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.

 

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

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Wait, just so we are clear (I'm confused) is there NOT supposed to be any type of rolling rocks on the moon, and if so why not?

I would imagine the tracks of a rock that has been on the edge of rolling over for a dozen or so years might not look like the tracks of a rock that has rolled down a hillside on Earth, what with the difference in gravity and all.




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Very nice, it's amazing how good the quality was from the camera's back in the Apollo days.
Yes, we don't need digital cameras to have good photos, film is still a good option (although probably less of an option in a space mission). Also, those "Metric" photos from Apollo 15, 16 and 17 were made with large negatives, 12cmx12cm.

That Apollo photo came from the Apollo Image Archive site, they are digitising in high the photos taken by the Apollo missions (they started with the "Metric" photos).


What is so special about the top right of tsiolkovsky
That depends on who you ask, to me it's only geologically interesting, like the whole region.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystr
ArMap, your work is impressive!
Thanks, it's amazing what we can do when we have the time.


It seems that we finally have those promised hi-res pics.
This photo is only 83 centimetres per pixel, the resolution at the intended altitude (50km) for the mission will be 50 centimetres per pixel.


Let's hope we'll get another pass over the apollo 11 to 17 (and 20?
)sites and/or known suspect locations like Aristarchus.
I don't know if they will photograph those sites again, after all that is not one of the mission's objectives.

After writing that I thought that this is a good excuse to post the primary objectives of the LRO camera (the LRO has more instruments on board).


1) Assess meter- and smaller-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites near polar resources, and elsewhere on the Moon.
2) Acquire multi-temporal synoptic imaging of the poles every orbit to characterize the polar illumination environment (100 m/pixel scale), identifying regions of permanent shadow and permanent or near-permanent illumination over a full year.

The other six "high-value data sets" are:


3) meter-scale mapping of regions of permanent or near-permanent illumination of polar massifs;
4) multiple co-registered observations of portions of potential landing sites and elsewhere for derivation of high-resolution topography through stereogrammetric and photometric stereo analyses;
5) global multispectral coverage in seven wavelengths (300-680 nm) to characterize lunar resources, in particular ilmenite;
6) a global 100.0 m/pixel basemap with incidence angles (60-80°) favorable for morphologic interpretations;
7) sub-meter imaging of a variety of geologic units to characterize physical properties, variability of the regolith, and key science questions;
8) meter-scale coverage overlapping with Apollo era panoramic images (1-2 m/pixel) to document the number of small impacts since 1971-1972, to ascertain hazards for future surface operations and interplanetary travel.

Source

[edit on 8/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPThat depends on who you ask, to me it's only geologically interesting, like the whole region.


Reply removed..

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Cygnific]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't know if they will photograph those sites again, after all that is not one of the mission's objectives.


I hope they'll do it. They owe it to us, in the end.
And for 'us' i don't mean only we crazy ufologists, but the entire mankind.
And it's also in their interests too, just to put some levee to conspiracy theories.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mystr
 


I don't think the conspiracies will stop, they will say the same thing they have been saying of all other photos, that they were photoshoped. Some people will never accept anything as proof that some men really went to the Moon.

And I don't think they owe anything to mankind, I see no special interest in seeing the Apollo missions' "junkyard". Well, maybe to help us distinguish artificial from natural objects.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Wait, just so we are clear (I'm confused) is there NOT supposed to be any type of rolling rocks on the moon, and if so why not?


In your expert opinion why WOULD there be rolling rocks? There are no moon quakes... there is not supposed to be any wind so why do the rocks role?

I am sure you will have a marvelous explanation...



Now the reason it is very interesting to some that there are so many moving rocks in the Tsiolkovsky region is because of the miming operation and the buried ship that towed the moon


So finding evidence of disturbed terrain here is useful if not conclusive

But I anticipated your explanation of the forces that make these rock role especially the 72 meter one in Vitello Crater

Oh and please be so kind as to provide data to demonstrate this

Thanks



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think the conspiracies will stop, they will say the same thing they have been saying of all other photos, that they were photoshoped. Some people will never accept anything as proof that some men really went to the Moon.


If conspiracies stop ATS would have to shut down and we would all need to go back to our boring miserable little lives





posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Wait, just so we are clear (I'm confused) is there NOT supposed to be any type of rolling rocks on the moon...


Well technically you have a point.

gadgetmaniac.mail2web.com...

Sorry Zorgon,
In the newly minted spirit of coopertion that is permeating the board, I had to help.


