John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS, page 216

privacy

Pages: << 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 123 times

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 11:37 AM by internos

reply to post by spikedmilk

Sadly, i'm not an expert at all. There are many people here who are able to provide better possible explanations than i would be able to. Maybe i've read somewhere that those could be geysers, but i'm not sure...

[edit on 2/10/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 11:49 AM by sherpa

reply to post by johnlear

Your welcome John.

I look forward to those other pictures for comparative puposes.

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 03:22 PM by whatsthatthingy

I sure hope JAXA breaks ranks with NASA in a few weeks and starts putting meat and potatoes on the table. I doubt that they will in the Moon pictures themselves, but we might get some tasty shots by the HD camera. Would be a massive undertaking to airbrush a whole HD movie. A few more weeks to go

[edit on 2/10/2007 by whatsthatthingy]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 04:29 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by sherpa
Could you tell me what you think this is on the horizon.

Sorry for only answering now, but I only saw your post when I was going to turn off the computer and it was to late for me to answer at that time.

I think that is a synthetic fiber that was on the scanner or on the photo strips, it looks exactly like one, especially the fact that it has a constant width and is translucent.

Also, that photo has at least one more area with a little fiber.

Originally posted by zorgon
That is amazing Sherpa it even shows the haze of the atmosphere.

I don't think that is the atmosphere, that "haze" appears only on the right side of the image (or in the left side, on the photo you posted), and is stronger in the places where the image is darker.

And I don't think that the bright spot is Venus, unless there are more "Venus" on the Moon surface, because the photo has at least one more.

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 04:42 PM by sherpa

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks for your honest opinion ArMap.

The reference dots that cover the image, when are they originated ?

Is it when the image is produced or later when the image is received ?

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 05:50 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by sherpa
The reference dots that cover the image, when are they originated ?

The technical term is a FIDUCIAL MARK .They are etched onto a sheet of glass , known as a RESEAU PLATE.

"The lunar surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black cross hairs, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others. As each film frame is drawn into place, it is pressed against the reseau plate so that the picture is taken through the plate. This results in an image of the fiducials being superimposed over the image focused through the lens.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that is the atmosphere, that "haze" appears only on the right side of the image (or in the left side, on the photo you posted), and is stronger in the places where the image is darker.

Well it would be stronger where the sun goes down, but pray tell then ArMaP what IS causing the glow if not the atmosphere? Considering its brighter near the limb than fades out?

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think that is a synthetic fiber that was on the scanner or on the photo strips, it looks exactly like one, especially the fact that it has a constant width and is translucent.

Oh come on now ... the "smoke' looks nothing like that fiber or any other fiber... If you had said someone at NASA was playing a joke with his q-tip I might buy that

(they didn't have air brush back then) And the fiber would have to be on the scanner as the interior of the spacecraft was clean. The only thing you get on the negative is splotches of developer solution

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy

Would help if we knew the exposure time and the picture was in color.

The exposure time is a snapshot as the Orbiter passed overhead. They were generally done in sets of three (hence H1, H2 and H3 in the image designation,)

The negative stayed on board the space craft... they were NOT in color... The Lunar Orbiters were from 1965 to 1967

The 'bars' you see in the images are scan lines as the negative was scanned for transmission to Earth... they are NOT mosaic lines where images were joined as some have said

LUNAR ORBITER DATA

[edit on 2-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:04 PM by sherpa

reply to post by zorgon

I am assuming this being a Lunar Orbiter pic that it used the same system with these reticules being present when the image was taken.

Now I am not sure how the images would have been reproduced ready for loading on the website, but my concept of scanning leads me to assume the reticules would be masked by any fibre when this process was carried out.

However the reticules, (I am beginning to dislike that word), are still visible in two places on the anomaly.

So does this not mean that it was present at the time the picture was taken.

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:06 PM by johnlear

Guide To Lunar Orbiter SP-242
Photographs

(kk) Site IIIS-29

figure 14.-Photographic Indexes to mission III near-side sites.

