China Just Released True Color HD Photos Of The Moon

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're right, each segment there represents one chunk of the moon. You need a specific type of viewer to look at them, for example 'Nasaview'

pds.nasa.gov...

which allows you to save the image as a jpg or gif.

Here's an example of the output from the section covering Taurus-Littrow:



and a crop of the Taurus-Littrow valley:

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thanks.


I'd never even heard of Nasaview so I'll look into that more, as well.

a reply to: GaryN

so it might be that the 'light' that travels through space is in the EUV range, and the thin lunar atmosphere is creating the UV that the instrument detects

But that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. UV isn't created from EUV by atmosphere. Scattering doesn't affect frequency AFAIK.

This can be discussed further here www.abovetopsecret.com... for as long as it takes, and be perfectly on topic. Are you up for it?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

No problem

I actually got the software to look at India's images from their site, and found it worked OK for the stuff in the Chinese downloads as well (bit of trial and error to work out which file to open!).

There may well be other software that works just as well.

What are these? Is this the area the Chang'e-3 lander platform landed?



Image

a reply to: Hex1an
They look like they could be boulders.

originally posted by: Swills

techcrunch.com...:qSI6

The images were taken a few years ago by cameras on the Chang’e 3 lander and Yutu rover. In December of 2013, China joined the ranks of Russia and the United States when they successfully soft-landed on the lunar surface, becoming the third country ever to accomplish this feat.

What made China’s mission especially remarkable was that it was the first soft-landing on the moon in 37 years, since the Russians landed their Luna 24 probe back in 1976.

Today, anyone can create a user account on China’s Science and Application Center for Moon and Deepspace Exploration website to download the pictures themselves. The process is a bit cumbersome and the connection to the website is spotty if you’re accessing it outside of China.

I look forward to more pictures from China! Now, I wonder, who here thinks this is another faked Moon landing?

I'm a little hazy here, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked I'm pretty sure the whole moon fakery issue pertains around actual humans running around on the surface of the moon does it not ?? sometime around the late sixties / early seventies using the technology of the day was it ???

originally posted by: Hex1an
What are these? Is this the area the Chang'e-3 lander platform landed?

Image

Boulders, looking patchy and colourful due to the way the final image was assembled from the sensor covered with a bayer matrix filter. If you look at the rest of the image you'll see such patchiness and colourfulness in other parts of the image.

originally posted by: Dalkinion
I'm a little hazy here, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked I'm pretty sure the whole moon fakery issue pertains around actual humans running around on the surface of the moon does it not ?? sometime around the late sixties / early seventies using the technology of the day was it ???

To many people here on ATS, the whole business of going to space (or even putting satellites and space stations into Earth's orbit) is fake. Some people even think that the night sky you see above your head is a hologram or some other kind of illusion.

a reply to: wildespace

Indeed. There has already been "China's Moon landing is fake!" threads, such as this one from a couple of years ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And there have been "It is impossible to send satellites or spacecraft of any kind into space" threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

If there is not enough atmosphere on the moon to create visible light for the camera, then how do you explain the visible light photographs?

Earthshine mostly, and at certain times the beam created by the fine lunar dust by way of solar UV excitation.
cdn.phys.org...
There is no visible light from the Sun, the light is created in the atmosphere, a full spectrum visible light is produced by silica nanoparticles when UV bombarded, that is an accepted fact now.

We report that the sintering at 1000 °C of silica nanoparticles (an average diameter of 14 nm) produces a transparent sample that exhibits a bright visible emission under UV excitation.

The lunar surface is covered in nm sized silica glass particles created by impactors over billions of years. ( I say from ekectrical discharges not impacts, but that's another story) The dust is lofted into the atmosphere by charging of the dust by solar UV radiation. The beam of light, obvious in both Apollo and Chang'e images is created in the lunar dust atmosphere, and not by scattering of Sunlight by the dust. There is no Sunlight to scatter, there are no images of the Sun from cislunar space.

Both Apollo 14 and 16 photographed Venus from the surface, and not with particularly long exposures. It's a very bright planet.

Yet none of the astronauts reported seeing this very bright Venus from the Lunar surface. And don't give me the dark visor, bright lunar surface nonsense. If they could see Earth, and Venus was close by it should have been blindingly obvious. Has Chang'e imaged Venus? You're probably going to tell me they have no reason to, they are not there to take images of stars or planets at visible wavelengths, for some reason I can't figure out.

@DenyObfuscation

But that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. UV isn't created from EUV by atmosphere. Scattering doesn't affect frequency AFAIK.

I say the light IS created by the dust, and if there are no images of the Sun from Lunar orbit, then there is no Sunlight to scatter.

This can be discussed further here www.abovetopsecret.com... for as long as it takes, and be perfectly on topic. Are you up for it?

