LRO zooms in on Apollo 15 once again. Amazing Detail

reply to post by plube


I'm not sure what you mean when you say minimalist images, when earlier this link has nearly 400 of the LRO images with resolutions from 1.1 to as close as 0.24 m/pixel, I swear I saw one swath at 0.2 m/pixel but oh well. The LRO hasn't finished covering the entire moon, so its primary imaging objective was to survey landing sites and maybe the poles are not on the slate so much for that, and that may have something to do with the exposure or lack thereof to solar radiation ruling out manned expeditions to polar areas. All Apollo's clearly landed near the equator during the early lunar morning for a couple of reasons, exposure being the main reasons.

This is where the confusion comes from with the stated 'highest resolution complete lunar map' from Chang'e-2, which was assembled at 7 m/pixel. That source is available so far as I know and the file size is clearly smaller than the LRO library and it is not complete. Also aiding the confusion is that the LRO also released a complete lunar map at a much lower resolution and so did the first Chang'e spacecraft, so by comparison the highest complete map is misinterpreted as being the highest resolution lunar images, when clearly it's not. It's the highest complete lunar surface map. The image you have in your post is actually a 3d map assembled from the LIDAR (or what ever method they used to map elevations) data and photo skinned. I'm finding it hard to get the resolution of that image, the source site apparently is down.

I also am not sure what you mean by better images from further away, Chang'e-2's orbit came to as close as 15 km from the surface for its highest resolution images that I have found the best number to be 1.6 m/pixel, so someone is either putting up bad information or the facts taken out of context suggest the best images yet come from Chang'e-2 when clearly they do not, (you didn't go to the LRO image site?).

So hopefully this incomplete post clears up a couple of things about the Chang;e-2 lunar map, and the few images released so far, and why is their image server down? The crater in your post should be about 7,000 pixels wide but it failed to open, maybe just a glitch, (or was it hacked?)–sorry, couldn't resist that last remark.

Maybe I'm just in a rush to get to work and just got bad links.

Originally posted by plube
now this pic from china is so much clearer from a greater distance away....and yes it does not pick out individual boulders as WMD was sooo proud to point out....but if NASA is soooooo much greater quality....apparently 20TIMES greater then where are the results that show it...

Here is the LRO image of the same spot. It's of Laplace A crater:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

It's a 51cm/pixel image. Please post a link to the Chinese image of comparable size and detail to this one, so we can see how much clearer it is. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by pube
but in all the years NASA has had an advantage of taking close up hi res moon pics....they only seem to show minimalistic images.....

That statement is so far removed from the truth... so wrong that it borders on the bizarre.
It's like saying Paris Hilton is an impoverished, cloistered nun.

Here is a page showing 30 images of the farside of the Moon. Clicking on any of the thumbnails will take you to a browsable, zoomable interface along with the link to download a 1.2 gigabyte full-resolution scan of the image. These are just a few of the more than 6,000 images from the Apollo Mapping Cameras available here. I notice that the same site has recently added almost 1,300 images from the even higher resolution Apollo Panoramic Cameras. If you know just where to look, you can find the Apollo 15 Lunar Module "Falcon" on the Hadley Plains.

now this pic from china is so much clearer from a greater distance away....and yes it does not pick out individual boulders as WMD was sooo proud to point out....but if NASA is soooooo much greater quality....apparently 20TIMES greater then where are the results that show it....

That is not a real photograph. That is a computer-generated image created by overlaying a straight-down photo over a digital elevation map, à la Google Earth.

On the other hand, this is an actual photograph of the central peak of Tycho Crater (zoomable version) taken by the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter Camera. It's just one of the hundreds of featured images available at the LROC Browse Gallery.

Of course, that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 500,000 high-resolution images freely available and downloadable from the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University.

Would i trust the Chinese to be anymore forthright than NASA......I doubt it....

That's good, because I challenge you to find 100, no, 50 Chang'e images available on (or off) the web.

"Minimalistic images..."

reply to post by scrounger


Read this

*Google Earth* is a virtual globe,map and geographical information program that was originally called Earthviewer 3D

It maps the Earth by the superimposition of images obtained from satellite, aerial photography and GIS 3D Globe

Just to educate you some more guess what AERIAL photography means.

It's really simple to find these things out maybe not simple enough!!!!

Photography has been a hobby of mine for 30 + years so I probably have a better idea than you regarding resolution and what can and can't be done

I have to make this comment.
For being a new commer to this site it makes me chuckle to see how clanish and closed mined some of you are.
Using words like like IDIOT and nut jobs to discribe those that disagree with you.
But litterly kissing each others butt when you can't even agree on what pixel, lens or angle was used to take all your propaganda pictures.
It is no wonder why so many folks on here find Appolo apauling.
Isn't it interesting that hardly no one questions Russian robotics and rocks, they just say, oh well the USA couldn't do it, I am sure these people can even justify the O ring and tile failures while bowing down to thier NASA gods.

reply to post by longjohnbritches

While I don't condone the bashing of my fellow members by calling the ones I disagree with "idiots", the bashing of members (and the use of words like "idiot") is done equally by all sides of debates here on ATS. It's not an exclusive attribute of debunkers, although it is wrong no matter who does it.

