Japan Moon Mission KAGUYA (SELENE) not releasing HD images of far side of the moon

reply to post by ArMaP

Now your just cropping the photo. And what I said was:

One of the photos may be a close up of the same thing as you say but as far as I can tell those photos were take with the exact same camera.

Again nice try.

OK, I sent this. Zorgon, I didn't say I was with Pegasus because my first email was a bit of a ***-take and I didn't want to discredit you. Am following the threads you post in other areas and really enjoying them.

Dear Shin-Ichi,
are you in the public relations department? Do you mind if I ask you more questions? I don't want to distract you from your work, and I am very grateful that you are taking the time to answer my correspondance.
Please could you tell us the approximate number of photos that were taken, just something very approximate, between 10-50? Over 100?
Secondly, a scientist colleague of mine was intrigued by the area specified by the coordinates

Far Side - 17.25 deg S and 117.62 deg E

If you could tell us any info about that area we would be most grateful.
Thank you for your time
H.A

Pushing for disclosure, one mail at a time.

reply to post by kenton1234


Yes, I cropped the image to show the same area in both images, as we were talking about the detail of the photos taken from orbit or from Earth I thought that it would be a good idea to show a 100 metres per pixel image of the same area seen on the video to show that the resolution is much better on the photos taken from orbit.

I just can't understand what you mean, sorry.

reply to post by zorgon


the two main areas are Archimedes [29.7N/4.0W, diameter : 82km] (the large crater)
· Montes Spitzbergen [35.0N/5.0W] (moutain region bottom of photo)

reply to post by ufoorbhunter



There has not yet been a telescope constructed (as far as the public is aware) which is capable of imaging human traces left on the Moon. This is a considerable technical challenge and even huge telescopes like the LBT which sports two 8.4 meter wide primary mirrors or the Keck Observatory which sports two 10 meter primary mirrors does not have the resolving power to spot objects of that size from such a distance. If you read the rest of this thread there is lots of good information about what can and cannot be seen on the Moon from an Earth telescope.

Originally posted by kenton1234
I've seen better pics than those but nice try though.

Well then lets see them then... If you have better images of the Moon than the color Clementine I showed you I for one would be extremely interested.

Originally posted by Neilc1972
the two main areas are Archimedes

Thanks Time is limited so it helps when I have co-ordianates to look for

BTW Right mouse click to see the full size

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/048a794d9813.jpg[/atsimg]

Need to orient it to match the JAXA image though... but the two identical craters are there



[edit on 31-5-2009 by zorgon]

This Jaxa link is very interesting, a side by side of a NASA landing site with the Jaxa, image from same angle.

Proof positive that Nasa landed on the moon, there is the Lander in the NASA image.

Where is the Lander in the JAXA image? must have been data loss!



Jaxa, vs Nasa

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Cyberbian]

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Where is the Lander in the JAXA image? must have been data loss!

It's not data loss. Kaguya doesn't have the resolution required to see the LM, but it has the ability to generate stereo images of the surface, creating a 3d landscape which they can match up with photos taken on the surface during Apollo.

reply to post by Erasurehead

Hi has anyone else noticed the very straight lines on the moon on picture hdtv_058_l on the Japan moon mission photos
if you zoom in and go to the top of the picture you will notice straight lines like roads that cross over each other?? just slighlty left of the centre and also what looks like an area with a mound that is square in shape, inside the square are the lines that cross over each other.
It may be something or nothing

Got another answer, and the guy/gal's agreed to answer more questions. He seems friendly so I'm not going to push him. Open for any questions you want forwarded, will do it a couple of times a week. We'll ask subtle questions and then piece together the answers from what is not said, amirite?

Received 08:14am Sunday HK time, italics are my questions quoted by him.

Dear (H.A),


are you in the public relations department? Do you mind if I ask you more questions? I don't want to distract you from your work, and I am very grateful that you are taking the time to answer my correspondance.



No problem because I work for SELENE project promotion even if it is not
my primary work in SELENE.


Please could you tell us the approximate number of photos that were taken, just something very approximate, between 10-50? Over 100?


Because our Terrain camera is about 35km swath width and lunar diameter
is 1737km => 2 * pai * r = 10908km, 10908 / 35 = 311 area. 311 x 311 =
about 100,000 scences.


Secondly, a scientist colleague of mine was intrigued by the area specified by the coordinates
Far Side - 17.25 deg S and 117.62 deg E



I believe we have that area data but it will be open to public from
this November.

So 100,000 scenes and he's given the calculations!!!!!!!!! So if they come up in November with two grainy photos we'll know somethings up.

[edit on 16f20091amMon, 01 Jun 2009 02:21:45 -050045 by HiAliens]

reply to post by ArMaP


I think that without doing some very deep (and very uninteresting) research, what we will have here is two very capable debaters both providing some very valid points and getting nowhere in the process.

But it is my honest belief that we could image the Moon as well as we do the Earth at about the same cost plus the expense of the greater transportation requirements.

And yes, higher resolutions have been possible, but wouldn't they need a larger (and, once more, more expensive) craft

I’m honestly not sure. I don’t know how large the optics are on the craft they are using. Also you are talking to a guy who thinks that the craft they are already using have much greater capability than we are seeing.

