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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I found a handy way to get details out of images that are in shadow (not all of them). Not to mention the rig I am thinking of would actually come with a light....

We're talking about no sunlight, no moonlight here, how are you going to do that on a platform that is moving at thousands of mile per hour relative to your target? And a light? You seriously think you're going to be able to light up a pitch black crater from about 50km away with a giant lamp? Better bring one helluva battery with you.


My ideas are for the notion astronauts are unable to make it up there. I am also a little tired of hearing about 'amazing resolution' and seeing blurry photos better suited for vacation slides than much else.

These "blurry photos" (tack sharp, actually) are the HIGHEST resolution photos ever taken from lunar orbit. Some of the SIM bay photos from apollo were good and capable of showing the LM's as well, but their quality could not quite match what LRO is capable of, and they do not cover the areas of interest for Constellation.




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by wylekat
 

Just out of curiosity... how many times do they need to map the moon? This is like the multiple dozen-eth time, isn't it?

No one has completely mapped the moon at meter resolution or better before, and not even LRO can pull off a complete mapping at that resolution given its limited fuel supply and the uneven lunar gravity. We simply don't have all the pictures we need. LRO is mostly dedicated to mapping out any water ice at the poles though, as that is what 6 out of 7 experiments on board are designed to do.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by wylekat
 





Furthermore, even if the equipment on LRO WAS capable, spending time looking for ice in craters and outgassing would detract from the primary mission -- which is mapping.


Just out of curiosity... how many times do they need to map the moon? This is like the multiple dozen-eth time, isn't it? It's a bit like mapping out a trip between my house and Disney World over and over and over again, using Google Maps' satellite function.

Just to add a bit to what was said in the post above...
In very highest resolution pictures on Google Moon taken from orbit (and the resolution varies on Google Moon, objects the size of a house would probably be about 1 or maybe 2 pixels. -- just a "dot" on the image. something the size of a cars would probably be invisible (depending on the lighting).

Nobody has ever mapped the Moon in the resolution that LRO will be mapping the Moon.

LRO is taking the highest-resolution photos ever produced of the Moon so NASA planners can find safe landing spots (no big boulders, etc), and mapping the poles (the location NASA wants to send the next missions, because some parts of the poles are in daylight almost all the time, and that is good for extended-stay missions). If NASA only used the best existing photos, boulders the size of cars could be missed.

Apollo 11 almost failed because the pre-arranged landing site was a boulder field.


[edit on 7/27/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Hey... I'm an armchair rocket jockey.
If I am going at a good clip 50 km above the surface, It's be less a flashlight, and more of a flash. There's ways to get that much light (have a look at the 3 watt led flashlights). The technology is there- I am having a little fun abusing it in my imagination. My hangup is figuring out how the light would travel in a vacuum..

Granted. I'm not a rocket scientist, and occasionally, I have completely stupid ideas- but, if someone didn't come up with something idea wise every so often, the world would be dull along with all the other things it is.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
...It's be less a flashlight, and more of a flash. There's ways to get that much light (have a look at the 3 watt led flashlights)...

.. My hangup is figuring out how the light would travel in a vacuum...

Well, now it seems you are just pulling our legs.
I thought you were serious when I first read your ideas.

[edit on 7/27/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
I found a handy way to get details out of images that are in shadow (not all of them). Not to mention the rig I am thinking of would actually come with a light....


Or they could just use the LAMP that's already on board. And by LAMP I mean the Lyman-Alpha mapping project. It's a much more efficient method than some giant, heavy, power hungry lighting rig.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


About looking in some shadowed pics... I wasn't quite kidding about that. I discovered this trick while I was looking at the big, huge pic where the little tiny 'bigfoot' was hiding on mars. I don't know the exact how- but you can actually use the dodge brush in Photoshop to show details under rocks (like I said, to a certain extent). I spent about a half hour lightening up areas under rocks, in completely shadowed areas- and found... more rocks.
Even if the pic shows the area to be almost black, the 'info' about what's in the shadowed area still shows up. And like I said, I dunno the how or why to it. I'll have to demonstrate it some time. It doesn't work all the time- and sometimes, the results are far less than spectacular.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Or... they could use that!
Well, I feel smart and a half. Now... how about microphones..... *gets hit with a brick*



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Hey... I'm an armchair rocket jockey.
If I am going at a good clip 50 km above the surface, It's be less a flashlight, and more of a flash.

It's 50 km away. Do you have any idea how much power you'd have to waste to make that work? I seriously doubt you could design a satellite that would be able to provide that enough light and power shy of bringing a full-blown nuclear reactor with you - light intensity follows an inverse square relationship with distance. Like JRA alluded to with the LAMP experiment, your only hope is to do long exposure images, but as I mentioned before, how are you going to do that with a longer focal length (and more magnification) than LRO's narrow angle camera already has (in fact, it wouldn't even be feasible with NAC)? The LAMP experiment only has an angular resolution of less than 1 degree and a field of view 6 degrees wide.

www.boulder.swri.edu...



There's ways to get that much light (have a look at the 3 watt led flashlights). The technology is there- I am having a little fun abusing it in my imagination.

No technology on earth can make an LED light overcome the inverse square law.


My hangup is figuring out how the light would travel in a vacuum..

The same way it always does? How do you think we get light from the moon in the first place?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





It's 50 km away. Do you have any idea how much power you'd have to waste to make that work?


