day at the least, if you used the an Earth calendar! Almost ever-day would be the holidays!

Earth-like? I think not.

I don't know how to embed a link because they always seem to get filtered out after I post my message, but pretty much any article you read on Venus will confirm what I said. Look at the wikipedia article on Venus.

Here is your citation Coral make sure you read the entire article it starts of with the line:

Venus was once thought to be the twin of Earth. . . . . .

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002ASPC..272....5C

The article you cited from the Telegraph also states how unearth-like Venus is. Yes it may harbor life but that does not make it Earth-like. In fact Mars is more likely to harbor life and is more Earth-like becasue of the presence of water vapor, weather patterns.

I don't think that Mars has a strong enough gravitational pull to hold onto a denser atmosphere. Unless we figure out how to shove more Higgs-Bosons into Mars, I don't see how we can effectively terraform the place in any meaningful way when even a breathable atmospheric composition would still be something like nearly 1/100 that of Earth's.

Perhaps if we steered a bunch of asteroid and comets toward Mars to increase its mass (but not break the whole planet apart), we could make better progress. But I don't think that would be a smart move (assuming we could even feasibly do it and spread the mass evenly around Mars) considering how it could throw off the orbiting patterns of other neighboring celestial bodies and could also pose a threat of dragging and slinging greater sums of asteroids from the belt that stands between it and Jupiter.

I don't think that Mars has a strong enough gravitational pull to hold onto a denser atmosphere.

That is true. But it takes a long time for the solar wind to blow the atmosphere away. If we could figure out some way to add carbon, nitrogen, and/or oxygen to the atmosphere quickly, it would take many thousands (millions?) of years before it disappeared.

@ Alan

Thank you for the link to that amazing pic! I'm putting that up on my screensaver for my living-room TV!

Seriously, actually Mars does have a large enough mass (strong enough gravity) to retain a much denser atmosphere, but not strong enough to retain hydrogen radicals/ions. The biggest problem with the Martian atmosphere is the lack of a dynamo to generate a protective magnetosphere. Without this protection, the solar wind of charged particles will continue to strip away its thin atmosphere. With regard to mass, it could certainly use more. I believe it is still an open question as to whether its current 0.38G is adequate to prevent the bone density loss and muscle atrophy that occurs in microgravity. It is humbling to note that, if we could slam all the asteroids in the asteroid belt into Mars, it still would have less mass than the Earth. However, slamming large ones like Ceres or Vesta would render the planet useless for millions of years. Still, if we could one day achieve it, a captured asteroid (or series of them) of sufficient mass could help create enough tidal friction to restart Mars' dynamo. Don't look for this as a future NASA project anytime soon, though...

Looking at the first picture in the article, the picture of the mountain, I think that it is fantastic from a geological point of view! I'll ad midt I don't have an advanced degree but using Geology 101, look at the first band of RED stratified rocks (the ones above the dark gray band, the 3rd band) Even though they are weathered and eroded you can still see stratification dipping to the right of the picture at an angle of maybe 20-25 degrees. Then in back and apparently on top of those are another set of stratified rocks dipping to the right at perhaps 45 degrees or so!

Could this be an unconformity? If it is that means some form of tectonics to tilt strata and also means DEEP WATER DEPOSITION for that strata to accumulate! Exciting in deed!

Joe Fabiny BS Earth Sciences, BS Ed.

Coral,

Venus was perhaps Earth-like a few billions years ago but a runaway greenhouse effect has drastically altered its environment. Right now Venus is a hellish mix of extreme temperature, air pressure and acidic storms.

The atmospheric mass of Venus is 93 times that of Earth with the surface pressure at least 90 times that of Earth. Those would be the equivalent of being under approximate 1km of Earth's oceans. Nothing human would survive that pressure even for an instant. In fact, most Venus probes didn't survive long either, an hour at most, despite being designed to withstand said pressures.

The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus means an atmosphere of primarily carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid. Said clouds completely cover the planet, and reflect about 90% of Sunlight back into space.

Yes, the gravity on Venus is 0.9 that of Earth, but compared with everything else its not a pretty picture.

I give you that Mars is not a picnic, and humans can not survive on its surface without space suits. But Mars is clearly the better choice, and it certainly far more Earth-like in terms of human environmental norms than Venus has been since before the first amino acids were mixing it up.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

http://www.space.com/44-venus-second-planet-from-the-sun-brightest-planet-in-solar-system.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/atmosphere.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/venusenv.html

@ krestow; Your link just leads to some data page.Try again.I will check it.

