It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
This vid is getting old now!




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

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


Very interesting indeed


Now can you explain to me how JAXA managed that? "From the same angle"? When their ship is in high orbit and the Apollo image was taken on the ground?

No one smell fish?



More likely they used the same simulator






posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon,

I thought the same thing. How did they manage to get the same exact angle for that shot? The terrain camera was on a satellite in orbit not on the surface of the moon so how was it done? The 3D image looks like CGI.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
No one smell fish?

Sushi?



More likely they used the same simulator

No, the Japanese like to use electronics.

And I don't think that model would fool anyone (but I am remembering the "everybody" I used on the other post about gravity
).

Seriously, I have seen several posts talking about that, is it really that hard to see that the Jaxa image is a computer generated 3D view of that area with the photo superimposed, like ESA does with Mars Express photos?

Some of the videos are also computer generated (but, as far as I know, not the HD videos).



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


I want to see the pictures also.

A None -Profit organization in my area is a private company that will launch their own remote control space shuttle. I hear their 4th mission will be to take photos of the moon.

They promised that they will post uncensored photos on their website when they do the missions.

The reason that made this organization is for 2 things to figure out if government agency done cover ups. The second part is that they want to do their own studies and experiments.

so I would be listening on any new news about them. I would love to see someone other then the government to start doing research on space.

This is an exciting topic.


jra

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now can you explain to me how JAXA managed that? "From the same angle"? When their ship is in high orbit and the Apollo image was taken on the ground?

No one smell fish?


Fish? No.

There are two camera's. One facing forward and one facing aft. Both of them take images of the same location, but from different angles. That information is turned into a 3d topographical surface with images of the surface used for a texture map. Similar to Google Earth with it's 3d terrain textured with aerial and satellite images. And like Google Earth you can then rotate the view to match a photo taken in the same area.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by computerwiz32

A None -Profit organization in my area is a private company that will launch their own remote control space shuttle. I hear their 4th mission will be to take photos of the moon.


And what organization might that be? I would love to contact them



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


The Jaxa site does not state that their image is from the same angle. In fact they say that

The viewpoint of the 3D image produced from TC stereo-pair data can be freely changed.
which would mean that what they have done is take several stereo stills or movies spanning over the area and post-process them into a 3D terrain mesh, so that the viewpoint can be freely manipulated.

I imagine this will allow for a walk through tour of the moons surface in the near future. So the image on the left is a course, computer generated image of a terrain model they've build from the footage, not the actual real thing.

That's how I understood it anyways.

Kind regards, M.


Edit to add: Ahhh. Mr. ArMaP totally beat me to it. How could I've been so blind?


[edit on 5-6-2009 by Manawydan]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon





Holy Missing Modules Zorgon!

The 3D surface was modeled using the radar and laser altimeter data from Selene and overlaying image data gathered from the Terrain Camera - but something is missing....

The radar surely would have detected the various Apollo Craft and equipment... Not to mention the imaging systems would have provided data for the overlay on top of the laser/radar-based model.
(from which the highly reflective Apollo equipment and vehicles are conspicuously absent - even at the alleged 10m per pixel they should be visibly detectable).

I am not sure what to make of this.


*Also, Both the X-ray fluorescence spectrometer and the gamma ray spectrometer on Selene should have detected the Apollo craft from their unique signatures relative to their surroundings. At the very least, this would help them determine where to place the 3D model of the LM et al on their digitized Moon model.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Also, Both the X-ray fluorescence spectrometer and the gamma ray spectrometer on Selene should have detected the Apollo craft from their unique signatures relative to their surroundings.


SHOULD HAVE being the operative words here



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

None of instruments on board Kaguya have the spatial resolution to "see" the descent stage or the even smaller rover.

The radar, as far as I know, was not made for detecting objects on the surface but as a subsurface sounding instrument, to analyse the Moon's structure up to a depth of 5 km. It only has a resolution of 75 metres.

The higher resolution camera has only a resolution of 10 metres per pixel, so a 4 metres wide descent stage represents only 16% of a pixel with the descent stage in it, so even if it has a higher albedo it would not change that much the whole pixel to make it noticeable among the other pixels of that area.

The X-ray spectrometer has a spatial resolution of just 20 km (it was not made to analyse small objects), and the gamma ray spectrometer has a resolution of 100 km.

And if I was the responsible for making that 3D model I would ignore the descent stage, even if I had the data to show it, this mission was not to prove that the US got there first.


Edit: I forgot to say that the laser altimeter has a vertical resolution of 5 metres, so it probably can not "see" the 3.2 metres high descent module.

