Apollo Hardware Spotted!

Originally posted by ngchunter
LRO has imaged at least one of the Apollo landing sites now (and it sounds like there were able to get more than one), and NASA is releasing the images at noon today:
www.nasa.gov...
This is the first time since the end of the Apollo program that images have been taken that resolve some of the actual hardware left behind. Depending on the probe's altitude at the time the images were taken, these may or may not be as good as LRO can ultimately provide.

*There's a press conference to discuss the images at 2pm eastern, but I suspect the images will go up on the LROC site when they're released to the media at 12:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]

hunter

When I first read this post my screen did not show the forum that this topic is posted in. I checked and it never does when I line up to read the information posted.
You and yours are usually bombarding the moon hoaxers when they attempt to discuss what they believe. So, I incorrectly thought this was conspiracy related.
So in conclusion I would like to point out that you could have been a little more clear on your OP.
You could have left out the word resolve or added resolve (for us insiders only).
I wouldn't have wasted so much of everyone's time. Although I lied not and stand behind everything I posted, it is still my bad for not being aware of which forum I was in.

Originally posted by SPC_D

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is what you would have them believe is the descent-stage of the Apollo 15 LM:

Are people "in the audience" intimately familiar with the layout of the apollo landing sites that they're judging in these photos? Do they know what it should look like with regards to crater formations, something established ONLY by apollo imagery down to the resolution achieved and exceeded here? Have they determined whether or not everything seen here is consistent with the apollo record, and not just the LM?

Still expecting unreasonable amounts of resolution are you? How do you propose to get a 20 ton spy satellite into lunar orbit, exactly? What currently-available booster would you use? Let's see it.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by ngchunter]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c27f0d085c2a.jpg[/atsimg]

The blown up picture posted by exuberant would have required 8 cms per pixel resolution to be clear. HiRise gets about 2 meters per pixel of resolution versus LRO's 5 meters resolution (yet to be stably attained due to the current orbit). No, HiRise isn't anywhere close to doing what was demanded, and it's the same order of magnitude spatial resolution as LRO.

pic related I supose still if we can take stunning photos of this from mars [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb3b911f997d.jpg[/atsimg] I would think that we could do it on the moon just saying.

reply to post by ngchunter


You got your resolutions mixed up. HiRISE's resolution is 25 centimetres per pixel, like in that photo with the cube, LROC's resolution would be around 50 centimetres per pixel, hopefully in the next two weeks.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You got your resolutions mixed up. HiRISE's resolution is 25 centimetres per pixel, like in that photo with the cube, LROC's resolution would be around 50 centimetres per pixel, hopefully in the next two weeks.

Yes, you're right, .25 and .5 meters, not 2 and 5. Still the same order of magnitude, though LRO is cheaper and has a wider mission than just optical mapping. What exuberant is effectively demanding is .08 meters resolution though, judging by how much he blew up the LRO image. There's never been an interplanetary probe with that kind of spatial resolution, not even close.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Go to NASA's site and you'll find out why. I'ts all quite logical really.

I'm still quite amazed that a generation that can communicate with someone face to face on the otherside of the world on something the size of a matchbox, instantly... can't understand going to the moon is easy. It just costs a lot of money, and in those days a bit of luck (A13) and remeber they estimated only a 50% chance of success anyway.

Just examine a ballpoint pen. Now go make one yourself from scratch! You can't, you need lots of people in a chain making and supplying things. Same with NASA. Those that disbelieve need to abandon their technology they rely on and go and live in a cave.

reply to post by ArMaP

I'm confused by the way HIRISE resolution is described. The image information will say something like:
Map projected scale: 25 cm/pixel
Original image scale range: 29.6 cm/pixel (with 1 x 1 binning) so objects ~89 cm across are resolved

So what does this mean? Is it 25, 29.6, or 89 cm?

reply to post by Phage

The way I understand it is that if an object on a 29.6cm per pixel photo is exactly 29.6 pixels then it will "fill" that pixel, but if it "falls" in a cross between four pixels, for example, it will be averaged in each pixel with the surrounding area, and they consider that to fully define any object on a photo they need to be at least 3x3 pixels to avoid being averaged with the background.

