The "Tower" anomaly in Pythagoras Moon Crater by Kaguya/JAXA

There is hundred more tower pictures from LRO.

other ATS thread on tower anomalies

What causes these formations on the Moon?

LRO image of Crystal Towers!?

and of course
NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

[edit on 30-1-2010 by mixmix]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Japan is WORLD renown for it's photographic devices and optics right?

Given that, can anyone explain to me, why Japan sends it's first probe to the moon with a camera capable of resolving down to 10 meters per pixel, when older probes have carried camera that can achieve a 20 times that resolution?

Especially as it was intended as a mapping and surveying exercise, one would imagine that the very best optics and resolutions available to human kind would be used.

I just don't get it.

Jaxa engineer;

I've provisionally designed in the most super-duper, highest resolution 0.25m per pixel camera we currently have.

Jaxa engineering lead;

Nah, just put the lower quality 10M per pixel one in instead..it's not like we really need as much detail as possible on a surveying and mapping mission is it?!

Like i say, i don't understand the logic.

I think the long shadow of the "tower" is only a result of the low Sun, we can see the the small craters are almost completely in the shadow, showing that the Sun was very low.

Now, how did that "tower" got on the top of that hill? According to some people, the Moon has erosion by micrometeorites, so if a hill, part of the central peak of the crater, had a slightly harder material (part of the meteor that created the crater/surface material/deeper material on the Moon?), that harder material would be less affected by the micrometeorites erosion, and would stand above the rest of the eroded material.

But I don't have any way of knowing if that's the real explanation or not.

The right angles shadow is not that difficult to create, as you can see below.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e359f4d8c4e112d2.jpg[/atsimg]

When we have something projecting a shadow (in this case a clementine, the fruit, not the space probe ) on something else that has a similar shape (two A4 sheets of paper rolled into balls, under a paper napkin), the shadow will be close to a straight line.

As for the size, as this is a video from the HDTV camera, we do not have any indication of resolution, the camera was not really part of the experiments. Also, the full resolution videos are not available because they are copyrighted by NHK, the camera owner.

Originally posted by spikey
Given that, can anyone explain to me, why Japan sends it's first probe to the moon with a camera capable of resolving down to 10 meters per pixel, when older probes have carried camera that can achieve a 20 times that resolution?

When resources (including time) are limited for a full coverage of the Moon (in this case), you must choose between many high-resolution photos or few lower resolution photos.

If you can cover the whole surface of the Moon with, for example, 100,000 low resolution photos, if you want to have the whole Moon photographed with a 10x better resolution you will need 100x 100,000 photos, so the amount of data that must be transmitted is also around 100 times bigger, making for a much longer mission.

As to have a good resolution the probes must fly low over the Moon, the probe needs more fuel to keep the orbit as desired, so the length of the missions is relatively short when compared with missions that are in higher orbits.

Also, better resolutions mean a bigger and heavier lens, making it even more difficult for a small probe.

reply to post by ArMaP
Hi Armap,
It does make a sense what you are saying, but Spikey has a point. There are so many moon mappings mostly of a low resolution. Maybe Japan missed the chance for some spectacular hi-res pictures rather than a plethora of pics of the whole Moon, (the pics are still pretty good though)

I don't understand about the heavy lens bit however.

reply to post by ArMaP


JAXA had a great setup of satellites transmitting data to earth during the whole SELENE/KAGUYA mission (December 21, 2007, to October 31, 2008)).
The whole system is described here in detail, they had two relay sats transmitting data to ground and a third circumference sat aswell. I dont think the amount of data being transmitted is an issue. I am also disappointed in the SELENE mission photos and HD videos, resolution is too low.

The TC (terrain camera) had a resolution of 10 meters.
www.kaguya.jaxa.jp...

reply to post by smurfy


He means that a"camera" capable doing what a "spy sat" can do requires a lens that is 3 meters wide and that is out of specs for a mission like SELENE/KAGUYA. Probably it weighs too much (several tons) and is not well suited for the task of mapping the "whole" surface of the moon.


Resolution for "spy sats" is given by the Rayleigh’s Criterion, some claim its less than 0.6 meter todays tech.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Misty, The Stealth Reconnaissance Imaging Spacecraft.
www.globalsecurity.org...


The NASA LRO camera have an alleged resolution of 1 meter.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) will retrieve high resolution black and white images of the lunar surface, capturing images of the lunar poles with resolutions down to 1m, and will image the lunar surface in color and ultraviolet. These images will provide knowledge of polar illumination conditions, identify potential resources & hazards, and enable safe landing site selection.

Source: lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov...
LROC gallery: wms.lroc.asu.edu...


[edit on 30-1-2010 by rhines]

reply to post by rhines
That's what I thought, and that everything would be ultra light, but the main satellite weighed just about that, around 2914 kilos.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by smurfy
I don't understand about the heavy lens bit however.

The cameras they use do not have zoom, the resolutioni changes with the altitude at which the probe flies over the target, so to have a higher resolution at the same orbit (a lower orbit would be very difficult of even impossible to sustain for months) they need a more powerful lens, something like the difference between a consumer camera and those huge lens we see on sports events.

Once again, the Electric Universe theory explains everything.

Electrical discharge machining (EDM) will produce all of the strange craters and weird formations seen on the Moon, as well as on Mercury, Phobos, Io, Mars and even Venus. Flowing electrical current pairs will tend to form into a helix, acting like a drill bit to produce round craters with terraced sides, raised rims, flat floors with central peaks. There is NO explanation for how an impact or explosion can cause this, or something like the rays from Tycho crater. Yet craters like this are found all over the Moon, Mercury and Mars.