[edit on 7/6/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

The radar, as far as I know, was not made for detecting objects on the surface but as a subsurface sounding instrument, to analyse the Moon's structure up to a depth of 5 km. It only has a resolution of 75 metres.

The higher resolution camera has only a resolution of 10 metres per pixel, so a 4 metres wide descent stage represents only 16% of a pixel with the descent stage in it, so even if it has a higher albedo it would not change that much the whole pixel to make it noticeable among the other pixels of that area.


So you don't think that some big chunks of metal would be a radar 'hot spot' no matter the resolution? Surely the metal is large enough to create at least a blip on the radar image?

And if its only good for BENEATH the surface, how did they use the data to create the scene we are discussing? Can't have it both ways. If the radar can be used to create that surface image that matches the Apollo one then it would show a blip from all the metal that SHOULD be there



The X-ray spectrometer has a spatial resolution of just 20 km (it was not made to analyse small objects), and the gamma ray spectrometer has a resolution of 100 km.


It doesn't need to analyse anything... all we need is a blip that shows something different than ordinary rock. Surely our instruments are good enough to see a 'blip' since we can discern oxygen spectra from hundreds of light years away by the mere passing of a planet in front of a distant star?



And if I was the responsible for making that 3D model I would ignore the descent stage, even if I had the data to show it, this mission was not to prove that the US got there first.


Sure ignore it... when all over the world that very question is still nagging at people. If it were me I would go out of my way to either prove or disprove it. It wouldn't take very much really

I am not buying that we would not see a blip of some kind from the descent stage on at least ONE of those expensive gizmos they sent up there on three missions, China (errr...) India or Japan

Not buying it at all




Edit: I forgot to say that the laser altimeter has a vertical resolution of 5 metres, so it probably can not "see" the 3.2 metres high descent module.


Well that is certainly convenient isn't it? Either that or it cannot see what is not there



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
And if its only good for BENEATH the surface, how did they use the data to create the scene we are discussing? Can't have it both ways. If the radar can be used to create that surface image that matches the Apollo one then it would show a blip from all the metal that SHOULD be there

Are you sure that the radar was used to create that 3D model?

Jaxa says that it was made with the stereo data from the Terrain Camera (the same method used by Mars Express).


It doesn't need to analyse anything... all we need is a blip that shows something different than ordinary rock. Surely our instruments are good enough to see a 'blip' since we can discern oxygen spectra from hundreds of light years away by the mere passing of a planet in front of a distant star?

I don't know if those instruments are good enough do to that, but considering they were made to analyse the composition of the Moon's surface I don't think it can "notice" such a small object.


Sure ignore it... when all over the world that very question is still nagging at people. If it were me I would go out of my way to either prove or disprove it. It wouldn't take very much really

Yes, they know that people want to see the objects left on the Moon, that was why they photographed the area, but change the mission's instruments to make them have such a high resolution is probably outside their intentions and probably outside their budget.


I am not buying that we would not see a blip of some kind from the descent stage on at least ONE of those expensive gizmos they sent up there on three missions, China (errr...) India or Japan

Don't worry, I am not selling.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Are you sure that the radar was used to create that 3D model?


Heck no... I don't know exactly how they got that identical image...
the Terrain Camera? Please demonstrate how this could be done






I don't know if those instruments are good enough do to that, but considering they were made to analyze the composition of the Moon's surface I don't think it can "notice" such a small object.


How can you analyze composition of the surface and not be able to see small objects? That make no logical sense. You can get general overall characteristics but to analyze composition you need to get down and dirty.


but change the mission's instruments to make them have such a high resolution is probably outside their intentions and probably outside their budget.


Outside their intention I will believe, out side their budget? I doubt that entirely. Its not that expensive to put in a small camera that would give us what we seek. Heck I'll pay for it




Don't worry, I am not selling.


Good thing... whew


jra

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Holy Missing Modules Zorgon!


There is no LM in that photo, just part of the Rover.


The 3D surface was modeled using the radar and laser altimeter data from Selene and overlaying image data gathered from the Terrain Camera


Actually the 3d surface was modeled by using the two Terrain cameras.

As has been stated by ArMaP. The radar is for gathering data on the Moons subsurface. Not for topographical information.


even at the alleged 10m per pixel they should be visibly detectable


How so? The LM has a diameter of 4m and the Rover is even smaller. They are smaller than a pixel, so they aren't visibly detectable at all at 10m/pixel.


Originally posted by zorgon
It doesn't need to analyse anything... all we need is a blip that shows something different than ordinary rock. Surely our instruments are good enough to see a 'blip' since we can discern oxygen spectra from hundreds of light years away by the mere passing of a planet in front of a distant star?