Here is a little test.

On the first column we have four squares, one occupying the whole pixel, one occupying four pixels, a 2x2 square occupying four pixels and a 3x3 square occupying nine pixels. On the second column we have the same images but resized to 10% to make each 10x10 square to look like just one pixel. Those images were then resized back but keeping the pixel shape, not re-sampling them. On the third column we have same sized and positioned circles, and on the fourth column we have their resized versions.


As you can see, only when we reach the 3x3 size can we start to get a real idea of the original shape, below that all shapes are turned into just a (square) pixel.

So, they are saying in a more "scientific" way the same things we say, we cannot see what it is when it's only a pixel wide.

Edited to add:
I forgot about the difference between the map-projected version and the original. The difference comes from the stretching or compressing of the image to compensate for the angle between the camera and the ground (usually close to 90º, but not exactly 90º) and to compensate for the shape of the target (Mars, in this case), so sometimes the original resolution is smaller than the map-projected version, sometimes it's bigger.

[edit on 14/8/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP

Thank you for the clear explanations.

Do you know if the published maximum resolutions for the LROC are referring to the "binned resolution" or the "surface resolution"? If the binned resolution is actually 50cm, then it is substantially better than what HIRISE gives us.

Since the LROC is always aimed vertically downward, I supposed the map projected resolution is not a concern.

reply to post by Phage

I think it's the "surface resolution", from what I have seen that is just taking into account the characteristics of the telescope and the altitude of the orbit.

The Apollo 14 site has been imaged again. The Sun is at a higher angle relative to the surface and this really helps to make the trails left by the astronauts to stand out even more. You can see the trail going all the way up to Cone crater this time.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

[edit on 20-8-2009 by jra]

reply to post by jra

That trail was already visible on the first photo, but apparently most people didn't noticed it.

I did, using the TIFF.

Originally posted by ArMaP
That trail was already visible on the first photo, but apparently most people didn't noticed it.

I knew it was already visible, but there just seems to be a higher contrast between the undisturbed surface and the trail itself in this new one.

reply to post by jra

Yes, in this photo is more visible, and that shows something more that people forget, that the Moon has night and day, like the Earth, so it has sunset, noon and sunrise, and the time the photos are taken change the way things look.

The Apollo 12 site has now been imaged, completing the first image of each site. The resolution of this image is about 1 meter per pixel, so it's about half of what LRO's final mission resolution will be.
(LROC main gallery isn't working for me at the moment, so here's a full resolution JPG for now)
asunews.asu.edu...
The astronaut tracks, LEM, and Surveyor 3 are all clearly visible.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

Annotated version here:


asunews.asu.edu...




[edit on 9/6/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 9/6/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by kiwifoot


I have been laughing about the fake landings for over 30 years now .. at my age back then I was in 3rd grade when I watched it .. oh how cool .. yeah right! ! ! but then I changed my mind started asking questions why the flag was blowing around .. and how come no stars in the photos? and the questions just kept on stacking up

back then even my own parents weren’t really al that impressed about the truth of the apollo mission they too had doubts they thought it was all a hoax because of Russia

so over the years the only rebuttal ya ever heard of was in the News paper or magazines and on the radio .. cause there wasn’t any internet to communicate ALL the MIS-information as of yet. OH but then came the internet and it wasn’t long more like instantly it was all over the net it was a big Hoax ..

And over the years people have actually saved information on Disc drives then transferred that info to Cd drive and yeah lots of information was saved as to all the excuses NASA has made as to the reason we never went back to the moon .. now that’s just half of it .. were talking missing photos to missing documents of logged transmission communication with glen and Buz oh and much much more so ..

It will take more than pictures to make me believe .. we went to the moon...

Originally posted by nataylor
The images are up here: www.nasa.gov...

They have Apollos 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17!

Well that dosnt prove or disprove anything... until there is a lunar robot with a 1080p streaming webcam... well

You sure Richard C isn't behind these pic's ? Looks like rocks to me , but hey that's all I ever seem to see with these kind of pic's

A picture with arrows pointing to 4 pixel dots is not a proof of anything.

reply to post by NorthStargal52


I hope that you know now why there aren't any stars visible on the photos.