Starship Asterisk*

Mars at Closest Approach 2016

Explanation: When does Mars appear the largest? This occurs when Earth sweeps past Mars in their respective orbits around the Sun, creating a momentary Sun-Earth-Mars alignment called opposition. The featured video shows the Mars opposition that occurred earlier this year. All of the images were taken from Earth with a small telescope. Mars actually changes its size continuously -- the monthly jumps in size are an editing effect. During the first month in video, March, Earth's view toward Mars is from relatively far away and from a relatively sideways angle -- making Mars appear small and at less than full phase (gibbous). As months progress, Mars appears increasingly larger and fuller. The day Earth and Mars were closest together -- opposition -- was on May 22. By June, Earth had passed Mars, and part of the other side of Mars appeared shadowed. Mars will now appear increasingly smaller during 2016. Even if you watch Mars from Earth all along its orbit, though, Mars will never show a crescent phase.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

I don't really understand why it isn't mentioned that this is data converted to a 2d map and then projected as a 3d sphere. Is it just that obvious?

Really, with a 30 cm as he said? This can't be real.This is a forgery, and I'm sure this will come out very soon. It's unfortunate this happens again, because in this way amateur imagery will get a very bad name.... And if I'm wrong I would love the person who made it to show some raw imagery...

I agree that something seems to be quite wrong with this, as it looks completely unreal. Here are two more videos of the same amateur. I await for the opinion of more astrophotographers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0E1HqlrXOlM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pt0onh8DoD0

avdhoeven wrote:Really, with a 30 cm as he said? This can't be real.This is a forgery, and I'm sure this will come out very soon. It's unfortunate this happens again, because in this way amateur imagery will get a very bad name.... And if I'm wrong I would love the person who made it to show some raw imagery...

The resolution is consistent with what is possible with a 30 cm scope (I have achieved similar) with a combination of good seeing and lucky imaging. It wouldn't really be that difficult to construct an image map that way and then project it onto a sphere to make the video. While the final result is a digital construct (which should be better described), that isn't the same as it being a "forgery".

I, too, would like to see some examples of individual frames used to construct the digital map. Not so much as proof this is real but simply to see what the imager is actually capable of in terms of high resolution planetary imaging.

I'd love to see some of the processed image stacks he used to create the map of Mars, because the resolution at for example 45 seconds into the animation, especially the area below Syrtis Major, is not consistent at all with what is possible with a 12" or a 14". Parts of the map (used in the animation) looks very much fabricated, as if much higher resolution data was merged into it to make it look better.

I don't mind (much) synthetic WinJUPOS animations like this, as long as it is clear what was done and how these images are simulated from perhaps one or more maps of Mars, but you should really be able to show your data when you produce something that contains areas of much higher resolution than any of the top of the astrophotographers have produced this apparition. And don't forget those astrophotographers really are extremely skillful, spending hours and hours on capturing and processing from often much better observing conditions (with Mars much higher up and under good seeing conditions). Check for the example the ALPO Mars archive for some reference images. None show any of the details in the area I mentioned as is shown in this APOD ( http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/Latest/Mars.htm ).

There have been some occasions on APOD in the past years where an "astrophotographer" produced images that appeared too good to be true, and actually were too good be true because there was hardly anything real about the images they produced. Let's hope that is not the case here, but considering there are no images out there that show comparable detail, even though astrophotographers have produced images of those areas under good seeing conditions, I'm willing to bet quite a lot of money on this and call it another fake APOD.

Congratulations.

Why do people keep doing stupid stuff like this....

Emil Kraaikamp

You can have a look at amateur astrophotographer mages of the recent Mars opposition here. Chose the best and compare. Very heavy processing can be another issue, as overprocessed images can look odd. http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/Latest/Mars.htm And the webpage of Chris Go with very high resolution images of this opposition http://astro.christone.net/mars/

I have sent an email to the astrophotographer asking for more information. I am considering amending the APOD text but will wait at least a little while for a response. Here is a quote from the initial email submission of the video. I believe the astrophotographer intended for this information be used publicly if it would be helpful.

" I send a summary of the images and animation, which over the opposition of Mars in 2016 have achieved during the months of March, April, May and June. Obtained with telescopes C-14 (356mm)and newton 12 "(305mm),cameras ASI224mc / ASI290mm and filters UV / IR-cut, 610nm (224mc), R, G, B, A82,685nm (290mm) .From Valdemoro( Madrid) -003: 69 +40: 16 (607m)."

- RJN

>Very heavy processing can be another issue, as overprocessed images can look odd.
That is not an issue here, the area I described (below Syrtis Major) is not heavily processed at all, but it is simply not possible to capture that kind of detail with a 14" telescope this apparition. The data looks an awful lot like data Hubble data was blended in.
At least part of his data is fake.

Note that it is NOT about using WinJUPOS or other rendering software to create a projection of Mars, it is not even about the difference in resolving power between a 12" and 14" (although on his youtube video he clearly mentions he used a 12", to me he replied he indeed used both a 12" and a 14"). It is however about the actual data that was used to create this rendition, and I'm certain parts of that data has been fabricated. The data is fake, the APOD is fake.

