|
reply posted on 10-8-2009 @ 09:45 AM by Donny 4 million
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-8-2009 @ 07:40 PM by ngchunter
|
 
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]
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
I would think that we could do it on the moon just saying.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-8-2009 @ 05:34 AM by ArMaP
|
 
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-8-2009 @ 08:40 AM by ngchunter
|
 
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-8-2009 @ 09:33 PM by daggyz
|
   
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 12:18 AM by Phage
|
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?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 06:04 AM by ArMaP
|
   
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 11:29 AM by Phage
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 12:41 PM by ArMaP
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:11 PM by jra
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 04:25 AM by ArMaP
|

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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 08:10 AM by jra
|

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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 09:19 AM by ArMaP
|

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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 09:19 PM by ngchunter
|

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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 09:34 PM by Phage
|
 
|
copyright & usage
|
 |