Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - Will we finally see the Moon Base?

OP Armap.....
When LRO reaches it's working altitude and starts sending the real mission photos then we can compare them.

when will the LRO reach this "working" altitude?




[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

Originally posted by mystr
And for who it says that LRO photos of apollo sites aren't at their best because because because the spacecraft isn't yet at its optimal altitude: you'll never see photos better that those, would you bet?

I don't know if I will see better photos of those targets, but yes, I am expecting better photos from this mission.

And also, regarding for who it says that that the (existing) hi-res clementine's images were published since 2004: find me the appollo landing sites ones, thanks.

Never thought of that, I will look for them, but I doubt there will be high resolution photos of those areas, the high resolution (1 metre per pixel) photos were few.

Originally posted by ArMaP

And also, regarding for who it says that that the (existing) hi-res clementine's images were published since 2004: find me the appollo landing sites ones, thanks.

Never thought of that, I will look for them, but I doubt there will be high resolution photos of those areas, the high resolution (1 metre per pixel) photos were few.

Back in the 2006 Clementine Color thread we looked... found nothing. It was one of the reasons we let the thread drop... pretty color images great for hanging on the wall... but not much useful info

reply to post by zorgon


Yes, photos with a resolution of 100 metres per pixel do not help much.

Here are two useless (for finding the Apollo hardware) Clementine photos.

Click for full size.

Apollo 11 landing site at 100 metres per pixel (at the bottom right of the screen)


Apollo 15 landing site at 104 metres per pixel (in the dark area to the right of the "rille")

My problem with all this is that we are not getting the real deal.

First of all that second picture does that look anything like normal moon rocks to you? I know when using the color images a lot of weird looking stuff appears. All kinds of 'glowing things' I know one astronaut described the surface as looking like 'Christmas lights' but I need to find that quote again


Here is what bugs me...

The old lunar orbiter cameras were, according to ITT the defense company that made them, capable of seeing and recognizing objects the size of a card table. A standard card table in the US is about 28 inches square...

Yet NONE of the LO images I have seen, even John's original 16x20 negatives come anywhere CLOSE to that

On a typical Lunar Orbiter mission, the photographic system provided high-resolution pictures of 4,000 square miles of the Moon's surface with enough clarity to show objects the size of a card table.

www.ssd.itt.com...

Clementine was supposed to be even better... yet it took till 2004 before we even knew they took color images and that didn't hit the public until after the LPI Roundtable session in Oct 2006...

So what is really going on? WHERE are these images that are 'card table' resolution?

Clementine we know was a DoD mission for the Reagan Star Wars plan, but what of Lunar Orbiter?

A small clue at ITT

The 1600 pictures captured in total by the five Lunar Orbiters using the ITT photographic system enabled photogrammetrists at NASA and the U.S. Government's Defense Mapping Agency

Defense Mapping Agency Ah I see... so what did THEY do with them?

The other key point on the LO missions

The first three missions, dedicated to imaging 20 potential Apollo landing sites, were flown at near equatorial orbits as close as 22 miles above the lunar surface. The fourth and fifth missions were devoted to broader scientific objectives, and were flown in high altitude polar orbits.

Okay LO I, II, III came as low as 22 miles... using 70mm film

We SHOULD have much better images to work with






[edit on 20-7-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Thats what I've been trying to say this whole time....

line 2

reply to post by Overload


From what I have found about that, it will be some 60 days after the lunar insertion manoeuvre, so it will probably start its real work around August 22.

Another thing I found is that LRO is expected to send back to Earth about 460Gbits of data each day, and there is the possibility of an extended mission for three years, after the 12 month primary mission.

PS: something that I notice that some people may not know (not directed at you, Overload, just a generic comment) is that the cameras used on satellites do not have the capability of zooming in and/or out, the size of what we see on the photos depends on the altitude at which the satellite is orbiting (and sometimes falling).

reply to post by ArMaP


Armap....can you tell me why we have hardly any noticeable difference between these images(Apollo landing sites) and images from 20-30 years ago?

Yes, as you said....August 22nd and am anxiously crossing my fingers...but not holding my breath

It really urks me when we have the technology, dam fine technology I might add yet these images look like there are from an old Polaroid..


Edit:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6b68c443610.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

Originally posted by zorgon

So what is really going on? WHERE are these images that are 'card table' resolution?

You showed us one, remember? Surveyor 1. Resolution 1.9 meters.
Well, ok. A dinner table maybe. Look for any images from 54km altitude or less and there you go.

[edit on 7/20/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
You showed us one, remember? Surveyor 1. Resolution 1.9 meters.
Well, ok. A dinner table maybe. Look for any images from 54km altitude or less and there you go.

Yeah well about them Surveyors...

