On the Moon - just some boulders or is this a Lunar Rover ?

About a year ago, I wrote a search program for the lunar orbiter images with approximate tie-ups to craters so go to this website and put in 'Schroteri' (without the double dots over the 'o') into the search item on the menu (3rd one down)

It should give you features in the vicinity and some LO image links. I believe the official one only does LO4 images. I think it is fairly accurate but it uses an approximation to determine which features appear in which images, so it could miss the mark.

My gut feeling is that it could be a Moon Buggy (similar to a Beach Buggy) used by the Moonies.

We should be able to find out how large this thing is (if it is a track from a rollong something) by measuring the distance between the similar points on the track and knowing that this 'thing' was roughly circular at the time it was moving (before it broke apart).

I still dont think it is rocks. The image of the rock rolling down Vitello crater on this or the other thread ( I cannot remember where) gives a very good example of a rock rolling down a slope on the Moon and I just cannot reconcile it in my mind. I know I am not a lunar scientist so maybe there are similarities I cannot see.

Originally posted by qmantoo
We should be able to find out how large this thing is (if it is a track from a rollong something) by measuring the distance between the similar points on the track and knowing that this 'thing' was roughly circular at the time it was moving (before it broke apart).

I downloaded the IMG version of the image (available here), but as it doesn't have resolution data I could only measure it in pixels and use the resolution posted on the image's page (0.6 metres per pixel).

The track width is some 12 pixels, which gives us an object width of some 7.2 metres.

The spaces between repetitions of the track marks is some 32 pixels (although the distance between the last two marks is smaller, just 30 pixels), which gives us a perimeter of some 19 metres and a diameter (if the object has/had a mostly circular cross section) of 6 metres.

I still dont think it is rocks. The image of the rock rolling down Vitello crater on this or the other thread ( I cannot remember where) gives a very good example of a rock rolling down a slope on the Moon and I just cannot reconcile it in my mind. I know I am not a lunar scientist so maybe there are similarities I cannot see.

I don't see many differences between this track and the one (the bigger) from Vitello crater.

In the case of Vitello crater we see a rock that is more cylinder-shaped, so it has more points of contact with the ground, while in this case, judging by the track, the object (that I suppose is a rock) is not as smooth-surfaced as in the other case, so the track is not as clear as the other.

Originally posted by wisper

what filter is that?

reply to post by wisper


What's the use of that?

reply to post by ArMaP


The seperation of the boulders/rocks if it was a probe? there wouldn't be so much seperation i guess.

reply to post by flexy123


Not a filter an effect added to the image, there is boulders/rocks there but also taller objects surrounding the rocks maybe taller rocks?

Originally posted by wisper
The seperation of the boulders/rocks if it was a probe? there wouldn't be so much seperation i guess.

How is that effect supposed to show anything new?

If it wasn't there in the original image, then it was "invented" by the effect, if it was already there it's so exaggerated that I don't understand a thing of that's supposed to do.

Originally posted by wisperNot a filter an effect added to the image, there is boulders there but also tall objects surrounding the boulders.

Tall objects? How can you say that based on some effect that plays with the pixels from the image?

There's no filter or effect that can show any thing like that.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by wisper
The seperation of the boulders/rocks if it was a probe? there wouldn't be so much seperation i guess.

How is that effect supposed to show anything new?

If it wasn't there in the original image, then it was "invented" by the effect, if it was already there it's so exaggerated that I don't understand a thing of that's supposed to do.

The effect shows land mass between what we perceive as an entire object. the effect doesn't invent it highlights what already is there.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by wisperNot a filter an effect added to the image, there is boulders there but also tall objects surrounding the boulders.

Tall objects? How can you say that based on some effect that plays with the pixels from the image?

There's no filter or effect that can show any thing like that.

by the shadow before the effect is added, the effect creates a dark block surrounding the image.

It certainly is not rocks, other explainations well I am all out

reply to post by michael1983l


maybe both rocks and an object!

reply to post by michael1983l


Its a moon Yeti. You can tell my the way it walks,

reply to post by Xeven


What are you talking about. This is a moon yeti:

Haha, nah, it's just "rocks" too.

Originally posted by wisper
The effect shows land mass between what we perceive as an entire object.

No, the effect reduces the size of the brightest areas and increases the size of the darker areas, it doesn't show land mass.

the effect doesn't invent it highlights what already is there.

But it highlights them by changing the image.

When comparing the effect with the original photo you can see that the effect is changing the original data, but it does it without any way of knowing what is the object and what is the ground.

What is that effect called? Most filters and effects have an explanation of how they work, and that's usually by changing a pixel based on the ones surrounding it.

I suspect the 'effect' is a composite of a filter or more overlaid in different composite controls. One artifact I see is similar to the 'bass relief' control likely multiplied and turned down, I say this because of the concentric 'rings' that show up throughout the image.
In order to play around with combining or overlaying settings the resolution of the image was increased by 600% to provide more pixels to play with, but that also increases image averaging of the individual pixels, further distorting or inventing original data. It also increased the pixel count by converting the grayscale to RGB, but that could just have been a final conversion, one can see interesting effects of the emboss filter when an image is converted to lab color
But alas I don't think someone sat down and played around a bunch of filter combinations, I suspect this is some already designed filter package one can download from various digital darkroom image manipulation tools sites. After all it can only manipulate the original pixels, I doubt the artist had access to additional spectrographic or DEM data, which isn't at the same resolution.

The flicking back and forth is annoying....

Originally posted by ArMaP
But it highlights them by changing the image.

Yes it does highlight i'll go with changing okay of course no one can deny somesort of modifcation (in order to highlight) as to be applied to the image to see it a different way.

Originally posted by ArMaPWhen comparing the effect with the original photo you can see that the effect is changing the original data, but it does it without any way of knowing what is the object and what is the ground.

Well before and after the effect is added we can still see shadows casting off the objects and casting onto the ground in a miniscule amount the effect did change the shadows but not distorting it enough that viewers are left in a state of bewilderment.

Of course there is the possiblity that the shadows are covering more of the rocks/land mass/moon buggy.....

A familiar picture with the same effect.