I'm not sure how you can key in on just the member bashing done by people who DON'T think there is a huge conspiracy going on, considering the bashing comes from all sides. I don't feel there is a huge Moon conspiracy, and I've been bashed by the people who do, and been called an idiot.

BY the way, that type of bashing is against the T&C's of the site, and a moderator would often (although not always) step in and remind us of that.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

While I don't condone the bashing of my fellow members by calling the ones I disagree with "idiots", the bashing of members (and the use of words like "idiot") is done equally by all sides of debates here on ATS. It's not an exclusive attribute of debunkers, although it is wrong no matter who does it.

I'm not sure how you can key in on just the member bashing done by people who DON'T think there is a huge conspiracy going on, considering the bashing comes from all sides. I don't feel there is a huge Moon conspiracy, and I've been bashed by the people who do, and been called an idiot.

BY the way, that type of bashing is against the T&C's of the site, and a moderator would often (although not always) step in and remind us of that.

Hi Soylent,
Thanks for the reply. I guess since I have my own ideas I perhaps don't notice others of my ilk behaving badly.
Life is to short to waste argueing about silly things. Although I do sometimes feel myself getting hot under the collar too.
I hope being right is not the driving force around here. I think any idea no matter how wierd can just be overlooked or discussed by someone if they want to, with out finding faults with another's character. I try to think about the idea not the person.
It is hard to let folks know you have respect for thier abilities and knowledge when they are calling you dumb ass. There were plenty of folks like that around when status quo was "the world is flat"

reply to post by longjohnbritches


This isn't how it works, here:

But litterly kissing each others butt when you can't even agree on what pixel, lens or angle was used to take all your propaganda pictures.

What occurs is, the real and verifiable NASA images are presented, and some people misinterpret. So, those people get information to (hopefully) allow them to understand how they misinterpreted, and why.

Isn't it interesting that hardly no one questions Russian robotics and rocks, they just say, oh well the USA couldn't do it...

Well, since you raised that issue (and wish to keep on the claim of "robotics" RE: NASA), then let's clear up by using research and the historical facts of just what the USSR did (and did not) accomplish sing robotic Lunar exploration vehicles.

This Wik entry describes the Soviet Lunokhod Program from that era. I suggest a full read-through for starters there, and if Wiki is not one's cup of tea, further research online from any number of alternates resources.

Then, there is a complementary Soviet program, the Luna programme

Might want to take note of the totals in terms of weight of Lunar samples returned. Also, note (elsewhere in further research) that the Soviet (now Russian) samples were used to compare to Apollo samples, further proving authenticity.

The program returned 0.326 kg of lunar samples.

1/3 of a kilogram, total. Compare to Apollo, again. Over 1,000 times as much, by weight.

(And, note the many Soviet failures, of the robotics too)......

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
snip...when you can't even agree on what pixel, lens or angle was used to take all your propaganda pictures.

Pixel resolution of images vary, sometimes greatly, and so do the angles, which is why there is so much data attached (at least) to the LRO image library. Of course altitude effects this but also the camera capabilities. If you really want to get technical, stated image resolution is also NOT always an absolute, the spacecraft is traveling between 2,287 and 3,500 mph to maintain orbit, faster speeds at lower altitudes, (though Universe Today states LRO will not have to change its orbital speed in lower orbit). The camera needs a given percentage of a second to image its field of view to be part of a swath, (a pass), and this means that motion blur can be introduced. Stereo cameras try to minimize the blur by having two images to average of the same pass, LROC's Narrow Angle Camera isn't such equipped.

Further out motion blur isn't an issue, magnification is. There are just a lot of factors involved with satellite imagery, it would be nice to have zoom capacity at high orbits but part of a spacecraft is to assemble equipment and instruments in as compact of a configuration as possible, which isn't as big of a concern with earth orbiting satellites, which can be tons larger and even 5x larger than lunar orbiting satellites.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Not one person typed 'Idiot' on this page but you.

just saying

Deniers always introduce things from the past when they start losing a debate, its not so much moving the goal posts, but changing the whole game so hopefully focus is distorted from the subject at hand. That is below the belt tactics.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Not one person typed 'Idiot' on this page but you.

just saying

Deniers always introduce things from the past when they start losing a debate, its not so much moving the goal posts, but changing the whole game so hopefully focus is distorted from the subject at hand. That is below the belt tactics.