And who is going to answer the question of creation vs scattering? Only experiments can answer that, and they have not and never will be performed. If the Chang'e camera can not image the stars with a few seconds of exposure, then they are not visible by eye, simple as that.

a reply to: wildespace

Patchy is an understatement... They look terrible.

originally posted by: GaryN


Earthshine mostly, and at certain times the beam created by the fine lunar dust by way of solar UV excitation.
cdn.phys.org...
There is no visible light from the Sun, the light is created in the atmosphere, a full spectrum visible light is produced by silica nanoparticles when UV bombarded, that is an accepted fact now.

Only in your imagination. There is not enough lunar atmosphere to produce what you think is happening, and what you think you have understood from the scientific paper you have skimmed is incorrect and applied inappropriately to this situation. How is the moon lit by Earthshine when it is full?

The lunar surface is covered in nm sized silica glass particles created by impactors over billions of years. ( I say from ekectrical discharges not impacts, but that's another story) The dust is lofted into the atmosphere by charging of the dust by solar UV radiation. The beam of light, obvious in both Apollo and Chang'e images is created in the lunar dust atmosphere, and not by scattering of Sunlight by the dust. There is no Sunlight to scatter, there are no images of the Sun from cislunar space.

We've been through this, you're wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat it you are still wrong. There are many photographs of the sun in cislunar space, you just refuse to accept them and move the goalposts.

Yet none of the astronauts reported seeing this very bright Venus from the Lunar surface. And don't give me the dark visor, bright lunar surface nonsense. If they could see Earth, and Venus was close by it should have been blindingly obvious. Has Chang'e imaged Venus? You're probably going to tell me they have no reason to, they are not there to take images of stars or planets at visible wavelengths, for some reason I can't figure out.

Don't tell me what I think. My contention is that at least in the Apollo 14 images they knew exactly what they were photographing because the Earth was a thin sliver then - particularly true of the shot taken from inside the LM after the EVAs. I have as much proof of that as you do of your ideas. Just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean they didn't see it. As it happens Alan Shepard specifically mentions Venus en route back to the CSM.

China have a probe there to prove they can have a probe there. They have a UV telescope to see stars and planets. A visible spectrum telescope is of very little use in an area always exposed to either earthshine or sunshine. They will eventually have a telescope on the lunar far side, which will prove you completely wrong when they post photos of it in bright sunlight.

Full color photos of ... grey. Amazing shades of grey !

what are those? They look like debris, because they are multiple colors, brown, green, red, yellow...



they are mostly purple/blue and some green/brown/yellow. Is there any better ress and size for the images? Nothing special the way it is 72dpi and we cannot create nice crops, just pixels.

Have you seen the new project by a guy ufologist in the news? He will send a mini-cube sattelite, with hd cameras to hunt ufos and with open platform for all to watch live (he claims)... We may see good stuff.

a reply to: Mianeye

Of course, stars don’t appear in the images because the light reflecting from the surface blocks them out, like how you can’t see stars in the night sky when you look at a street light.


www.iflscience.com...

originally posted by: hackedaccount492
a reply to: Mianeye

Of course, stars don’t appear in the images because the light reflecting from the surface blocks them out, like how you can’t see stars in the night sky when you look at a street light.


www.iflscience.com...

It also has to do with camera exposure settings. The brightness of the sunlit Moon is similar to being in the middle of a sunlit parking lot (the Moon has a similar effectiveness as old blacktop pavement does). Due to this brightness, camera exposures must be set on daylight settings. At that setting, the shutter does not stay open long enough to capture enough starlight for the stars to appear in the image.

If you took a camera that could have its exposure time manually set, and set that exposure for daylight, then tried to take a picture of a starry sky at night with those daytime exposure settings (fast shutter), it would be likely that no stars would show up in the picture, even though you can see the stars with your eyes.

By the way, a person there might have the same problem. A person's eyes would be adjusted to daylight conditions, and they might not let enough light in to be able to see stars (except maybe only some bright ones).'

LANDER PHOTOS: planetary.s3.amazonaws.com...

ROVER PHOTOS:
planetary.s3.amazonaws.com...

So they wait 3 years to release the pics. If nothing crazy is on the moon, there's no reason to wait that long, even if it's China. They need 3 years to actually proofread the photos.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
what are those? They look like debris, because they are multiple colors, brown, green, red, yellow...

they are mostly purple/blue and some green/brown/yellow. Is there any better ress and size for the images? Nothing special the way it is 72dpi and we cannot create nice crops, just pixels.

Have you seen the new project by a guy ufologist in the news? He will send a mini-cube sattelite, with hd cameras to hunt ufos and with open platform for all to watch live (he claims)... We may see good stuff.

There must be something wrong with your vision, because I can't see any of the colours you mentioned in that photo.

That said, there are many coloured rocks on the Moon, and their colour is determined by their mineral composition. The Apollo moonwalkers found blue rocks, green rocks, and even purple rocks: the-moon.wikispaces.com...