The article you cited from the Telegraph also states how unearth-like Venus is. Yes it may harbor life but that does not make it Earth-like. In fact Mars is more likely to harbor life and is more Earth-like becasue of the presence of water vapor, weather patterns.

Yes it shows both sides,this is why I say IMO, because further studies need to happen,and I can not argue the fact that it is a much more volatile situation on Venus. I do not believe Mars is more likely to harbor life at this stage of its existence. although subsurface water has been found in the form of "dirty ice"

@ harcourt; As far as conditions of the atmosphere and milder weather Mars is a "safer" option I do not know about better as far as finding life, and having volcanoes, greenhouse effects. I will check each of your links except for wiki, only when I am clowning do I use wiki. Here is the latest article or one of them on Venus I think you will find interesting,would like to hear your feedback.

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/227729/20111009/venus-ozone-layer-spotted-can-the-planet-support-life-esa.htm

@ Jay

Oh Yes! You're right! I forgot about it's lack of a (strong) magnetosphere!

Perhaps the key to terraforming Mars is to figure out a means of melting the core again or to figure out a planet-wide shield Star Trek-stye solution (or perhaps a deflector orbiting in a Marsian Lagrange point with the Sun that forever keeps Mars in an eye of the solar storm that would otherwise bombard the planet...still a Star Trek solution.

The idea of an expanding cosmic-order captures my imagination to a greater extent - The scientific know-how behind this is also amazing! Landing a craft from earth on anything, anywhere, was such a far-fetched notion not too long ago! Again, quite amaaaaaaaaaazing!!!

"That is true. But it takes a long time for the solar wind to blow the atmosphere away. If we could figure out some way to add carbon, nitrogen, and/or oxygen to the atmosphere quickly, it would take many thousands (millions?) of years before it disappeared."

It's not all about the magnetic field, or Venus (which has none, and closer to the source of the solar wind)) would have been stripped long ago.

It's more about gravity, temperature, and the molecular weight of the gases that make up the atmosphere. (All her things being equal, hydrogen escapes easiest, carbon dioxide the hardest, other likely atmospheric gases are somewhere in between. Saturn's moon Titan has a relatively thick atmosphere in spite of its low mass, because it's cold, and even light gas molecules like methane aren't likely to be kicked up to its low escape velocity)

@ Frank; Yes , this article expounds on what you are saying. I guess we could not use a compass on Venus. Mars is definitely more docile,but also more boring. Seems there would have to be a shift of some sort to achieve support of human life on Venus(not likely). Could there be any portion of the planet that we could survive on?

I believe this is the article krestow was trying to show me.

planet Venus is sometimes characterized as Earth's 'twin' because of its close
proximity in solar system location (~ 0.72 AU heliocentric distance compared to
1.0 AU) and its similar size (~ 6053 km radius compared to - 6371 km radius),
but other close resemblances are few. Besides the more obvious atmospheric
composition and pressure differences, and the related extreme temperatures at
the surface described elsewhere in this volume, events in the history and
evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no
intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and
atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an 'induced' magnetotail
in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being
scavenged by the passing solar wind.

???

I'm no Bush fan but how is this Bush's fault, and further more what is?

Jesse/Jeff,

Unbelievable. My reaction when I first accessed this site and saw the picture of the landscape was a simple "Wow!" That's it. Devoid of anything else. I scroll down to the comments to see what others have to say, for God's sake, on an article about a very interesting, historic exploration effort, and I run into a BIOB? This is beyond sad.

Well done, Rover team. Well done.

Jesse et al, get a life. At the least, take a break from politics once in a while.

F&B666

Stop blaming the POTUS's for anything you don't like about NASA. As I've said many times before, it is Congress that sets NASA's budget. The White House can suggest budgets and goals, but in the end it is Congress that provides the money.

Curiosity was planned and funded in 2004.

This was right at the height of Bushie's War on Terror(tm) campaign to steer large(r) government contracts to his favorite public-coffer-leeches

...Yet even then he didn't kill this $2 Billion+ program. Not too shabby if I may say.

If you want to be mad about Bush screwing up our space program, you need to go over to the vines discussing Constellation and NASA manned-space programs...THAT'S where Bush really screwed things up.