[edit on 10-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Wait, just so we are clear (I'm confused) is there NOT supposed to be any type of rolling rocks on the moon, and if so why not?


In your expert opinion why WOULD there be rolling rocks? There are no moon quakes... there is not supposed to be any wind so why do the rocks role?

I am sure you will have a marvelous explanation...


You're not talking about rolling rock the beer right? (sorry bad joke). I missed that billboard last year KK, wish I had seen that!
I agree there are no moon quakes, there's no wind, so what can make rocks roll?

The only explanation that immediately comes to mind, is an impact. The impact can vibrate the moon a little like a moon quake would , (if there was such a thing as a moon quake) but I doubt that explains very much. The more likely explanation to me is that the impact physically displaces the rocks, may even kick them up off the surface a bit such that they will have some momentum to keep them rolling when they come back in touch with the surface. With this much momentum the could do some seemingly odd things like roll uphill, etc.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You're not talking about rolling rock the beer right? (sorry bad joke). I missed that billboard last year KK, wish I had seen that!
I agree there are no moon quakes, there's no wind, so what can make rocks roll?


Just to be clear the rock I refer to is the other high res image from the old Lunar Orbiter (Lunar Orbiter 5, Frame 168-H2)

Despite what skeptic will say the white areas are the hills as Vitello Peak is in sunlight while the black areas are the crater floor. Never mind for now about it rolling through dips and going uphill
The POINT is this 'boulder' is the size of a house...

And if ArMaP is game... he could measure it to be certain (I think we planned to do that once in another thread, forget if we ever did)

This report makes it 75 feet


"Lunar Orbiter 5 recorded this evidence of objects moving on the Moon on the slope of the central peak of Vitello. In the upper half of this greatly enlarged tiny portion of the original frame, we see two 'boulders' which have rolled down the mountain from the left to right. The larger one, just above the small dark crater, is about 75 feet across and sufficiently irregular to have left a conspicuous tread marked path some 900 feet long. It shines brightly and casts a long shadow into the crater. Near the upper border a 15 foot object with a triangular shadow has left a weaving 1200 foot long trail. George Leonard claimed that the upper object rolled up and out of the crater before rolling downhill to where it is seen in the photo. (NASA, VII Gassendi S 2.4)"

David Hatcher Childress
Extraterrestrial Archeology (1994)


All my data so far is HERE

This is the one in question... larger versions are on my pages





So what forces make a rock as big as a house roll for such a long distance, especially considering its obviously not round?




The only explanation that immediately comes to mind, is an impact. The impact can vibrate the moon a little like a moon quake would , (if there was such a thing as a moon quake) but I doubt that explains very much. The more likely explanation to me is that the impact physically displaces the rocks, may even kick them up off the surface a bit such that they will have some momentum to keep them rolling when they come back in touch with the surface. With this much momentum the could do some seemingly odd things like roll uphill, etc.


Well impact is about the only natural thing left as an explanation...
Maybe its all that space junque NASA keeps bombing the Moon with making it 'ring like a bell'

The reason why Tsiolkovsky is so interesting is

A) It is the area that Norm Bergrun says is the location where the spacecraft that towed the moon into orbit is buried

B) It is the area where Jack and others at Pegasus think are signs of a mining operation...

So the reason we put in a request to NASA to scan this area was to see if there was any sign of 'disturbed' rocks..

Well I would say ArMaP has shown there are many disturbed rocks in the region... especially the white uncovered area...

Here is a picture AS15-94-12741HR that show some interesting details. The two white squares show the objects in the second image below...

The big area labeled 'lobate landslide' was the area we most wanted scanned and our request was for geological interest. The 'lobate' term actually comes from NASA so they too are interested in this location.. ('lobate' from ear lobe like)



Here is the full size Apollo images from NASA



Here is the clippings Jack made



Colorized



Jack's work on this is HERE

So no matter what you think of the 'way out there' theories... you have to admit the landslide area is interesting..

If natural, what caused it? A meteor impact would not do this...

Astronomers have recorded craters seemingly being filled in... this is documented in NASA's own TLP report..

If indeed someone or something was moving dirt onto a pile like this lobate area, I would EXPECT to see rocks rolling off that pile as more was added...

Well I am seeing rocks move where we expected (and hoped) to find rocks moving








[edit on 10-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Nice job Z man. That took loads of effort. Wish I could toss a few more stars at ya.

As time goes by, I become more convinced you are TOTALLY on to it.

Perhaps we never got those personal gyrocopters that Popular Mechanics Magazine promised us all for the last 50 years, but I think their vision of Moon bases and colonizing the moon did become a reality.

