Originally posted by atzmaz
All I know is if they can pull off a picture of the mars rover from space, you better be able to get decent pictures of where we landed on the moon.
Check this out: This can't be bigger than Apollo
At this distance the image scale is 27 cm/pixel (with 1 x 1 binning) so objects ~81 cm across are resolved.
The best is yet to come! Once LRO finishes commissioning operations and enters its 50-km x 50-km mapping orbit, a maneuver currently scheduled for mid-August, the LROC NAC will take images over 8% of the Moon at 50-cm/pixel.
Originally posted by daggyz
I think all the conspiritor theory people are fakes. They are logged on by real moon landing believers just to create some good debate and interest in the moon landings.
By the way do you realise that if you look hard and hold your head at 37.5 degree angle to the sun you can see an image of Elvis' face at the Apollo 14 landing site!
Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by nataylor
Like I said above, it would have to be some damn close up images.
I thought this probe was looking to scout possible landing sites for manned missions in 2020/ Wouldn't they have the ability to take better images (more close up and detailed).
Sorry NASA, this proves nothing to me.
Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers I mean Technically couldn't you build a house of cards on the moon and since there is no atmosphere it would not get blown over?
December 7, 2005: Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.
The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.
Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
That is pretty cool. I have never heard of Moon Storms before.
Originally posted by lazimodo
Thank you for the for the posts. Most interesting.
Some of these pictures are plus 50 years old. At -20 degrees lunar apogee with 30 degrees of aperture there should be 3/18X12,000 or 2,000 stars visible in the hi rez lander picture. There are none visible, inexplicably.
its not an unmanned probe its the decent stage that they leave behind.
Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by kiwifoot
Ok, but why would an unmanned lander be parked at Apollo's landing sites? With the notable exception of apollo 12, that shouldn't be the case.