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.

 

Why are the LROC images so lousy?

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

Yup. It's a scientific mission with specific goals. The instruments are designed to meet those goals.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


well.... Doesn't that answer your original point?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

Answer my point? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean contradict my point? If so, no it doesn't. The images are what they are. My point is that, in spite of the complaints about the quality, they are actually quite good when seen in perspective.

Could they have done better. Of course they could if more money and more effort was put into designing a camera with a stronger lens and sensors. But they did what they needed to do, no more. The mission, as you point out, is to scout future landing areas. The LROC will provide some of the data necessary to that mission. The mission is not to provide eye candy.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well yes, that's what I was thinking.

You're right.

I hope the Chinese get a few sweet pics.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I said nearly. Perhaps I should have said "as some of the satellite imagery in Google Earth". The best satellite imagery in Google Earth comes from GeoEye and can reach a resolution of up to .5 meters. This will be the best from LROCand is better than the image of Rio.


Then why didn't you use a picture from GeoEye to compare with the LROC image?

Your premise was that the LROC pics weren't lousy, because compared to the Rio pic, it wasn't that bad.

Why not compare it to the best satellite imagery that we have?

The Google Earth/Maps image of Nort Korea that I posted is simply way better, you can clearly see 5 meter wide sheds and stuff.

And that has to be satellite imagery.

Why not compare the LROC pics to that Google Earth image?

I know, because then they really would look lousy, and this thread wouldn't have the appologetic value to it.

I accept that the LROC is not designed specifically for taking pictures of smaller objects, but I still find it hard to believe that they can't zoom in that last little bit.




I didn't say the images won't get much better.


You didn't answer my question, what were you referring to, when you said:




Tiny right? Well yes. But is that the best we can do? Pretty much.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
phage .......It would seem to an intelligent reader that he --->(phage) is probably a hired hand working out of the CIA or some other 'intelligence' arm linked to the NASA propaganda machinery .............Just a cursory glance at his recent (third grade) analytical type posts allows one to easily see through the sham he is presenting on this thread. It has the look and feel of legitimate 'apologetics', but its nothing more than dis-info - poorly done at that. BUT what really surprises me the most though is that some of the people that run this site have allowed themselves to be duped as well............shame on you ATS



You seem really bitter & upset dude! Why resort to personal attacks on Phage? Why the infantile dis-info agent/CIA G-man ad hominems?

I guess you need to brush up on T&C!

IRM



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





What is important is the ground resolution. The LRO ground resolution is about 1 meter. The Ikonos ground resolution is .8 meter.


Ok, from the horse's mouth, LRO 1m, Ikonos .8m, GeoEye .5m.

Having that knowledge, how in earth did you think this would be a fair comparison, if your premise is, that compared to other satellite imagery, the LROC imagery is pretty good.

Wouldn't it be more scientific, honest and denying ignorance, if you compared it to .5m imagery?

No you went for the one closest to the LROC quality.

Epic fail.









posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I think it would be a good idea to be a little patient and wait for future and better images... Just saying.



Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Please, let's get back on topic.


....And please don't edit mod edits.

Peace


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
OK..............but I needed to make the point clear.............Thanks for the reminder



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Do you have anything to show us that can prove or at least be an indication that the images really are faked? Anything at all?

I would be very interested in reading whatever information you could give us regarding this. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Yes, I know, that's why this thread doesn't make sense. The OP could've also been patient, and waited for better pictures, instead of making a thread saying that these pictures are actually really good, using a false comparison.

He also said these pictures are pretty much the best we can do, but he seems to deny that now.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I think this thread makes a lot of sense. There are posts with good information here (at least most of them...
, so I have learned a thing or two by following the discussion. And I don't mind learning things.

[edit on 20/7/09 by ziggystar60]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


I am very sorry but I have been BANNED from posting on this subject
by the forum 'authorities'. My posts have actually been DELETED ALTOGETHER - I can see that this must be a very sensitive issue around these parts. I can also see that censorship is alive and well on abovetopsecret.com



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


You haven't been banned from posting anything, your posts were off-topic. Then you edited my edit, and you got off easy. Dr. Love = gifthorse.

Now please brush it off and get back on-topic.

Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Duhhhhhhhh I'm lost. Can someone here please tell me what this thread is really all about? I thought it had devolved to censorship and "Post Control" but now I am told its not about that at all.............so whats it all about Alfie? I'm an Inquiring Mind and I need to NO



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Why do you guys continue trying to get 'real' information out of "that person" ? Don't you realize by now what I so clearly stated earlier in this thread but was CENSORED AND BANNED from posting further on the topic? There is such a thing a disinformation and some of you seem to have fallen victim to it.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by de_Genova]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by de_Genova]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join