What did China's Chang'e 3 moon rover take a picture of ?

reply to post by Violater1


alancyane.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Ove38


Interesting to my eye's but the image is so poor that it is well nigh impossible to make a judgement with any voracity and the blurring out of focus shot means the image is of such a low quality even if it was something other than a rock it would be impossible to tell from this image.
I have noticed how the vultures circled almost immediately around your post but maybe that was the intent, still it looks like an apex and as has been pointed out already the moon has virtually no atmosphere and no rain or wind erosion however it does have constant thermal fluctuation and hard solar particle radiation that over time will turn most non dense crystalline structures to dust, then there are micro meteors and ejected material from impacts, the crater on whose rim it sits appears almost circular so that it is not certain as to weather the structure is of that origin.
Still I find it interesting, here is a video portion segment that you may like with some good and some bad objects to mull over, note the lack of stars and remember that international agreements have already been reached, this is also for the UFO community.
wn.com...
S+F.

Wait a minute! That's not just ANY rock, it's an intelligent rock!! You can tell by the disgusted look on it's face.

I'm outta here. This is starting to spook me...

Phage
reply to post by Violater1

 

alancyane.blogspot.com...

Cool. Are thy then from the ruins of the Graubuden Mountains?
www.google.com...:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa =X&ei=fo63UtqyH6SayQHf8oHIAQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1711&bih=879
Ah, so you think that this moon photo could be that of some "ruins?"

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa =X&ei=fo63UtqyH6SayQHf8oHIAQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1711&bih=879#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_vN0-6Uh9TvbEM%3A%3BPRSWMyxs2V1fFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikim edia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fthumb%252F5%252F50%252FKarte_Lage_Kanton_Graub%2525C3%2525BCnden_2013.2.png%252F250px-Karte_Lage_Kanton_Graub%2 525C3%2525BCnden_2013.2.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FGraub%2525C3%2525BCnden%3B250%3B172

Well, someones got to say it.

Can an expert describe the geology shown in the photographs please.....ie

Why do these Chinese Moon pictures look Entirely different from the USA Moon pictures?.

Were'nt we lead to believe that the moon is completely covered in that fine dust...or so the NASA photos show.

These Chinese photos show a much more rocky surface, with exposed white rocks, a brownish red soil and not much fine dust. Even the tracks left by the rover almost look like they are in "Moist" soil.

Yes I am aware that many astronomers have stated the Moon is brown in patches...seems they are correct.

All in all, great pictures, tho I wonder if those little tiny wheels will allow the rover to travel very far...they will have to be careful of holes and rocks.

More incentive for humans to visit and actually investigate the Moon again...particularly a multi nation enterprise.

I'm waiting to see the Photoshopped highlights of "machines", "beings", and "duck commander" logos.

Hurry up.

gort51
Were'nt we lead to believe that the moon is completely covered in that fine dust...or so the NASA photos show.

These Chinese photos show a much more rocky surface, with exposed white rocks, a brownish red soil and not much fine dust. Even the tracks left by the rover almost look like they are in "Moist" soil.

The surface of the moon is clearly not homogeneous. We can easily tell that even from Earth, that the maria look different from the highlands.

Once we did land on the moon we found it covered in regolith, but that covering was not uniform, nor was it consistent from landing site to landing site in the Apollo program. Some sites had more dust than others as noted in these landing observations.

Visibility During the Lunar Landings

Apollo 14: "We had less problem with dust than they've had before"..."The dust is no great problem at all."
Apollo 15: "At about 50 to 60 feet, the total view outside was obscured by dust. It was completely IFR (Instrument Flight Rules)."

So it seems that at least during landing the dust was a much bigger problem at some sites than others, leading me to think it's not consistent everywhere.

I took the middle picture from the OP's link and wanted to ask what was the white line, seemingly floating above the surface, top right corner?

Also "funny" to see is how dark the further "mounds" are, on the horizon. I thought light was consistent on the moon, or is it because of the curvature?

NowanKenubi
I took the middle picture from the OP's link and wanted to ask what was the white line, seemingly floating above the surface, top right corner?

Also "funny" to see is how dark the further "mounds" are, on the horizon. I thought light was consistent on the moon, or is it because of the curvature?

It may just be that it's a poor quality image!

There is evidence that there is a suspended layer of dust above the moon (originally found by Apollo orbital photography and now being researched by LADEE) held here by electrostatic forces and the micro-atmosphere from out-gassing by the rocks. This might interfere with photography to a small degree, but crappy image to start with is more likely.

The white line I suspect is an artifact either from the original photograph or the person photographing the screen. If you whack up the levels in photoshop you get this:



So yeah, aliens

gort51
Well, someones got to say it.

Can an expert describe the geology shown in the photographs please.....ie

Why do these Chinese Moon pictures look Entirely different from the USA Moon pictures?.

Were'nt we lead to believe that the moon is completely covered in that fine dust...or so the NASA photos show.

These Chinese photos show a much more rocky surface, with exposed white rocks, a brownish red soil and not much fine dust. Even the tracks left by the rover almost look like they are in "Moist" soil.

Yes I am aware that many astronomers have stated the Moon is brown in patches...seems they are correct.

All in all, great pictures, tho I wonder if those little tiny wheels will allow the rover to travel very far...they will have to be careful of holes and rocks.

More incentive for humans to visit and actually investigate the Moon again...particularly a multi nation enterprise.

Yes, there were no white rocks in any of the Apollo pictures ?

Phage
reply to post by Ove38

 

A rock. Lots of rocks.
Next question.


LOL, I agree, Rock, and more rocks... But, I think it is still nice to have new pics of rocks on the moon, instead of the same 40+ year old pics of rocks on the moon....