I'd say less than in an atmosphere.. My problem is how it travels exactly. I ended up having a thought experiment about it last night. Would the light be diffused like a flashlight on earth? Would it be a straight, uncompromised beam until it hit rock? Is there just enough atmosphere to actually diffuse it a tiny amount? A lot? I know light doesn't need a medium to travel thru.

Anyways, it was a bit of fun to think about it.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


Light intensity obeys the inverse square law regardless of whether it's in an atmosphere or not.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

In other words, a lamp seen from 50 meters away is only 0.000001 times as bright from 50 kilometers away.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't know why, but color actually helps me see more detail. Methinks my brain is wired up funny.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


Look at this pictue, it has a color correction swatch in it. Notice how grey the Moon is, anyway. Color photos from LROC would be a waste, they'd show just about the same images as B/W.

Station 1 boulder prior to sampling (AS17-134-20394)

[edit on 28 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I now this is an old post, but I think it needs a lot further discussion.

The picture you posted can be zoomed in and you can make out the lines in the streets.

You are comparing a photo taken through an atmsophere to this moon photo and saying they are the same quality. Honestly?

Why is it you defend NASA so much?

You honestly believe this is a good quality picture?

You honestly believe NASA has so many "anomolies" in their photos of the moon yet pictures through earth's atmosphere are clearer and don't have an anomly in every other photo?

What is your title at NASA? Or is it NSA?



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
According to wikipedia, the best current commercial satellites have a resolution of 0.5 m from 680 km.

LROC images have a resolution of 0.5 m, but from 50 km.

Therefore, LROC angular resolution is 680^2 / 50^2 = 185 times worse.

I dont know if my math is right, or anything about satellites, but it seems too weak to me.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by whattheh
The picture you posted can be zoomed in and you can make out the lines in the streets.


And it looks lousy:



You only recognize lines on the street because you know they are lines on the street. Without context, you can't even tell that the long white things are supposed to be buses.


You are comparing a photo taken through an atmsophere to this moon photo and saying they are the same quality. Honestly?


The LRO image is clearly better quality: 0.5m/pixel as opposed to 0.8m/pixel.


Why is it you defend NASA so much?


Because a lot of good people work very hard on a shoestring budget and accomplish things that have never been done before, and all people like you can do is complain and call them liars because they don't meet ridiculous expectations.


You honestly believe this is a good quality picture?


Is there some part of "the highest resolution photos of the lunar surface ever achieved from orbit" that you just aren't getting?


You honestly believe NASA has so many "anomolies" (sic) in their photos of the moon...


No. Ignorant people zoom-in on images (often reproduced at inferior quality) far past the grain of the film and/or ignore the context, don't understand what they're looking at, mix in some paranoia and paradolia and call them "anomalies".


... yet pictures through earth's atmosphere are clearer...


Only if the distance & optics allow it.


...and don't have an anomly (sic) in every other photo?


Only because you do not perform the same silly process and apply the same absurd standards to pictures of Earth that you do for pictures of other worlds.


What is your title at NASA? Or is it NSA?


Ah yes, when all else fails, accuse someone of being an agent. Heaven forbid an ordinary guy who simply does the research should be able to see how weak these arguments from ignorance and incredulity are.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by Saint Exupery]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by whattheh
 


The picture is 100% good enough for the purposes the LROC was designed for. It wasn't launched to satiate the thousands of conspiracy "enthusiasts" out there, drooling over their keyboards, heatedly pounding fleshy fists on keys, bashing out some lengthy diatribe describing how the evil scientists at NASA are hiding knowledge and lying to the people...

What's with the arrogance in this thread demanding that NASA bends over backwards, wasting all kinds of money on them, just to "prove" something science has proven time and time again? It's ridiculous.

Imaging the LM doesn't improve our knowledge one iota. Getting the LROC in lunar orbit, imaging the surface, is exactly what improves our knowledge.

I guess I'm a NASA apologist for pointing out the obvious reality. It's not as fun as playing X-Files.


jra

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
According to wikipedia, the best current commercial satellites have a resolution of 0.5 m from 680 km.


Would that be GeoEye-1 you're referring to? GeoEye-1 has a 1.1m diameter mirror compared to the LRO's 195mm mirror. GeoEye-1 is designed to simply take images of the Earth's surface and nothing else. Where as the LRO is designed to do a variety of different things besides just taking images of the Lunar surface.

The two satellites aren't comparable at all.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Yes, I was reffering to GeoEye-1.

en.wikipedia.org...

I agree that the two satellites are not comparable at all, but if we launched satellite like this into low lunar orbit, its resolution could be less than a centimeter!
I wonder why it hasnt been done yet...

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree that the two satellites are not comparable at all, but if we launched satellite like this into low lunar orbit, its resolution could be less than a centimeter!
I wonder why it hasnt been done yet...


Because there is no practical requirement for such extreme resolution that would justify the added expense. Make the optics larger, the spacecraft structure has to be more massive. This means you have to use much more propellant to get it to the moon, which may even require a bigger rocket. We're talking tens of millions of dollars (or more).

I agree that it would be totally cool, but contrary to popular belief, NASA does not have a lot of money to throw around. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of any other federal agency that has such a high profile and such a small budget. The State Department gets more money. Heck, the Office of Personnel Managment gets ~3-and-a-half times more money than NASA. Nobody ever asks them why they don't do cooler stuff!

Source: Office of Management and Budget



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join