This is related. (found in the most unlikely of places.)

www.hudsonfla.com...

Regards. . . KK

[edit on 10-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Now it's a good time to revisit that rolling stone, I will see what I can do about it.


There is another possibility for the "trigger" that makes the rocks roll, the breaking of another rock that was holding that rock in that place.

A small rock that is keeping a larger, heavier rock from rolling is subjected to bigger stress than other rocks, so changes in temperature, for example, may be enough to make it break under the weight of the larger rock, and when that happens the large starts rolling down hill.

Keeping in mind that, if we ignore drag (which we really cannot, but just to keep the explanation within my knowledge
), the rock has enough energy to climb another hill of the same height, it's no surprise that it can go over some craters and even go up hill up to a point.

But if it goes up hill, when it stops there should be nothing keeping it from rolling back, so maybe that "up hill" is not really an "up hill" after all. I have to find some more data about it.

About that "lobate" area, I will post tomorrow a better resolution image of that area.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Now it's a good time to revisit that rolling stone, I will see what I can do about it.


Yes I do believe it is




There is another possibility for the "trigger" that makes the rocks roll, the breaking of another rock that was holding that rock in that place.

A small rock that is keeping a larger, heavier rock from rolling is subjected to bigger stress than other rocks, so changes in temperature, for example, may be enough to make it break under the weight of the larger rock, and when that happens the large starts rolling down hill.


Maybe
That reminds me I need to go out to John's mine and take some pictures of the house size rocks balances on nothing


Mind you these are caused by wind erosion






[edit on 10-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



In your expert opinion why WOULD there be rolling rocks? There are no moon quakes.........

I am sure you will have a marvelous explanation...

But I anticipated your explanation of the forces that make these rock role especially the 72 meter one in Vitello Crater.........

Oh and please be so kind as to provide data to demonstrate this


No documentation here for anything I state, but it seems like obvious common sense, and I didn't know that required documentation. If that is the case then we're doomed, lol.

Some of you need to be reminded that space is not static. It is dynamic. Things happen over time-spans that are out of our comfort level, and cause some to mistakenly believe things can never change up there. The moon is a good example, folks seem to think it never changes and that it is some dead ball of rock orbiting the center of their universe.

Quite the opposite, although it is not active enough capture much attention, things do change over time. One example could be rocks that are tipsy to begin with can be hit with a micrometeorite (or whatever you would call that on the moon, LTP? Not cure). This could be the final, small push necessary to cause a rock to start rolling. Depending on the mass of the rock and the exact terrain, due to the decreased gravity of the moon I can imagine they would, on some occasions, roll pretty far before coming to rest.

I just think there are way more mundane reasons that you really have to overlook in order to accept less probable (or least probable) conclusions.


Um, or yeah I guess it could be because the mining operations, the hollow spaceship, or whatever other unlikely conclusion keeps your attention.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
No documentation here for anything I state, but it seems like obvious common sense, and I didn't know that required documentation.


Well if it is so common it should be easy to prove




One example could be rocks...
This could be the final...
I can imagine they would, on some occasions...


Ah I see... so your not sure





I just think there are way more mundane reasons that you really have to overlook in order to accept less probable (or least probable) conclusions.


That may be BUT there are more than enough people on here covering your mundane view point...

So it behooves me to be one of the few that explores the alternate 'possibilities'



Um, or yeah I guess it could be because the mining operations, the hollow spaceship, or whatever other unlikely conclusion keeps your attention.


Not so sure on the spaceship yet, but the mining...
I'm down for that


Hey I plan a trip to Palmdale soon... got some friends at Dryden... wanna do lunch?




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I'm up for some lunch, depending on my schedule/location, drop me a line and let me know when. Your friends don't happen to work at Plant 42 do they?

And yes, there are many covering the "boring" viewpoint, but maybe because that just makes the most sense. I know this is a conspiracy board, and wouldn't be so without exploring the more out there options. I just think if anything here was attributable to sustained mining operations on the moon there would be far more proof of this here on this planet rather than in moon pics (I think you know what I mean here).



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
zorgon

As promised, here is a link to a better resolution image (not the same photo) of that lobate area.

As this is a 12MB, 3612x3888 image it's too big for the useless Media Portal.

If you want the original, 343MB, 22900x22900 image (converted from a CUB file) just say.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And I don't think they owe anything to mankind


Who was that dude.. he said something like.."That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind"... not a step for 'myself' or for 'NASA'... his words!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


No surprise that there is no moonbase in that picture



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join