Dude,
Just when I was starting to appreciate you, you jump up with this stereo-type jazz.
Do be a Prince and look at the previous page.
Also, why would you waste your time saying stuff like this when you are really so much better at parroting all the techy talk. And quite well may I add.
BTW I am human not just a robotic shill. And I do feel it is a waste of all of our time replying to your post above. I was brought up well enough to know that it is not nice to ignore someone. Actually I thought this was a discussion not a debate. Perhaps I have just wandered into a Trecky fest.
The photo that was posted at the begining looks like someeone overcooked a pizza.
Please tell me why it don't

reply to post by ProudBird


ThQ for the ascent film, Proud Bird. Had not seen that. A thing of beauty!

To me, the question is more what was found up there which has kept us less active on the Moon.

Cheers,
Nexo

bird,

The "this is how it works here" stetement is way far over the top, hell the MOON. Sorry but I really have to ask you, I really do.
Who died and left you BOSS.
Your presumption that the images are "real and verifiable is nothing but a egotistical fantasy.
If you beleive it, can I ask, were you upset when your dad finnally admited that Santa and the tooth fairy were fake?
Thanks for the links but they have nothing to do with the photos that look like an adolesent cave drawing.
I made my case about the rocks. It is iron clad x2
Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by nexotop
reply to post by ProudBird

 

ThQ for the ascent film, Proud Bird. Had not seen that. A thing of beauty!

To me, the question is more what was found up there which has kept us less active on the Moon.

Cheers,
Nexo

Hi Nexo

With out a doubt, the question that will only be answered with the most watered down, evasive, techno speak ever.
No money, tax payers don't want it, aunt nancy has a toenail problem.

Originally posted by nexotop
reply to post by ProudBird

 

ThQ for the ascent film, Proud Bird. Had not seen that. A thing of beauty!

To me, the question is more what was found up there which has kept us less active on the Moon.

Cheers,
Nexo

They originally went to the Moon just to go to the Moon. Once they prove their superiority over the Soviet Union by going to the Moon repeatedly, they had no reason to keep going.

Apollo 13 probably gave them a reason to go a bit longer (to prove Apollo 13 was a fluke accident, and they actually had the technological superiority), but by the 7th trip, they realized they just didn't care anymore. By the time that 7th mission occurred, they realized they had no valid reason to keep going, because they proved that they could do it, and do it safely and repeatedly, so they cancelled the last three planned missions (Apollos 18 through 20).

They basically quit while they were ahead, and then could not justify any reason for returning.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Also it wasn't until Apollo 15 that a lunar rover was landed by NASA, that is a not so small part of why Apollo 17 happened before the program was cancelled. Of course it was not autonomous, it had to be manned to go.

This is also part of the trust that Russia continued the Lunokhod programme, because NASA didn't have an autonomous rover, for at least another decade. It was also the first powered extraterrestrial landing Russia succeed in, (they had trouble with that, now think about a manned craft, how much more mass that is), is why Russia couldn't land live men on the moon, then, and their priorities would have compromised actually getting them back alive. It is their space history, life isn't as important as the 'supposed' 'achievement'.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by nexotop
reply to post by ProudBird

 

ThQ for the ascent film, Proud Bird. Had not seen that. A thing of beauty!

To me, the question is more what was found up there which has kept us less active on the Moon.

Cheers,
Nexo

They basically quit while they were ahead, and then could not justify any reason for returning.

edit on 3/12/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Heck if this could be true then every casino or bingo operation would have closed down the day after they opened.

reply to post by nexotop


What "was found up there", IF...."groundbreaking" or "earthshattering" would have meant an increase in the NASA budget....instead of the Draconian cuts.... (AND, yes!!! Feel free to use the term "Draconian" to add to the "reptilian" meme that is so de rigeur. nowadays.

(Sorry if that comes off as a bit jaded or sarcastic....it's Par for the Course, if you have been keeping track......)

Doesn't matter whether Apollo is mentioned in "real science" ATS Forums, or in "Highly Speculative" ATS Forums, or anywhere in-between...the same nonsense (not accusing YOU, specifically...just "ranting") turns up.....

SIGH......

I see no end to the nonsense....and, this site....of all places!!!!(?)....should be a sort of "clearinghouse" of the crap.

What a shame.....

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by nexotop
reply to post by ProudBird

 

ThQ for the ascent film, Proud Bird. Had not seen that. A thing of beauty!

To me, the question is more what was found up there which has kept us less active on the Moon.

Cheers,
Nexo

Hi Nexo

With out a doubt, the question that will only be answered with the most watered down, evasive, techno speak ever.
No money, tax payers don't want it, aunt nancy has a toenail problem.

Hot Damn I was on track

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

They basically quit while they were ahead, and then could not justify any reason for returning.

Heck if this could be true then every casino or bingo operation would have closed down the day after they opened.

Casinos make a lot of money. Moon missions cost a lot of money...

...a hell of a lot of money. NASA's budget during Apollo was astronomical [no pun intended] compared to after Apollo.