Why are the LROC images so lousy?

reply to post by Point of No Return

No you went for the one closest to the LROC quality.

Exactly. You now understand what my original point was. I was not trying to say the LROC images are of the same quality as all of the images that we can see on Google Earth. The reason for my comparison to the Ikonos image was exactly because it was close to the LROC images.

I think a lot of the complaints about the quality of the LROC images come from the fact that there is so little in the images (rocks and craters) to judge the scale. I wanted to just how high the quality really is by making a comparison to an image of similar resolution but with features that are recognizable and easy to relate to. No, the image of Rio is not the best resolution available. But it looks pretty darn good. Don't you think?

The resolution of the LROC images will get better. We may even get to see better images of the landing sites. But I doubt (actually, I hope I'm wrong) that we will see much better detail in the LM's than we see now. I'm pretty sure that they will still be nothing more than blobs of pixels as will any object of their size.

We are going to be able to see the entire surface of the Moon at this, and better resolution. The point of my OP was to help give some perspective to what we are actually seeing. It was not to get into a pissing match about the resolution of Google Earth images and the LROC images.

[edit on 7/20/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

I think a lot of the complaints about the quality of the LROC images come from the fact that there is so little in the images (rocks and craters) to judge the scale.

!!

That is the proverbial hammer on the head of the nail, right there!

AND, it's not just the LROC imaging. It's inevitable, one of the blokes who cries that the Apollo photos and videos are "fake!" because they don't "look right" are missing the point!

We are so accustomed, here on Earth, to scale...because of familiar objects, we can guage with some accuracy the size of the unfamilar, also taking into account our sense of perspective.

Also, for horizontal views, atmospheric haze effects, on Earth, contribute to a sense of 'distance'.

Example: A line of telelphone poles, on a straight desert road. The apparent size diminsh with distance, yes? They are all the same height, they aren't getting smaller in reality...it's perspective.

NOW...the Moon...there is no scale! Nothing familiar to give a sense of perspective and scale...except, soon, better images of the Apollo hardware.

The irony of the "haoxists" is --- they claim of Apollo fakery, photographed on Earth on "sets" somewhere, when in fact, the very things that make the pictures look 'odd' are the incongruences because it is an alien environment!!!

But....I have despaired in trying to get that simple point accross, anymore...

reply to post by Phage

Exactly. You now understand what my original point was. I was not trying to say the LROC images are of the same quality as all of the images that we can see on Google Earth. The reason for my comparison to the Ikonos image was exactly because it was close to the LROC images.

No, your original point was that the LROC images were not lousy, because they were comparible to the picture of Rio, of almost the same quality.

When people say that the pictures are lousy, they mean they are not zoomed in enough.

So comparing to a picture of the same quality, and coming to the conclusion that because they are comparible, the first one must not be lousy, is a fallacy.

To my standards they are lousy, cause I know satellites can do better. And you know that to.

That is the whole point.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
When people say that the pictures are lousy, they mean they are not zoomed in enough.

To "zoom in" significantly more, you're going to need a significantly bigger lens; you can't just up the focal length and continue to get the same quality, and the final orbit of this mission will be just about as low as you can safely go. The one they're using is already .2 meters, which is pretty darn good. If you want a bigger lens, you're going to need a bigger satellite, if you want a bigger satellite, you're going to need a much bigger rocket. The world's best spy satellites have 14 times the mass of LRO. Getting that amount of mass into lunar orbit requires almost as much thrust and fuel as a manned mission to the moon would need. If you're going to go to all that trouble, why not just send a manned mission at that point? The only reason from your point of view is that you'll just cry fake if they put a man (or woman) in it.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by weedwhacker

NOW...the Moon...there is no scale!

It doesn't matter in this case, it's about zooming in, the problem is not that we can't see the LM properly because of the lack of scale, it's the lack of zoom.

You also was pretty sure that all of the high zoom Google Earth imagery was airplane imagery.

How do you explain the fact that I can zoom in on North Korea and Iran, just as far as in my own backyard, how can that not be satellite imagery?

This was posted by Phage, but it's just a random quote from a Google helpdesk, it doesn't go into detail about where aerial imagery is applied.

I don't think the both of you actually know what you are talking about.

With Google Earth, your computer becomes a window to anywhere on the planet, allowing you to view high-resolution aerial and satellite imagery, elevation terrain, road and street labels, business listings, and more.

reply to post by ngchunter


Sigh, is that hard to understand.