Here's some reading for you to start with...he killed the alternative for the Space Shuttle back in 2001 (the prototype was already 80% built)

^_^

Everyone (left right and center) deserves their share of the blame, especially Congress, for utterly failing to promote a successor to the Shuttle and eliminating our current human spaceflight gap.

Harcourt Fenton Mudd

Everyone (left right and center) deserves their share of the blame, especially Congress, for utterly failing to promote a successor to the Shuttle and eliminating our current human spaceflight gap.

No Successor?! Follow the link I provided. There WAS a successor to the Shuttle...Bush killed it in 2001.

Clinton promoted the X-33/Venture Star. It had a prototype that was 80% complete in 2001 when Bush halted the program because he didn't OK the use of aluminum tanks and then rejected Lockheed's second pitch when they solved the issue that plagued the composite tank-cluster to begin with.

Bush wasn't about to put federal dollars into a CA venture when Georgia and Mississippi weren't going to be getting pork making SRB's no one was going to need any more. Hence the Constellation Program's trip to nowhere

seriously,

I think we went down that road before. The recent failures of the scramjet test vehicles indicate that the venture star wasn't a viable vehicle at the time. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but not now.

But it WAS a successor to the shuttle ^_^

It's a long and well-beaten path we've been down my friend

But I do like to remind people that there was something there...and not simply a dearth of replacements

Anyway, regarding your comparison to the SCRAMjet tests, if the Shuttle could have as much of itself disassembled and reassembled after each launch, not to mention all of the disposables like the large central fuel tank...surely the Venture Star would have just needed some new tiles and perhaps a rebuild of the aerospike's linear exhausts.

After all, it was SSTO, so there wasn't a turnover for building new throw-away components on the magnitude of the Shuttle.

...but we're arguing nuances of a vapor-program with only slightly more to show for itself than the Skylon (i.e. a launchpad at Edwards AFB and an 80% prototype mothballed and partially disassembled in some/several non-descript warehouse(s)).

/but it was a replacement

I don't believe that NASA ever thought it was a successor to the shuttle, but more an X test vehicle to gain test data. Which was needed.

Your assumption about this vehicle is that it would have required less maintenance, and that is more than likely not the case. That is so huge a leap.

A much better avenue would have been to take the shuttle experience and build a new shuttle that learned form the lessons of the shuttle. But that isn't glamourous enough for congress or the people (or in some ways even NASA) so it wouldn't fly.

A long term advancement strategy actually requires that many smaller steps be taken, not huge jumps.

Jonathan-1917156

I don't believe that NASA ever thought it was a successor to the shuttle, but more an X test vehicle to gain test data. Which was needed.

Perhaps not the X-33, but the Venture Star WAS (at least advertised) as the Shuttle's replacement.

Your assumption about this vehicle is that it would have required less maintenance, and that is more than likely not the case. That is so huge a leap.

True, I was kind of reaching there. My hope was that the Venture Star was going to be more reliable and less worn out after each launch because from the get-go it wasn't a compromised design the way the Shuttle had to become in order to both get support from the USAF and then also act as an ad hoc space-station. Things like the external SRB's and outboard fuel tank which added massive complexities to the Shuttle launch...the Venture Star's SSTO design had none of. Fewer moving parts over all and a more sturdy BWB to boot.

A much better avenue would have been to take the shuttle experience and build a new shuttle that learned form the lessons of the shuttle. But that isn't glamourous enough for congress or the people (or in some ways even NASA) so it wouldn't fly.

Indeed, what are your thoughts to this?

Shuttle 2.0

Mission capabilities: delicate return of orbiting objects, orbiting maintenance, manned orbital-loitering, conventional landings, non-equatorial launches (,

Stage# 1: Vertical launch, stacked above array of aerospike-engines (retrievable)...not to achieve escape velocity but to enable stage 2

Stage# 2: SCRAMjet assisted rocket-sled (retrievable/disposable) in upper atmosphere takes Shuttle 2.0 to outer atmosphere

Stage #3: On-board engine takes Shuttle into LEO, polar orbits, etc. possibly higher depending on Stage #2's ability to bring larger masses to out atmosphere.