Phage
reply to post by ohioriver

 

So sorry I called them mounds. Now how about explain why the "crater" does not have the shadow in the correct spot.

There's a difference between a crater and a mound. A mound is convex. A crater is concave.
Both the craters and the rock have their shadows in the correct orientation.

edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

yep,look at my avatar,is the object convex or concave?

reply to post by Ove38


It's a rock. You even see it from another angle on the left hand side of your original photo. The one photo you provided in the OP provides two shots of the absolutely crrrrrazy 'rock'.

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Ove38

 

With all the great photo/video technology we have, I have to wonder why this image looks so crappy? It seems to be this way with almost every image that comes from space. These clowns should put a 3D/stereoscopic camera on these damn rovers that might actually resolve what the hell things are in the final image prints.

I guess the Chinese space agency is also run by a load of narcissistic, autistic nearsighted morons.

Cheers - Dave

No what would really be better is if SOME members learned about the technology before slagging it off!!!

wmd_2008

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Ove38

 

With all the great photo/video technology we have, I have to wonder why this image looks so crappy? It seems to be this way with almost every image that comes from space. These clowns should put a 3D/stereoscopic camera on these damn rovers that might actually resolve what the hell things are in the final image prints.

I guess the Chinese space agency is also run by a load of narcissistic, autistic nearsighted morons.

Cheers - Dave

No what would really be better is if SOME members learned about the technology before slagging it off!!!

Oh come on, there are valid reason for why the images look crappy. It's because they are from camcorder footage of images displayed on a big screen. You won't get much quality or resolution with that. We will have to wait for China to release the actual images, or at least decent version of them, like this one:

(colours auto-adjusted by me)

Souce: twitter.com...

The rover seems to be heading south, judging by this traverse map:


The big rock should be to the right of the image with the rover.

bobs_uruncle
These clowns should put a 3D/stereoscopic camera on these damn rovers

I guess the Chinese space agency is also run by a load of narcissistic, autistic nearsighted morons.

So when is your rover headed to the moon?

wmd_2008

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Ove38

 

With all the great photo/video technology we have, I have to wonder why this image looks so crappy? It seems to be this way with almost every image that comes from space. These clowns should put a 3D/stereoscopic camera on these damn rovers that might actually resolve what the hell things are in the final image prints.

I guess the Chinese space agency is also run by a load of narcissistic, autistic nearsighted morons.

Cheers - Dave

No what would really be better is if SOME members learned about the technology before slagging it off!!!

When I said "I guess the Chinese space agency is also run by a load of narcissistic, autistic nearsighted morons," I was referring to NASA (Never A Straight Answer), NOT the OP, so my apologies if you took it the wrong way.

As far as photography goes, I shot over 1000 rolls just in Africa (took pictures of wildlife, scenery, models for business and portfolios, military bases and installations, etc.) over a four year period while I was running around for the military, my general shots and on safari weekly to a monthly. I shot both in an amateur and professional capacity (models and advertising), but mostly as a hobby and to record where I had been for my extended family. I averaged close to 1 roll of 36 shots per day of anything from ASA100 to ASA1600 and worked both in black and white or colour, daylight to almost no light, with lenses from 17mm fisheye to 600 and 1200mm telephoto and mirror lenses with 2x and 3x converters and I have an almost complete set of Hoyarex filters and holders for fun effects. I still have a lot of the equipment even though they are manual SLR bodies and more than 20 years old. I just can't part with them as they did so much work for me overseas.

I know a little about photography, probably more than the average person, but like most people, even though I have taken fairly good pictures of the moon, planets and stars, I have done it from earth. Regardless, if you take a picture of an object on earth from earth or the moon from the moon, the physics and math don't change.

Cheers - Dave

1 large and several little rocks

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Regarding using colour film on the Moon, here's a quote from ALSJ:

The fact that all color film shot on the moon was made for an Earth-based chromatic spectrum of light, not that of a vacuum -- the film 'saw' color differently in space than it would on Earth. The colors that it recorded are thus not to be trusted in the same way that we trust color film on Earth. You are perhaps familiar with the fact that many scientists argued for not even taking color film to the moon, citing spectral inaccuracy and the fact that it has less acutance (sharpness) than black and white film, as well as a narrower latitude, or range of capturing relative brightness and dimness. It did, however, have great public-relations value.

But the Chinese images are digital. And we apparently haven't seen any images themselves, only the tv and photo camera footage of the images displayed on the big screen in mission control. Hence the low resolution, uneven brightness, and odd colouration.

If the actual images come out with odd colouration, I think it will be due to the digital cameras struggling with the white-balance, or due to some other technical issues (like transmission and decoding).

wildespace
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Regarding using colour film on the Moon, here's a quote from ALSJ:

The fact that all color film shot on the moon was made for an Earth-based chromatic spectrum of light, not that of a vacuum -- the film 'saw' color differently in space than it would on Earth. The colors that it recorded are thus not to be trusted in the same way that we trust color film on Earth. You are perhaps familiar with the fact that many scientists argued for not even taking color film to the moon, citing spectral inaccuracy and the fact that it has less acutance (sharpness) than black and white film, as well as a narrower latitude, or range of capturing relative brightness and dimness. It did, however, have great public-relations value.

But the Chinese images are digital. And we apparently haven't seen any images themselves, only the tv and photo camera footage of the images displayed on the big screen in mission control. Hence the low resolution, uneven brightness, and odd colouration.

If the actual images come out with odd colouration, I think it will be due to the digital cameras struggling with the white-balance, or due to some other technical issues (like transmission and decoding).

edit on 24-12-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

If the rocks were white and not gray and the ground was brown and not gray, the Apollo astronauts would have said so wouldn't they ?