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.

 

LROC: First look at the Apollo landing sites

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 

There was no rover on Apollo 14.

The reason we can see the footpaths in that image and not the others is because the lighting angle is better.

The image of the Apollo 14 landing site had a particularly desirable lighting condition that allowed visibility of additional details. The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package, a set of scientific instruments placed by the astronauts at the landing site, is discernable, as are the faint trails between the module and instrument package left by the astronauts' footprints.


www.nasa.gov...




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Clearly this is all bull# from NASA. One of the more interesting theories I've heard is they were the ones who came out with the moon landing hoax.

Think about it - it diverts our attention to the real mysteries and secrets they found up there. After all how can there be ancient artifacts found on the moon if they weren't there to begin with!



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Once again......Phage is correct.

Lunar Rover Info

Can't wait until Zorgon shows up for another Phage-Zorgon Smackdown. Always sure to please and great info presented from both sides.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Only a question: Why does NASA spend Hundreds of Millions dollars in order to send a probe on the moon and takes the photos with an old POLAROID?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Taymour
 


I agree, Millions upon millions of our money and all we get is grainy,black and white, pixelated images...


This fact alone should be enough for the public to start asking questions. What a freaking waste of tax payers money.....



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Lunar winds wiped them clean



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Overload
 

The purpose of the mission is to scout future landing sites. It is not to provide eye candy.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thats fine....but why do we still get grainy,black and white,pixelated images....STILL........its 2009 already

Maybe its already been posted why we get the crappy images......we are not in the need to know



You can not tell me that that is the state of the art imagery we are seeing Phage...

We have satellites that can "see" with 1 meter resolution(gov has better) here on earth....why not on the moon with no atmosphere?

You helped pay for it....doesn't that bother you???

Edit: I'm not sure if you helped pay for it, but I know I did


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
why is it that the moon images of today are hardly any better than that of 20-30-40 years ago....

It makes no sense



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Right but why do not to put also a camera with a better resolution? To NASA it doesn't interest to know as it is in the minimum detail the ground where will be the landing is situated?
I think that due NASA is looking for a landing site would have to know any speck of dust of the place.
It is reasonable, don't you think ?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
You mean to tell me this is as good as it gets for a 2009 orbiter meant for specifically taking images of the moon-- for resolution????
Come on....





posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Overload
 

The purpose of the mission is to scout future landing sites. It is not to provide eye candy.


Seriously?! Wasn't this already done before we originally went there? Also how are these images supposed to provide better information for us to land? Wouldn't sending a scout probe on a site that shouldn't change due to the fact NASA should already know any new impact locations since the last landing? Is it a huge waste of our money to re-survey land that should NEVER change without NASA already having knowledge of something colliding with it?

Why is this mission even needed if there is nothing to change the surface of the moon except objects that NASA can track?! And my last question, are these images producing significant discoveries in the land formation that we had not known prior with "lower resolution" missions?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
For the record and sake of clarity, aren't these offered as 'initial' images as the LRO has not achieved optimal orbit yet?

I am holding out for subsequent passes. I agree the resolution is underwhelming.

From OP:

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) on board the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) was afforded its first of many opportunities to image the six Apollo landing sites July 11 through 15


Just sayin'.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Overload
Why do we still get grainy,black and white,pixelated images....STILL........its 2009 already

You can not tell me that that is the state of the art imagery we are seeing Phage...

We have satellites that can "see" with 1 meter resolution(gov has better) here on earth....why not on the moon with no atmosphere?

You helped pay for it....doesn't that bother you???

Edit: I'm not sure if you helped pay for it, but I know I did



I agree, Millions upon millions of our money and all we get is grainy,black and white, pixelated images...


This fact alone should be enough for the public to start asking questions. What a freaking waste of tax payers money.....


Sacred words, overload. Fortunately i haven't paid for that crappy suff!


We aren't anymore stupid.

The images took on 196x by the old lunar orbiters were A LOT BETTER than these...

AND you have to consider that the altitude requested for a lunar orbit is a lot LOWER than a earth's one.

AND less altitude=more detail. UNDENIABLE.

I've already said it: is the primary contractor for these new nasa moon probes MATTEL?

They are taking all the world as stupids.


[edit on 20-7-2009 by mystr]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by surgence
 

It was done before the Apollo landings and it is now being done to gather a much larger dataset. Photography is one of the least important parts of this mission.

These are the instruments being carried on the LRO. If you're interested you can learn more about exactly what the mission is. If not, you can continue to bitch while remaining ignorant.

Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER)
Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DIVINER)
Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP)
Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND)
The Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)
Mini-RF is a technology demonstration of an advanced single aperture radar (SAR)

www.planetary.org...


[edit on 7/20/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by surgence
 

you can continue to bitch.

[edit on 7/20/2009 by Phage]


thank you for answering my questions in the most mannered way possible.

well considering you, yourself, arent in the best of informative moods when you say something along the lines of...


The purpose of the mission is to scout future landing sites. It is not to provide eye candy.


and I reply asking questions about the validity of THAT quote as it has already been achieved and executed previously... I would expect from someone with a higher level of respect on this board to produce knowledge with a HIGHER LEVEL of maturity!

so pardon me for thinking you'd have a little more grace than this!

I find it fascinating that I am asking

EDIT: not sure it added that very last line... please ignore


[edit on 20-7-2009 by surgence]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


With all due respect Phage.

While I don't doubt the importance and significance of the scientific value of the data to be gathered, it seems reasonable to expect compelling pictures for those who fund the program (US taxpayers) and not to mention the tremendous PR value to secure future funding.

Granted NASA clearly has no interest in silencing conspirasists (or do they?) but they sure have a gigantic ego to maintain both financially and world supremecy-wise.

My .02¢

Regards...KK



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by surgence
 

Judging from your post it was apparent you know virtually nothing about the mission. Instead of doing the least amount of research you complain about "a huge waste of money to re-survey land that should never change". Along with your "questions", you bash those who are providing the data just because the data does not meet your requirements. Were you indeed ignorant of the other, more important, parts of the mission or were you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

I stand by what I said. You can continue to complain while remaining ignorant or you can try to learn something first. At least then your complaints might carry some weight. Obviously, to my mind, bitching in ignorance does not merit much "grace".



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
So stoked people are coming together to let NASA know that's just not good enough for today.

Their game is up - these photos as well as many others follow a pattern of arrogant deceit.

So what you think you know better than us? It doesn't matter, to coin a phrase that's almost imprinted on todays consciousness: "The people are waking up".

Just yesterday I heard "normal everyday people" who are on the tipping point openly discuss how incompetent NASA were for erasing Apollo tapes! "It sounds like a conspiracy" one even said, that made me smile.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

Where does the money for a more powerful camera come from? People are already complaining about "wasting money". Which of the other instruments should they have eliminated in order to account for the increased weight and space requirements of a larger lens?

The camera does what it is designed to do, within the constraints imposed upon it.

The LROC approach is to minimize risk in all aspects of the investigation in order to meet the schedule, mass, data volume, and cost constraints of LRO while meeting or exceeding the measurement requirements.

www.lpi.usra.edu...




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join