You mean like this? Apollo 11 landing site seen with the Multiband imager. You can see where the LM's decent engine has disturbed the dust on the surface. Is that enough of a "blip" for you?


the Terrain Camera? Please demonstrate how this could be done


I explained it briefly further up on this page (6th post from the top), but it works just like how your eyes do. Two cameras viewing the surface from different angles. That creates a stereo image that can be turned into a 3d model. Other orbiters like the previously mentioned Mars Express from the ESA does this as well.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Heck no... I don't know exactly how they got that identical image...
the Terrain Camera? Please demonstrate how this could be done

As I said, it's the same system they use with Mars Express to make those 3D models that confuse the less attentive people.




The camera is really two cameras, and as they know the altitude and which Kaguya is from the ground and its speed, they know when the second camera is pointing to the same area. After that, it's just a matter of making the calculations to know the altitude of each point, it's the reverse of the method to create those red-blue anaglyphs or cross-eye images.


How can you analyze composition of the surface and not be able to see small objects? That make no logical sense. You can get general overall characteristics but to analyze composition you need to get down and dirty.

From what I have read, they only want to know the general composition of the different areas of the Moon, apparently the previous data was much less detailed.


Outside their intention I will believe, out side their budget? I doubt that entirely. Its not that expensive to put in a small camera that would give us what we seek. Heck I'll pay for it

Then you should talk to them, they may be accepting offers.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Then you should talk to them, they may be accepting offers.


Not a bad idea...

but I think I will ask one of the commercial ventures that is planning lunar trips. Might have better luck at getting a return for my buck


Like CSI

CSI Lunar ExpressSM System Enables a
100% Private Return to the Moon in 2-3 Years

www.constellationservices.com...




Using Russian Progress ships




Maybe if everyone at ATS chips in a buck we can rent one.

Its kinda like hopping a freighter in the old days to take a world tour... you take a cargo ship to the moon. A little rough, but hey its only a few day


[edit on 7-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TortoiseKweek
reply to post by wylekat
 


Agree with you. I mean look at this:

wms.selene.jaxa.jp...

You mean to tell me that we can not get better quality photos with modern tech? Maybe this has been down scaled for the web, but I can not believe that we have satellites that can read number plates, and we can not produce high quality pics of the moon?


Exactly, the TC (Terrain Camera) has a resolution of 10m/pixel, so we should expect some quite detailed images of the moon, both of near side and the far side since Kaguya has been in moon orbit since fall 2007. However the details on the TC is a bit vague on the JAXA site, so i am not sure what else it can do, but i am pretty sure they can make it zoom in on certain interesting areas. along with the MI and SP which will give ".. precise topographic, geologic, and mineralogical information of the moon."



Main orbiter
The main orbiter is a rectangular box measuring about 2.1 m by 4.2 m, with a launch mass of about 2,914 kg.[9]
Mass: 2,914 kg
Size: 2.1 x 2.1 x 4.8 m
Attitude control: Three-axis stabilized
Power: 3.5 kW (Max.)
Mission period: 1 year
Mission orbit: Circular orbit
Altitude 100 km
Inclination 90 degree
Mission details, JAXA



Both TC and MI are push-broom type imagers and continuously observe the lunar surface. For stereoscopic observation, TC has two telescopes with one-dimensional detectors looking at forward and backward directions, respectively.
Terrain Camera details, JAXA


As a comparison, a spy satellite (specs classified of course) which orbits the earth at a distance of 300km (low earth orbit) compared to JAXA Kaguya which orbits the moon at 100km, the super spy satellite have a resolution that translates to about 7cm per pixel, Kaguya has a resolution to 10m per pixel. The exact specs of the Kaguya TC is not known or if they have better optics on board in secret.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


"They did image the landing sites. The camera's didn't have the resolution required to see them in detail however. Next month NASA will be launching the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and it will take images at a resolution of 0.5m/pixel. More than enough to see the larger hardware left behind from Apollo. "

So the Kguya 10 meter per pixel resolution (offical data) can not spot some details of the landing site or the left behind Apollo Lunar Module since they are too small. Well, how convenient for NASA. Its #ing unbeliavable, JAXA intitiate a multi billion dollar project on par with the Apollo Mission and fit the orbiter with a camera that has a laughable resolution compared to low earth spy satellites (5cm - 20cm per pixel resolution). THIS IS A 2007-2009 MISSION.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
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]


Its all about resolution, the Kaguya (JAXA) is orbiting the moon at 100km with a camera with alleged 10m/pixel resolution, the NASA image was taken by an astronaut standing on the moon surface using a super high quality Hasselblad camera. I dont think the moon buggy is larger than 10m even.

Hence the problem with JAXA Kaguya images, they suck.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join