People complain that the pics are lousy, because they can't really see anything, not enough zoom.

As a reaction to that, Phage starts this thread, saying that they aren't lousy, because they have the same characteristics as the Rio picture, wich is of almost the same quality.

He makes it look like the problem is with the scale, wich is not, the pics just aren't zoomed in enough.

So don't give me that technical stuff, it's not what my point is about.

The only reason from your point of view is that you'll just cry fake if they put a man (or woman) in it.

Ah, the unavoidable stigma. You know nothing of my views.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

NOW...the Moon...there is no scale!

It doesn't matter in this case, it's about zooming in, the problem is not that we can't see the LM properly because of the lack of scale, it's the lack of zoom.

Please, study optics in a little more depth. You can't just "zoom in" more once you've reached the maximum useful magnification of your telescope (and that's basically what LRO is, a flying interplanetary telescope). Given LRO's orbital speed, required exposure time, etc, you can't get anything more out of it. You'd need a much bigger optic to get what you're wanting, and therefore a much bigger rocket. May as well do a manned mission at that point.

You also was pretty sure that all of the high zoom Google Earth imagery was airplane imagery.

How do you explain the fact that I can zoom in on North Korea and Iran, just as far as in my own backyard, how can that not be satellite imagery?

Frankly, the google maps imagery of Tehran looks like crap compared to what I get of my own back yard (which are obviously aerial photos taken from an angle).

Originally posted by Point of No Return
He makes it look like the problem is with the scale, wich is not, the pics just aren't zoomed in enough.

I think phage may have a point in some cases of people's complaints, but just because two people have the same complaint does not mean the complaint came from the same cause or lack of understanding.

So don't give me that technical stuff, it's not what my point is about.

It's the truth though, even if you disregard phage's illuminating image comparison.

Ah, the unavoidable stigma. You know nothing of my views.

So will you then be prepared to accept the Constellation missions as genuine and accept the evidence that comes out about apollo as a result?

reply to post by ngchunter

Please, study optics in a little more depth. You can't just "zoom in" more once you've reached the maximum useful magnification of your telescope (and that's basically what LRO is, a flying interplanetary telescope).

Double sigh...I know that devices can't go beyond their specifications, but that's not my point.

My main point here is that OP seems to think that people call these pictures lousy, due to the lack of scale and perspective, but it's because they can't see enough, there not zoomed in enough.

Regardless of the specs of the LROC.

On a personal note, I believe they are always capable of more than they admit to, but that aside.

Frankly, the google maps imagery of Tehran looks like crap compared to what I get of my own back yard (which are obviously aerial photos taken from an angle).

Oh jeah, on G Maps they are pretty good, but with G Earth you can zoom in even further. Did you see the GM image of Korea I posted, you can see the lines on the road.

edit to add; I just looked at Teheran, and you can very very clearly see the different cars and lines on the road, in the same quality of my backyard, wich is good.

And there is no way that that is aerial imagery from Iran.

So will you then be prepared to accept the Constellation missions as genuine and accept the evidence that comes out about apollo as a result?

That's what I mean, you just assume that I think we didn't go to the moon, I even made clear earlier in this thread that that's not the case.





[edit on 20-7-2009 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ngchunter

 

My main point here is that OP seems to think that people call these pictures lousy, due to the lack of scale and perspective,

I think for some people the OP's point may be true. Scale is hard to judge in these images. For others they just have unreleastic expectations when the capabilities of this probe were known well ahead of time.

but it's because they can't see enough, there not zoomed in enough.

Zoom has little to do with it. Spatial resolution are the words you're looking for.

edit to add; I just looked at Teheran, and you can very very clearly see the different cars and lines on the road, in the same quality of my backyard, wich is good.

Well, it doesn't look nearly as good as my backyard, and the top level of zoom isn't even available. GE lets you zoom in past the point of useful resolution, so that's pretty meaningless.

And there is no way that that is aerial imagery from Iran.

Which would explain why the spatial resolution is so much lower than it is for my house.

That's what I mean, you just assume that I think we didn't go to the moon, I even made clear earlier in this thread that that's not the case.

Good, so if and when Constellation does mapping of the moon in preparation for follow-on manned missions (similar to what apollo did for later apollo missions) and their hardware specs follow the same laws of optics as LRO's did based on its specs, will you admit that NASA wasn't keeping anything from us?