I agree, had a look at the video again and the amount of detail is totally unbelievable for a 14inch scope. Also, the features look absolutely the same on each rotation.

Here is a small comparison that (who other than) Stephen W. Ramsden put together clearly showing what is wrong with the APOD:
click for a better view here: http://www.astrokraai.nl/dump/13958274_ ... 6212_o.jpg

(image credits HST, A. Wesley, and C. Go for comparison, some of the very best astrophotographers out there)

Reading Stephen W. Ramsden Facebook page is pure joy. In the comments Chris Go gave proof that the images are from Hubble.

Could someone (with Stephen's consent) post this here, for those not on Facebook?
Thanks,
Jan

I have again emailed the astrophotographer, alerted him to allegations that he used unattributed Hubble imagery, and invited him to respond on this forum -- in Spanish if he would prefer. It is quite possible that this may take a few days to play out. The allegations and evidence appear to me serious enough that If he does not respond in a timely fashion, the video will be taken down from APOD. Still, I believe that he has the right to respond and to give his accounting of the video's production.

Elias Chasiotis wrote:Reading Stephen W. Ramsden Facebook page is pure joy. In the comments Chris Go gave proof that the images are from Hubble.

Jan wrote:Could someone (with Stephen's consent) post this here, for those not on Facebook?
Thanks,
Jan

Here is a link to the post: https://www.facebook.com/stephenramsden ... 1172290088

Thanks!

It is that time of year for all those mars-as-big-as-moon stories.

From our view from Earth, do we ever see Mars eclipsed by one of its moons? Not a solar eclipse, but a Earth Mars Phobos (or Deimos) eclipse?

Meekmoe wrote:From our view from Earth, do we ever see Mars eclipsed by one of its moons? Not a solar eclipse, but a Earth Mars Phobos (or Deimos) eclipse?

Phobos passes between Earth and mars, but due to the small size would be less an eclipse and more of a transit.

Some real Mars images from real amateur astronomers using real equipment...

https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/group ... rvers/info

Take a look at the images from Clyde Foster, Bill Flanagan, and Effrain Morales. The cloud details in this year's images don't match what this guy supposedly put together. Are the images this guy used really from the most recent apparition? There also seem to be discrepancies in the polar ice cap detail.

-Steve

Just Awesome... at 0:14 the dark part coming in at the bottom looks like a Rooster on a Weather vane...

The detail is great...

Here is my best picture to date...

WELL... I am FINALLY moved over to new place after over a month of packing and moving... a nightmare on Mars too, no doubt. Not a good place for my 10" Meade I am afraid, might have to get a smaller, more portable scope. I have seen some that I like. Even come with a better camera than I have.

:---[===] *

There is little doubt among the astrophotography community that this is some of Jesus' data highly augemented by HST data to create a static surface map image and then wrapped around a 3D globe using software. The imagers youtube channel has several examples of this including a full rotation of URANUS? taken with his 12 inch Newt? not likely.

What's sad about this ongoing fake APOD stuff is that there are so many people who already take such beautiful images that are willing to throw their reputation out the window in order to get the momentary "fame" of having an APOD. It's a ridiculous situation where people feel the need to artificially augment their already beautiful images with all of this "over the top" computer generated garbage.

This isn't really as much the fault of these poor guys running APOD (not astrophotographers, just NASA volunteers) as it is the fault of the community for allowing all of this silly competitiveness to ruin the credibility of such a popular site.

Here's the solution:

Stop accepting all submissions for APOD immediately.
Assign a qualified team of actual astroimagers or a qualified intern who is willing to go out on social media or elsewhere on the internet and actually find credible images themselves to feature as APODs. There are thousands of qualified images that meet or exceed the APOD standards all over social media every day.
This will both remove the enormous workload from the authors of APOD and completely remove the mechanism allowing all of these fakes or exaggerated images from being submitted. and yes, I volunteer for the assignment if you can't find anyone qualified at NASA.

I publish SPOD every day on my site http://www.solarastronomy.org. I do not accept submissions. I simply scan the net every morning and find a beautiful image that I know is real and then vouch for it's authenticity. Of course, my site gets nowhere near as much traffic as APOD but it is 100% honest.

Here is today's SPOD>

I think another reason for this is that some of us have also tried to encourage the editors to look for new faces in the crowd instead of publishing from the same sources all the time. Those old sources have a long, hard sought reputation to maintain and newbies may make stupid mistakes and think they can cheat an APOD...

I saw this one a few days ago in the lineup, but planetary imagery isn't really a strong interest for me and I didn't read the description (if there was one yet) and didn't notice at the time that it wasn't mentioned as being a 3D rendering. I feel that I could have caught this earlier if I'd been more attentive. Sometimes APODs aren't ready until < 12 hours in advance. A lot of people know where the preview directory is and they could help vet things if there was more lead time on the images.

Chris Peterson wrote:
APOD doesn't need a selection committee. Even if there are occasional faked pictures (and there are damn few), this doesn't represent all that serious of a problem. .

I Am very surprise to hear such a statement from an astronomer because it sounds more like the statement we would hear from the International Olympic Committee.