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.
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.
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.
That depends on who you ask, to me it's only geologically interesting, like the whole region.
What is so special about the top right of tsiolkovsky
Thanks, it's amazing what we can do when we have the time.
Originally posted by mystr
ArMap, your work is impressive!
This photo is only 83 centimetres per pixel, the resolution at the intended altitude (50km) for the mission will be 50 centimetres per pixel.
It seems that we finally have those promised hi-res pics.
I don't know if they will photograph those sites again, after all that is not one of the mission's objectives.
Let's hope we'll get another pass over the apollo 11 to 17 (and 20? )sites and/or known suspect locations like Aristarchus.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ArMaPThat depends on who you ask, to me it's only geologically interesting, like the whole region.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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...
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?
"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)
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.
Originally posted by ArMaP
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.
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
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.
One example could be rocks...
This could be the final...
I can imagine they would, on some occasions...
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.
Originally posted by ArMaP
And I don't think they owe anything to mankind