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Yes PONR, I see what you are saying. The title is a little misleading in order to help convert people to Phage's point of view. Yes better resolution is possible but with the whole package of instruments this is appropriate resolution for their purpose. Phage is correct, just a little sensational in the title. And PointoNR is pointing that out. I see it too. I feel the real angst could be this. Perhaps NASA had higher quality images but recorded over them. I’m still upset about that too!

reply to post by ngchunter

I think for some people the OP's point may be true. Scale is hard to judge in these images. For others they just have unreleastic expectations when the capabilities of this probe were known well ahead of time.

That just doesn't make sense. What is that people would like to see?

The Lunar Module! What is the thing that is preventing us from seeing it clearly?

The magnification(or lack thereof), off course, not the scale. Don't be so illogical.

Also, I saw a lot of talk about how these pics would silence the skeptics and such.

Well, it doesn't look nearly as good as my backyard, and the top level of zoom isn't even available. GE lets you zoom in past the point of useful resolution, so that's pretty meaningless.

You're either lying, or your GE is messed up, my GE shows the same high res zoomed in image quality for Teheran as for my whereabouts here in Holland.

Zoom has little to do with it. Spatial resolution are the words you're looking for.

I wasn't looking for words, it is pretty clear what i mean, but I'll use magnification from now.

Good, so if and when Constellation does mapping of the moon in preparation for follow-on manned missions (similar to what apollo did for later apollo missions) and their hardware specs follow the same laws of optics as LRO's did based on its specs, will you admit that NASA wasn't keeping anything from us?

Why do you want me to admit these things, NASA is keeping things from us, it's so naive to think that it's not the case.







[edit on 20-7-2009 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
That just doesn't make sense. What is that people would like to see?

The Lunar Module! What is the thing that is preventing us from seeing it clearly?

The magnification(or lack thereof), off course, not the scale. Don't be so illogical.

Wrong. Magnification is meaningless without spatial resolution. What YOU are demanding is that LRO should have the spatial resolution of the world's best spy satellites instead of your average earth observation sat. I really don't think you speak for everyone.

You're either lying, or your GE is messed up, my GE shows the same high res zoomed in image quality for Teheran as for my whereabouts here in Holland.

Or maybe holland's data isn't as good, or maybe you're seeing what you want to see, whatever the case, it doesn't matter to me, I know what I see; my house is far more resolved and I'm not lying.

I wasn't looking for words, it is pretty clear what i mean, but I'll use magnification from now.

"Magnification" wouldn't get you what you want, spatial resolution would. There's a huge difference, and failure to recognize it is a large part of what leads to this confusion over the quality of the images.

Why do you want me to admit these things, NASA is keeping things from us, it's so naive to think that it's not the case.

So you won't admit that the laws of optics (and limitations thereof) apply even to NASA's optics then, even if Constellation's observations confirm this?

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

Wrong. Magnification is meaningless without spatial resolution. What YOU are demanding is that LRO should have the spatial resolution of the world's best spy satellites instead of your average earth observation sat. I really don't think you speak for everyone.

I was just pointing out that the reason that people call the pics lousy, is because they are not zoomed in enough, you can't really see the LM, and you were saying this:

I think for some people the OP's point may be true. Scale is hard to judge in these images.

Once more, the scale is not the problem.

You are now just attacking me on semantics, you know what I mean, spatial resolution, magnification, zoom, whatever makes the LM visible.

I'm not demanding that the LRO should have the quality of the best spy satellites, but just that of the average earth observation sat.

Like Google Earth satellites.

Or maybe holland's data isn't as good,

I have to say you're right there, I apologize for my comment on that.

I looked at New York with GE, and it is of higher quality, indeed. That is aerial imagery.

It doesn't matter to my point though, cause the imagery of Holland, or Iran is satellite imagery, and it is still better than that LROC image.

You can see LM sized objects much better, even though the images come from an average earth observation sat.

"Magnification" wouldn't get you what you want, spatial resolution would. There's a huge difference, and failure to recognize it is a large part of what leads to this confusion over the quality of the images.

No, it doesn't, it's just semantics, maybe I used the wrong word whatever, GE earth satellite imagery is still better than that LROC picture to me, because I can actually see LM sized objects very clear on there.

