LRO Team Releases High Res Topographic Map of Moon

Link to Article

We have a more detailed topographic map of the moon now. On Google Earth I can zoom in on my car on my driveway. Why can't I zoom in on the moon landing sites yet? I mean, with more convincing detail than has been released thus far. The satellites should orbit lower on the moon than the earth, and should be equipped with the best cameras money can buy.



Larger Image:

When you zoom in on your car in your driveway you are zooming in on an image from an airplane, not a satellite.

Here is a satellite image at 0.5m/pixel (the highest resolution of satellite images of Earth allowed for commercial use by the DOD).
geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com...

Here is an LROC image of the Apollo 14 landing site at 0.5m/pixel (and there are better available).
www.lroc.asu.edu...

Considering that the descent stage is about 13 feet across
upload.wikimedia.org...

A Chevy Blazer is 14 feet long, what is it that you would expect to see?

The LRO is there to do science, not to prove that man walked on the Moon.

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
On Google Earth I can zoom in on my car on my driveway. Why can't I zoom in on the moon landing sites yet?

That is because you are under surveillance for publicly doubting the moon landings. Quite a few us are keeping an eye on you ever since Colonel Aldrin ordered it.

But actually, you can zoom in on several of the Apollo sites-- it is in your Layers/Moon Gallery/Apollo Missions- just click the box.

(the "Moon Gallery" folder only appears when you have selected Moon for viewing)

Or, perhaps, I downloaded the hi-res upgrade;

Or... maybe my version of Google Earth (Moon) is privileged because I am on public record as knowing that the moon landings were real. For that matter... my car always seems to be in the shadows. Coincidence? I think not.

Also I would just like to add those cameras actually on satellites around earth weigh a hell of a lot, and we are getting almost the same pixel resolution from LROC, it's just the moon doesn't have the distinguishable characteristics that a city on earth does.

Phage had an excellent thread illustrating this a while back. Maybe we get a link to it because it was thorough.

Go to Google earth, and zoom in on a place in Tajikistan, not so high rez is it. That is a typical satellite image, the people you can almost make out on a beach in Cabo San Lucas, is from an airplane.

Future versions The current model incorporates the first year of stereo imaging; there is another year of data that can be added to the solution. These additional stereo images will not only improve the sharpness (resolution) of the model but also fill in very small gaps that exist in the current map. Also the LROC team has made small improvements to the camera distortion model and the LOLA team has improved our knowledge of the spacecraft position over time. These next generation steps will further improve the accuracy of the next version of the LROC GLD100 topographic model of the moon.

Op source

reply to post by iforget


I believe all of that is referring to the altimeter data, to 'map' the surface to a 3D program. It is not referring to a higher resolution photographic visual image. The instruments involved could be more precise than the photographic tech is, it all depends on the data flow.

They can also 'enhance' the data combined with other spectrographic data among other radioactive measurements of the same area to get a better overall picture of what is there, and that is where the misrepresentation of NASA altering photos comes from. They are only trying to get the best data and resolution of an image that they release to the public with those kinds of added informations to represent what visual photography isn't going to resolve.

You think that is an easy quick imaging process?

That is why images from NASA takes time, the 'camera' doesn't resolve it by itself. Do you think you have a better camera or process to do such things that far away? Show me.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
On Google Earth I can zoom in on my car on my driveway. Why can't I zoom in on the moon landing sites yet?

That is because you are under surveillance for publicly doubting the moon landings. Quite a few us are keeping an eye on you ever since Colonel Aldrin ordered it.

But actually, you can zoom in on several of the Apollo sites-- it is in your Layers/Moon Gallery/Apollo Missions- just click the box.

(the "Moon Gallery" folder only appears when you have selected Moon for viewing)

Or, perhaps, I downloaded the hi-res upgrade;

Or... maybe my version of Google Earth (Moon) is privileged because I am on public record as knowing that the moon landings were real. For that matter... my car always seems to be in the shadows. Coincidence? I think not.

I knew it! Stop watching me! That Aldrin guy has always been up to no good.

Anyways, thanks for the responses. I really just wanted to post the topographic map, so I thought I'd put some frosting on the post with some blurb about the moon landings.

Tell Aldrin I say "hi".

Originally posted by Phage
When you zoom in on your car in your driveway you are zooming in on an image from an airplane, not a satellite.

Here is a satellite image at 0.5m/pixel (the highest resolution of satellite images of Earth allowed for commercial use by the DOD).
geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com...

Here is an LROC image of the Apollo 14 landing site at 0.5m/pixel (and there are better available).
www.lroc.asu.edu...

Considering that the descent stage is about 13 feet across
upload.wikimedia.org...

A Chevy Blazer is 14 feet long, what is it that you would expect to see?

The LRO is there to do science, not to prove that man walked on the Moon.

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage, thanks for posting the pictures for comparison. The Apollo 14 landing site at 0.5m/pixel is compelling, but is it convincing?

My point is that since NASA knows that the moon landings have been a source of speculative doubt for 40 years, I am hoping that at some point in the near future it will all be put to rest with some form of irrefutable evidence.

That way, as the other poster was so kind as to inform me, Colonel Aldrin can stop peeping in my windows.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980

There is plenty of "irrefutable evidence". It's just that it is ignored in favor of looking for pointless little "gotchas" by the hoax believers.

I would prefer that NASA does what it is supposed to do. Learn about our universe and the place of humans in it.

reply to post by Illustronic

Actually the new DEM (digital elevation model) was produced from images from the wide angle camera along with data from the laser altimeter. Those images are of much lower resolution than the images from the narrow angle camera as is the DEM.

reply to post by Illustronic


Ok I guess I though that the OP refereed to the apparent lack of detail in the topomap as presented and being able to zoom in on that to see features with greater detail. My point was to show that this was the first version of the map and refinements are on the way.

I am guilty of not examining the first two posts of this thread and thought I would just thrust an idea into the pot for consideration. Though I was and am aware the altimeter data is not the resolution of the LROCs so what I threw into the pot apparently doesn't mix well when stirred. Likely a result of venting after the close of another stressful work week so I will make a better effort to be more succinct about the specifics of the thread topic in the future and not just throw out assumptions to see what sticks.