Why are the LROC images so lousy?

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The answer is, they aren't. They are really good. So why can't we see more? Let's take the image from the Apollo 14 landing site as an example. At first look there isn't much to see. There's a reason for that; there isn't much to see. The lander is barely visible and it's the size of a pickup truck. What else is there? Some instruments and a flagpole (no rover). Other than that there's (yes) rocks and craters.

But what is easy to not get is the scale of what we're looking at. The resolution of the Apollo 14 image is about 1 meter per pixel, so the LM occupies 3, maybe 4 pixels. Tiny right? Well yes. But is that the best we can do? Pretty much. The LRO will be getting into a lower orbit and the resolution will improve but there still isn't going to be a whole lot to see. Or is there?
Here is the Apollo 14 landing site. I know, we've seen it. But I want you to compare it to something.


Unfortunately, what I want you to compare it to is copyrighted so I can't embed it but here is the link. Maybe open it in a separate tab.

This is Rio De Janeiro as imaged from the Ikonos satellite. Lots of stuff. It is at a resolution of .8 meters per pixel. Each pixel is about 1 foot smaller (30%) than it is in the Apollo image (LROC should eventually match it). If the lander were in this image it would cover only 7 pixels. Look at that image for a while and try to relate it to the image from the moon. Look at the cars. If you didn't know they were cars, you wouldn't know what they were. Look at the buildings. Those are definitely buildings. I'll say it again; this is practically the same resolution as the LROC images! You could superimpose the Moon on Rio and it would be about the right size.

Can we look at the image from the moon and say, "Yup, that's the lander all right!" Not really but if we look at the maps we have of the landing sites we can be sure that the lander is in exactly the right spot.

There is a lot of moon to photograph at these resolutions so it will take a while. But at some point we should be able to compare the LROC images to the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, and Clementine images we've been wondering about and learn a lot more about some of those anomalies. Don't worry though, there will still be rocks we can argue about but the alien bases will be tough to sell.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Good work. It certainly puts the images in context and creates a clearer picture in my mind of the scales involved. So far, the LROC mission has left very little for people to undermine with strange accusations. The increasing resolutions will leave less and less room for 'alien moon base' theories, but mysteries will still remain. There's more to the Moon than finding alien bases!

From the initial test images to the Apollo site images...a lot of transparency is evident. All told, it's promising to be an exciting year for anyone with a genuine interest in the Moon and science in general.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Do you think the LROC has a color camera onboard? After finding out the moon isn't really black & white, i'm kindof insulted that nasa would release b&w pics



or the moon really is grey, and i'm crazy for listening to others lol



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nice APOLLOgetic thread, Phage.

Just admit that the pictures are crap, and that they are useless.

NASA wanted to put an end to the speculation, and they come out with this?

Is this the best they can at this moment?

Google earth can zoom in much further than that.

edit to add. So, it's beyond me why you would compare the lunar picture to a pic of Rio, with that kind of zoom.

I can show pics of Earth that are zoomed in much further, where you can clearly make out , for instance, pick up trucks.

You make it look like those lunar pics are the best we can do, wich I don't believe.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 

LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) to provide images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath, and a Sequence and Compressor System (SCS) supporting data acquisition for both cameras. LROC is a modified version of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters ConTeXt Camera (CTX) and MARs Color Imager (MARCI) provided by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) in San Diego, CA.
Source

The Moon has color...




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
EDIT

Actually yes, they are orbiters.

Well also bear in mind they are not specialized for such tiny scales. These images are your normal Google earth quality. Perfectly fine.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
NASA wanted to put an end to the speculation, and they come out with this?


It is not the mission of the LROC to debunk the "non moon landing" conspiracies. These photos are simply a biproduct of another mission.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Good thing you edited your post, cause it was way off.

And no, these pics aren't Google Earth quality, you can zoom in much further with GE.

edit to add; I can see individual sheep standing in a pasture near my house, on GE.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 



Google earth can zoom in much further than that.


Your attempt at clever puns is noted, in the beginning of your post...your lack of adeptness at truth is also noted.

GE is augmented by aerial photos. Just as it is augmented by the 'street view' photos.

Unless you wish to claim that the satellites swoop down and photograph images sideways, too???



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Yes, weed put it right.

The level of quality of these photos are in perfect syncranization with Google earth AERIAL photos.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm not talking about streetview here, you are.

As far as I know, the look from above in GE, is all satelite imagery, but I'm not sure tbh, can you show me a source?

Besides, we all know that the government can use satelites to zoom in much further as GE.

Don't say the technology doesn't exist.




Your attempt at clever puns is noted


Attempt? Come on man, it was pretty clever.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 



...we all know that the government can use satelites to zoom in much further...


Yes, yes, yes...the government! Those capablities are guessed at, speculated at, etc... The exact details are, of course, not public knowledge. Hence, Google Earth.

The government isn't going to need a satellite above the Lunar surface to see details as small as newsprint, now are they???

That is the point, here. The Apollo hardware is there. There was NO REASON to spend money to specifically look at it, since it's known to be there (by the vast majority of reasonable people).

Again, I've said it before. NASA is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Image the Apollo sites, and expect 'hoaxists' to shut up? Nah....religion is too strong, in them. Don't image the sites because of the inevitable complaints??? Well, then it's OBVIOUS!!! NASA cover-up!!!!!

Sheesh!



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you really think that NASA puts cameras on board of their satelites that can only zoom that far, but not a little bit further, so we can actually see the lunar lander?

I'm not saying they didn't go to the moon, but since they have the LROC there, is it too much to ask for a decent picture that actually shows something?



[edit on 19-7-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


No. Nasa does not.

The government does.

Hence why the government launches it's own satellite for these tasks. And Nasa does not.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage




Nice image.

I like this one better. I wonder if this one is ours or is it the Russian's secret moon lander? (I mean, what else could it be but a spacecraft landed on the moon)



hmmmm.



[edit on 19-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Ok, so you are saying that these pictures are the best that the equipment on board of the LROC can do?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

Google Earth uses aerial photographs.

With Google Earth, your computer becomes a window to anywhere on the planet, allowing you to view high-resolution aerial and satellite imagery, elevation terrain, road and street labels, business listings, and more.

earth.google.com...

In general, the resolution of the satellite images on Google Earth is at about the level of 1 meter, sometimes better (down to .5 meter but there isn't a lot of that). It's about the same as the image of Rio (GE does use Ikonos imagery) but there is a lot that isn't that good. When you see resolution higher than that, it's an aerial photo.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Considering the scale, yes.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thnx for that info, I didn't know that.

Still, I find it hard to believe that they can only zoom a distance that shows vague outlines, but can't zoom in a littlle bit further.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Because this satellite is nothing more than a lander site locator. The one over mars is specifically designed to chart the planet and select points of interests with all kinds of dohikeys for resources and material scans.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join