The Moon As viewed By Lunar Oribiter NASA SP-200

LO-3-213
Spacecraft Altitude: 59.0 kilometers
Camera Tilt: 66 degrees 30 minutes
Frame Center Data
Latitude S3.20
Longitude W59.50
Sun Elevation 7.30
Framelet Bearing N41.30

Top half of photo:

I need a little help here. I can't get these photos of LO-213 to match Sherpas photos. Is the photo flipped? Or what?

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:12 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by sherpa
However the reticules, (I am beginning to dislike that word), are still visible in two places on the anomaly.

Dagnabbit

I was just going to point that out... LOL I caught that as soon as you asked the question about when the crosses are added

Nice to have you on the team

That even eliminates the NASA Q-tip artist

Edit to Add

USGS has 3-200 then jumps to 3-215 Darn it

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

[edit on 2-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:18 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by zorgon
Well it would be stronger where the sun goes down, but pray tell then ArMaP what IS causing the glow if not the atmosphere? Considering its brighter near the limb than fades out?

Is the brighter area that is supposed to be the atmosphere?

I did not understood it that way because I usually think of the atmosphere as making the sky darker and not brighter. In the case of a dark sky I think that the atmosphere could make the sky brighter, but I still think that what we see in this photo is too irregular to be the result of the atmosphere, because if the Sun makes the sky brighter with the presence of the atmosphere then the sky should be brighter on the Sun side and on the middle of the photo.

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:18 PM by sherpa

reply to post by johnlear

Actually I can't remember if I flipped or rotated the original because I had no reference to tell me whether the image was the right way round all I knew was I wanted the horizon to be up.

Zorgon may have done a better job.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by sherpa]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:29 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by sherpa

Your image is rotated 180º, I had to do the same so it looked like yours.

And this may help clarify the creation of the images.

The film was bimat processed on board, optically scanned, and the resulting video signal telemetered to ground stations. Film density readout was accomplished by a high-intensity light beam focused to a 6.5-micron-diameter spot on the spacecraft film. The flying spot scanner swept 2.67 mm in the long dimension of the spacecraft film. This process was repeated 286 times for each millimeter of film scanned. The raster signal received at the ground station was recorded on magnetic tape and also fed to ground reconstruction equipment (GRE), which reproduced the portion of the image contained in one raster on a 35-mm film positive framelet. Over 26 framelets are required for a complete MR photograph and 86 for a complete HR image. Of the 211 simultaneous exposures, the performance was nominal until the final readout on March 2, 1967. A detailed description of the experiment, a bibliography, and indexes of all the available Lunar Orbiter 1 through 5 photos are contained in the report 'Lunar Orbiter photographic data,' NSSDC 69-05, June 1969.

Source

[edit on 2/10/2007 by ArMaP]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:35 PM by sherpa

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks Armap, I had it in my mind the images were processed and scanned on board.

So where are the reticules on the lens ?

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:40 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by johnlear
I need a little help here. I can't get these photos of LO-213 to match Sherpas photos. Is the photo flipped? Or what?

Sherpa's photo is just a tiny area of that photo.

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:57 PM by FreeThinkerIdealist

Is it atmosphere, or a thin haze ... like fog?

I noticed on the crater picture ArMap posted ... a similar haze is there, possibly more cloud/fog?

Or ... is that just a processing anomoly?

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:58 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by sherpa
Actually I can't remember if I flipped or rotated the original because I had no reference to tell me whether the image was the right way round all I knew was I wanted the horizon to be up.
Zorgon may have done a better job.

You flipped it and mirrored it... the one from LPI has the 'sky at the bottom... I just flipped mine vertically... I am not sure which is the correct orientation. I will match it to John's book scan and see ...

In the meantime have a look at the 'city' in Negative...

Here is the page.....

www.thelivingmoon.com...

[edit on 2-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 07:02 PM by zorgon

reply to post by internos

Nice find Internos I will work on them shortly

reply to post by whatsthatthingy

Well if they plan THAT circular orbit they will crash I hope its just a representation :wow

reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 07:11 PM by sherpa

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist

A lot of areas are very reflective so you have to be careful how you interpret them, personally I think the areas you are talking about are just light.

There are images around that seem like fog or clouds, this one is a book scan I believe provided by john somewhere else, I would like to track the original image number.