Surveyor 1 - Launched May 30, 1966 - 11,237 images

Surveyor 3 - Launched on April 17, 1967 - 6,315 images

Surveyor 5 - Launched September 3, 1967 - 19,049 images

Surveyor 6 - Launched November 7, 1967 - 30,027 images

Where is them all at




[edit on 21-7-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

Sure. 11,000 slow scan TV images. Several hundred of which would create a panorama like this:
www.planetary.org...

Which, when cleaned up, would look like this:
www.planetary.org...


Do you really want to see 11,000 tiny images? Of craters and rocks? You know, those puppies didn't move around much.

PMSL at all the colour pic requests YOU KNOW zorgon that the Clementine colour pics taken of the Moon were RESTICTED to a select band of wavelengths so is not really a true picture of the Moon in colour.

I mean what is true colour anyway what our eyes are sensitive to or what film/electronics are sensitive to?

Any photographic instrument can be made to take colour picture that doesn't match what your eyes see, by filters or wavelength restrictions or timed exposures or stacking photographs, indeed our eyes are more sensative to the yellow green end of the visible spectrum because of the Star we orbit about.

If we really want to compare the pics with YOUR so called better google earth pics what we need is a picture from google earth at about the same res 0.5-1.5mtr per pixel of say a lander sized object in a desert or scrub terrain.

The pictures you show will always look better because they are of city areas so what see with buildings etc will make the LRO pics look rubbish so find a car or similar sized object in the desert on google earth make it into a greyscale then compare them!

Then we can see what everyone thinks!

Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Armap....can you tell me why we have hardly any noticeable difference between these images(Apollo landing sites) and images from 20-30 years ago?

Yes, as you said....August 22nd and am anxiously crossing my fingers...but not holding my breath

It really urks me when we have the technology, dam fine technology I might add yet these images look like there are from an old Polaroid..


Edit:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6b68c443610.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

This pic below was taken by the school kids who attached a digital camrea to a balloon pics were from no more than 20 miles (32km)high with a camera better than your polaroid, YOU show me an object the size of the lander on this pic its taken closer than the LRO pics with a better camera than your polaroid if you cant find an object that size the STOP with the stupid comments

farm4.static.flickr.com...

reply to post by wmd_2008


I got a few - but they only look like rocks and shadows riiiight?

Originally posted by Overload
Armap....can you tell me why we have hardly any noticeable difference between these images(Apollo landing sites) and images from 20-30 years ago?

What images from 20-30 years ago are you talking about?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Umm.......what?

line 2

Originally posted by Phage
Do you really want to see 11,000 tiny images? Of craters and rocks? You know, those puppies didn't move around much.

I LIKE rocks... really I do... my garage is full of em... and one or two of those images show things like the sunset rays... so yeah I wanna see em

But ermmm whats this about puppies not moving much?

reply to post by Overload


You said LRO pics not as good as a polaroid I gave you a link to a picture taken with a camera better than a polaroid only 20 miles high max, SO show me an object the size of the lander in that photo to prove your point!
This picture is closer to the surface of the earth than the LRO is to the Moons surface the camera is better than your polaroid you mention SO YOU should be able to point out a lander size object using YOUR LOGIC.
If you cant stop making STUPID comments about LRO picture quality!

farm4.static.flickr.com...

reply to post by zorgon

"Puppies", American idiomatic English for "things".
The surveyors didn't move (except for #6) after they landed so one panorama is all it takes to see everything they photographed.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Overload

 

If you cant stop making STUPID comments about LRO picture quality!

And you have to STOP insulting people, if i were a moderator I would know what to do about you.

The Apollo pictures produced by LROC 'til now are awful, so awful are the comments about them. When they'll be wonderful, wonderful will be the comments, use the logic.

Some people here starts freaking out in an extreme obstruction fire. If they're covert agents of some kind (always a possibility) the thing is not so bad, it means that they finally have the fire near their ass!

Some brief facts that explain why common people are a little upset at the moment:

1) No one, NASA first, ever released images of the greatest conquest of mankind for over FORTY years despite the fact that many probes from many countries, capable of the job, have been sent around the moon since that old times and despite the fact that showing those images as first as possible would be the dream of ANY public relations functionary, especially for entities who survives from public fundings.

2) In the occasion of the 40TH anniversary of the greatest mankind conquest, in the era of internet, google earth and informed people, they (NASA) celebrated the event letting know the entire world that they "LOST" the only original recordings of the first man on the moon (poor little ones...)

AND they greeted the solemn event by releasing the first image in over 40 years, this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73745ac47d7c.jpg[/atsimg]

So don't you pretend of not to know why many people are tired, and don't forget that we are on ATS, not at the "Fanforum of the offical version"

[edit on 21-7-2009 by mystr]