I thought that the idea of the White Knight II that Virgin-Galactic uses is nifty, but the size that these mother ships have to be in order to carry a relatively small craft is just not feasible for something the size of the Shuttle, or Shuttle 2.0...hence the need for a traditional stack. But in this case, the launch stack is merely to get the mass up to the appropriate speed to enable the SCRAMjet to light...thus the array doesn't have to be nearly as large as one that would need to achieve escape velocity.

I don't know enough about the SCRAMjet's limitations, but perhaps it could be integrated with Shuttle 2.0 rather than a disposable sled and the third stage could be a disposable rocket or perhaps a smaller aerospike integrated with the Shuttle 2.0 itself...but that would mean both a SCRAM and an aerospike on a single craft...probably overkill and stupid. =P

Additionally, this design is safer than the original Shuttle since the setup is stacked and each stage can be throttled/aborted

True, I was kind of reaching there. My hope was that the Venture Star was going to be more reliable and less worn out after each launch because from the get-go it wasn't a compromised design the way the Shuttle had to become in order to both get support from the USAF and then also act as an ad hoc space-station.

I believe we have gone over this before. While the USAF did stipulate the length of the payload bay, it was already pretty much going to have to be that length once Nixon cancelled the Saturn V, the space stations, the permanent manned base, etc... The only real difference was that the payload bay ended up being 60 feet in length instead of 40 feet in length. That would have had no bearing on the maintainability of the vehicle.

Leo Cohen has stated PUBLICLY that if NASA were to have built the original design, which was just a human transport vehicle, with a separate reusable booster, that they would have missed the cost and usability targets even more.

The issue WASN'T the shuttle design, the issue was a complete misunderstanding about just how much the state of the art would have to be advanced in order to build the shuttle. The design that came out of that was far less state of the art than the initial proposals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they had done the original design, it would have had far more teething problems, AND in addition, be less flexible (being only a person carrier) which means that it probably would never have lasted 30 years.

To make a shuttle that can return any kind of payload (which is in my mind the most useful aspect of the shuttle even though it never really got to take advantage of this), is going to require a similar sized vehicle. And you are right, a flyback booster would need to be the size of a 747 which could fly at Mach 6. That isn't even possible with todays technology.

It would also require that the shuttle have internal tanks, because the flyback booster obviously won't be able to provide the shuttle with any fuel once it separates. The engine part is easy, the FUEL part isn't so easy.

Also NO scramjet has experienced sustained ignition at this point in time. You are jumping the gun here. Besides, the scramjet engine isn't the biggest problem. Thermal control IS the biggest problem. This is the biggest challenge in any vehicle of this type, and we aren't even close to solving those problems.

You are going as though the venture star's problems were solely on the tank, and they weren't. The whole concept was considered to be too far too fast. There's a reason why we are still launching rockets vertically. It's because it is the cheapest way for the amount of activity that can be supported. The cheapest part is the cost of development. One estimate that I saw was that it would take several TRILLION dollars to develop a working scramjet vehicle. That sort of makes the whole cost of 6 billion (1973 dollars approximate) look like chicken change.

As far as safety, the shuttle was not inherently unsafe. If NASA had the money to fix the problems of the shuttle (you know like a redesign of the o-rings when it was discovered to be a problem after the 3rd launch or a fix for the foam problem which has plagued the shuttle program almost since the beginning of the program), then both accidents would not have happened. However, we are also talking as though the level of safety needs to be no risk. That is incorrect. Space is in itself inherently risky. It is operating technology at margin levels that just aren't acceptable in the civilian world. That is just the nature of the beast. The ONLY way that this is going to change is if we take more risks and learn from those mistakes. The culture of NASA though wasn't about risk though, it was that they underestimated or ignored the risk. That is VERY different from accepting risk.

As far as the vehicle design. There is no way that the shuttle itself could really save its passengers in the event of an accident. There are just too many variables and the crew compartment couldn't really be built to deal with all those parameters. With Columbia, you would have had to have made the crew compartment a reentry vehicle unto itself.

no, the rover isn't looking for water, it is looking for signs about whether life could have existed on mars. They already know that this particular area at some point in the past had what was probably water on the surface.

Ummmmmm if you have been paying attention, its going to take a month to get the rover programmed for its treak to the peak.

thanks jon.. im just as excited about this mission as anybody... and i am looking at this as a new frontier would .

this is just me .but life or water i think we have a better chance making life there then finding it .

mar;s is a cold place and proply unforgiving and earth may have started the same way as lifeless as the moon and it may be possible to try a green house effect up there,.