The problem is the time it takes. I know that it's not exactly the same thing, but the Mars Orbiter Camera on board Mars Global Surveyor, during its nine years work life sent to Earth "just" more than 240,000 images, while HiRISE, with a resolution of 30 centimetres per pixel has returned only some 10,000 photos since October 2006.

Yes, I would love to see some images at this resolution of the far side of our closest neighbor. It would certainly be a cheaper mission. We would also have the advantage that bandwidth between the Moon and Earth is orders of magnitude larger than the bandwidth between Earth and Mars.

And unless they get a relay satellite that is always "viewing" the other satellite then they can only transmit the data gathered during the half of the orbit that is made with the Earth in view of the satellite.

This is correct.

I think that is the best way of doing things, but they would probably need more than one camera for that, although the lower resolution images could be taken with a smaller camera.

I’m interested to know why you think this. I’ve seen this done many different ways. A different camera can be used, a different secondary optic can be servoed in, a different imager can be servoed in, the focal plane array can be remapped electronically, pixel integration or lossy compression can be implemented or any combination of the above. The Hubble for instance servos in different packages which each contain an imager (or other instrument sensor) and secondary optics for the different applications.

Aren't the sensors on the rovers just 1024x1024? That is a field that I haven't been following, so the possibilities of being wrong are even greater than usual.

That is high resolution… kinda. Yeah ok, the rovers were a poor example by today’s standards and "hi resolution" is an arbitrary term, and to be sure the JWST will be using an imaging chip that is extremely expensive because in order for the designers to get the very most from what is a ridiculously over priced mission it will no doubt be an ASIC and also undergo extensive reliability testing. It will however be a very high resolution imager, in the environs of space and far, far, far from the reaches of the nearest geek with a soldering iron (That is if the telescope makes it out there in one piece).
I don’t ever recall coming across a relation between reliability in a harsh environment and pixel count other than of course the statistical increase of failures across a greater number of components. I may be missing something though. When I see the PCBs being designed for new missions I notice a lot of common components (capacitors, resistors, etc) that are used in every day industrial applications so I’m guessing that the environment (at least inside the body of the craft) isn’t terribly dismal.
Most of the imaging systems that I design for harsh environments go down into the Earth (where extreme heat, vibration, pressure and only occasionally radiation are the major issues) rather than into space so environmental conditions in space are quite different than I’m experienced with.

Anyway, that’s what I think I know.

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Grifter.be


Hey there...

Can you get me a shot or two of Crater Petavius B on a four day old Moon?

Would really appreciate that

If you need a location let me know

I gladly will!

www.davesastro.co.uk...
this one right?

Why should the Japanese release valuable scientific and industrial information? Space is the new high ground. You don't just give that data away. I don't buy the arguments they are with holdeing deep dark secrets of what may be there. For my money, they found evidence of water ice. A true treasure. Not ET, or his legion of friends. Not very sexy stuff, but priceless non the less.

reply to post by arbiture


They said that the crater they thought had the most possibilities of having ice (Shackleton Crater) does not have any real indication of having ice on the surface.

Lack of Exposed Water Ice on the Surface of South Polar Pemanent Shadow Areas

Originally posted by ArMaP
They said that the crater they thought had the most possibilities of having ice (Shackleton Crater) does not have any real indication of having ice on the surface.

No what it says is...

The Shackleton Crater imaged by the Terrain Camera. Exposed relatively-pure water-ice deposits are lacked on the floor at the Terrain Camera's spatial resolution.

What the Department of Defense said in 1996 was...

Tuesday, December 3, 1996 - 1:45 p.m.
Subject: Discovery of Ice on the Moon

Q: What do you think this would look like if you could go right down and see it? Would you see a fairly large pond here, other ponds all over the place, some ice in crevices and rocks?

A: You would probably see... First of all you wouldn't see anything because you'd be in the dark. But if you had a flashlight and you illuminated the surface, you would see a surface that looked not unlike any place else on the moon, but if you were to dig down into that and pull it up, you would find that there would be ice crystals contained in the interstices between the dust grains. So it's not a sheet or a pond. It's not an ice rink on the moon. It's basically ice mixed into the dirt.

www.defenselink.mil...

So its not on the surface but mixed with the dirt

In terms of volume...

Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.

Q: But it's a dirt lake.

A: Right, mixed in. (Laughter) A dirty lake.

www.youtube.com...

More footage

reply to post by Grifter.be


I would love to have a telescope, but I never had the conditions (either monetary or physical) to have one, so I like to watch your videos, but you should only use the video ID (in this case the "KCTwGpqWYc8") when using the "YouTube VIDEO" button while creating your posts.

reply to post by guppy


Wow...I hope the guy that photo shopped these pictures got a raise or something.

If you hadn't mentioned it...I feel I'd never had known.

Oddly enough one of those pictures that was "Shopped" seems to have simply blurred out what appears to be a seemingly insignificant crater. Can't imagine the purpose in that.

reply to post by Erasurehead


Ello there,

If you havn't seen it already, watch this-www.youtube.com..., I think you'll appreciate it.