So you won't admit that the laws of optics (and limitations thereof) apply even to NASA's optics then, even if Constellation's observations confirm this?

No, because I'm not debating that, besides you asked if I would admit that NASA wasn't holding stuff back, wich I will never do, because I know they are.

Not saying they are in this case, but lot's of info is being held back, sure you believe they have a 100% honesty policy towards the rest of the world, but I don't.





[edit on 20-7-2009 by Point of No Return]

If anyone on the forums has access to a tr-3b i'm in georgia and would love a trip up to see the blue crater on the moon

Excellent post Phage, S+F!

Some people may not like the facts, but the facts are, as they say, the facts.

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Or maybe holland's data isn't as good,

I have to say you're right there, I apologize for my comment on that.

I looked at New York with GE, and it is of higher quality, indeed. That is aerial imagery.

It doesn't matter to my point though, cause the imagery of Holland, or Iran is satellite imagery, and it is still better than that LROC image.

I'm actually delighted to see people actually examining the facts, and then being convinced by them as your post indicates! It actually gives me a sense of renewed faith that some people on ATS are really seeking truth instead of blindly sticking to preconceived notions! Way to go!!! As you discovered, the top level resolution in Google Earth does vary from place to place.

Now as for the 1 meter resolution we have now versus the 0.5m resolution we hope to get, think about this. Let's say we have a black dot for a pixel at the 1m resolution. At 0.5m resolution, that same area will be represented by 4 pixels, so we might see 3 black pixels and one gray pixel.

Well on the positive side, that's 4 times as much information, so it's better quality, but seriously, if you weren't sure what that 1 pixel black dot was, I'm pretty sure than when you see 4 pixels instead of 1, you still won't know what it is.

As for seeing the alien bases, I would assume that the censors will just classify those images so we never get to see them, right? (tongue firmly in cheek)

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Once more, the scale is not the problem.

For you, you do not speak for every person out there. Personally I found the OP's scale demonstration to be quite illuminating.

You are now just attacking me on semantics, you know what I mean, spatial resolution, magnification, zoom, whatever makes the LM visible.

It's not just semantics, the words mean very different things and imply very different solutions. Indeed, if the only thing lacking was magnification, it would imply that NASA was intentionally holding back because any telescope can theoretically achieve just about any magnification. Angular, and by extension, spatial resolution is the only real question.

I'm not demanding that the LRO should have the quality of the best spy satellites, but just that of the average earth observation sat.

IKONOS is an average earth observation satellite with resolution equivalent to what LRO has already achieved and 50% less than what LRO will achieve in its final orbit.

Like Google Earth satellites.

Google recently implemented CNES/SPOT satellite images for parts of Europe (not including yours) - it has 2.5 meter resolution, much lower than that of LRO:
www.gearthblog.com...
GeoEye provides the highest resolution satellite imagery for google, and it's brand spanking new. It has a resolution of 50cm, the highest achieved by LRO so far (though not at the Apollo sites), and the resolution that will be achieved at the Apollo sites once LRO settles into its final orbit:
blogs.zdnet.com...
Your standard has been met.

reply to post by ngchunter

GeoEye provides the highest resolution satellite imagery for google, and it's brand spanking new. It has a resolution of 50cm, the highest achieved by LRO so far (though not at the Apollo sites), and the resolution that will be achieved at the Apollo sites once LRO settles into its final orbit: blogs.zdnet.com... Your standard has been met.

No, my standard hasn't been met, maybe it will in the future, but with these LROC images, it clearly hasn't yet.

Like I said, on the GE satellite imagery I can still see LM sized objects, way, way better.

Angular, and by extension, spatial resolution is the only real question.

Ok spatial resolution is the problem here, but not the scale.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
No, my standard hasn't been met,

Yes, it has. I don't know how else to explain it to you, but you're just plain wrong. Google's best satellite imagery is literally no better than what LRO will be capable of (and has proven itself capable of in some of the early pre-apollo images). GeoEye is google's top of the line satellite (not even the "average" satellite), and the resolution it attains is IDENTICAL to LRO's.

blogs.zdnet.com...

[edit on 21-7-2009 by ngchunter]

I would like to comment that LRO is not in its final orbit for taking images yet. Right now it is in a higher orbit from a small TLI burn, eventually as it moves down to the correct orbit the resolution will improve. In fact, it is quite a feat that it was able to see the landers at its current orbit!