Well the learning curve on mars is really about the processes that allow life to form, and those processes being on a planetary scale.

I seriously doubt that anyone expects life to be found there that still exists.

Arm-wrestle you for it?

Right next door to a MacDonald's.

Remember what your mama taught you - never judge a book by its cover. There could be some very interesting biology going on there - just not at the surface.

There will be a first time. I saw the moonwalk. Hope to see a Marswalk.

C'mon, take a break and enjoy the achievement.

they shulda sent obama then.

Just because it doesn't do anything that benefits YOU personally, doesn't mean it isn't doing anything. You're just too narrow minded to see it. Get with the program or quit trolling. Your comments aren't needed.

Some people just have all the imagination of a turnip.

This is awesome and well worth whatever we spent. My only complaint is I probably won't be around for the next manned mission, moon or Mars.

I'm all about seeing the wonders of our solar system, but why is it that we CHOOSE not to fix the place where we live. Pollution, starvation, wars, etc.....

Ouir priorities are really screwed up.

Some one is going to nickname Curiosity the 'welfare rover' because it doesn't do a doggone thing

Much like yourself.

This thing is going to be there operating for 2.5 years. Stop judging the whole mission based on the first few images coming from it. They haven't even started moving it yet. NASA is not in a hurry. They have a plan.

@erik: don't troll please.

@Arx: It seems that you don't have much of a science background. I good visual inspection can give a great deal of info in a variety of disciplines. I guarantee you that geologists and planetary astronomers are already studying these pictures in detail.

Just because you don't know what's going on doesn't mean that things aren't happening.

Mitchell

This argument illustrates why funding NASA and space exploration is so difficult. People can't see and plan beyond tomorrow, which explains the credit card issue and why elected representatives have issues with funding projects that take years: by the time they come to fruition, said representative could be voted out.

The "what have you done for me lately" crowd can't wait 2 seconds before determining something is a "waste", yet would lambaste NASA for rushing in and getting stuck just to placate them (not that I am suggesting any haste). Patience is a virtue, and if you watched how Spirit and Opportunity were handled, you would know nothing was done quickly. There is no AAA on Mars (yet), so no one can afford to scrweup.

Tthe "fix the poor" crowd pokes their heads up while completely ignoring the fact that NASA receives 0.5% of the US Federal budget. By my crude estimation, there is another 99.5% of the budget they could also be going after. In their argument, "all NASA does is shoot rockets into space and take pictures of Mars" and clearly that's all a waste and we should close it down. This uniformed viewpoint completely ignores the Earth science mission of NASA, you know studying changes in Earth's climate and geology and space weather monitoring. That's not even mentioning the side benefits of investment in NASA/space program.

I was going to mention that...it sure looks like some kind of tape. Perhaps they have some radiation hardened duct tape! You would think they would have some kind of grommet for the cables to go through the side of the box.

I was old enough to watch Armstrong do his stepping. I expect to see a human bean walking around on this planet.

I never thought, that in my life time I would actually see close-up pictures of another planet. I was too young when we landed on the moon, but I do remember seeing the video of it

Really? The Viking landers returned close up pictures from the surface of Mars in 1976.

Are you volunteering?

I'd be willing to put money behind this! R Battle, where's your Kickstarter page?

^_^

I'd add Enceladus, but otherwise your choices are my choices.

If a Constitutional Amendment is going to change/set NASA funding I'd set a 10% minimum. I don't think that's the correct avenue for funding, but that is probably what it would take to get Congress to wake up.

All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landings there

See my interpretation in #1.27

shawn.

But the images aren't really being made for you. They are being made for the geologists here on earth to make it easier to detect geological features.

CCD cameras (or any cameras) don't show you exactly what a place looks like to the human eye. In fact, this image may be more what Mars looks like than the raw image.

z

The light balance has been adjusted to be more like earth instead of mars. The details are there, but the 'tint' is off. The images that came from Viking are more accurate in terms of what the human eye would see if man were on the planet.

The tint would have been off from the get go. That's why we white-balance.

It's debatable what things really look like. Carlsbad Caverns is just black unless you shine some light in there. What color light is best? IMO that's debatable. These folks seem to know what they're doing and I'll go on faith, for the moment, that their reasons for altering the photos are good ones.