Ever notice how ALL the craters on the Moon are PERFECTLY ROUND? An impact would have to be exactly perpendicular to create a round crater. If it strikes the surface at any angle other than 90 degrees, it will make a more or less oval shaped crater. Yet somehow you cannot find even ONE oval shaped crater on the Moon. What are the chances that there was never an impact at anything other than perpendicular to the surface?

Even strange formations on the Earth such as the buttes and mesas in the Amrerican Southwest, the Badlands, things like Ayer's Rock in Australia or the sharply sculpted mountains of Patagonia that defy explanation as being caused by wind and water erosion, are easily explained by EDM.

thunderbolts.info...

There is huge resistance to the EU theory, because once it becomes accepted as true (which it eventually certainly will) it will shatter most of science, religion, and energy causing massive upheaval. To accept it as true, most scientists will have to acknowledge that most of what they have been taught all their lives is false, and have to start again with a clean slate. Nobody wants to admit that they and all their colleagues have been heading down the wrong pathway for a hundred years.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ever notice how ALL the craters on the Moon are PERFECTLY ROUND? An impact would have to be exactly perpendicular to create a round crater. If it strikes the surface at any angle other than 90 degrees, it will make a more or less oval shaped crater. Yet somehow you cannot find even ONE oval shaped crater on the Moon.

Say hello to Messier crater located in Mare Fecunditatis on the near side of the Moon. This elliptical crater is about 1,250 m deep, 11 km in length and 8 km in width.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e03406cad05.jpg[/atsimg]

In order to better understand the crater forming process, scientists fired miniature asteroids into lunar-like targets. Real asteroids hit the Moon at fantastically high speeds, greater than 16 km per second (or 35,000 miles per hour). The vertical gun facility at the NASA Ames Research Center provided the best opportunity to simulate these high-energy events. One type of experiment involved tilting the gun at a very steep angle. As the angle of impact got steeper and steeper, scientists saw no change from the typical circular crater. Finally, when the angle was grazing (or less than 15° from the horizon) elliptical, rather than circular, craters formed. Additional ray patterns were seen to spread out like butterfly wings at these extreme impact angles. The high-velocity gun experiments led scientists to the hypothesis that Messier formed as a result of a low-angle impact.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

This is a much better photo of the elliptical Messier and the double crater Messier A, where the smaller, older crater was superimposed by a newer and a bit larger crater. Messier to the left, Messier A to the right:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c31ad99b376.jpg[/atsimg]
More photos and information about both craters can be found here:
seds.org...

In this photo of the full moon taken by Kitt Peak National Observatory I have circled Mare Fecunditatis, where Messier is located. (Note that the stars in this photo are not "real, the full Moon was mounted on another image of the background stars.)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f075b0f00575.jpg[/atsimg]
seds.org...

from the last few posts,

you guys are saying we could not put anything in orbit around the moon that could take pics that that would

be as good as spy sats we have around the earth?

lol. is it like launching a t-54 into space?

oh ya, we need every other spectrum than visual to study rocks that we seen many times.

the "there is no need for high rez" is 'bout stupid as,... IDK! lol

we can launch with our eyes closed, for @@@sake, it's not rocket science.

reply to post by fooks


Read the reasons in the posts WEIGHT is the main problem it costs more the LRO can resolve down to about 0.5mtr/pixel thats really good if you think about it. I mean Lear etc make these claims of buildngs domes etc I think they would show up in 0.5mtr/pixel pictures dont you

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by smurfy
I don't understand about the heavy lens bit however.

The cameras they use do not have zoom, the resolutioni changes with the altitude at which the probe flies over the target, so to have a higher resolution at the same orbit (a lower orbit would be very difficult of even impossible to sustain for months) they need a more powerful lens, something like the difference between a consumer camera and those huge lens we see on sports events.

I may have not explained myself clearly enough. I understand about the resolution, I just did not know how heavy any particular lens would be. The satellite, rather than being small is quite large at 2914 kilos. There were 15 experiments going on of course, and I am trying to find out the weights of the different components, and how powerful the carrier rocket was, ie; how much weight it could put into space, for a moon orbit.

reply to post by smurfy

I think (from the information found in this PDF file) that the Terrain Camera is just 29 cm × 30 cm × 22 cm and weighs only 9.4 kg.

The HiRISE camera on board Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter weighs 65kg and has a 50 cm mirror, so it can take photos from a 300 km orbit with a resolution of 0.3 metres.

That camera orbiting the Moon in an 100 km orbit would be too much, but I hope that shows the differences we are talking about.

reply to post by Imagir


I do not care one inch what any of you think about my sanity. In my opinion you are all missing the point. Obviously "terracentric psychosis" is affecting your vision. The moon is absolutely covered all over with alien artifacts. Obviously the aliens are in the government here on earth. Thus it is of no surprise to me that the governments of the world are lying to us about the moon. None of you even make mention of the fact that the moon is hollow. The earth is also hollow by the way. I consider it [moon] to be an alien mother ship parked in orbit around the earth millions of years ago. There are plenty of proofs. However ignorance is bliss. So carry on ignoring the evidences. Continue to live in the bliss of ignorance as you do when you prefer to force the facts to bend to fit your theory rather than allow the facts to shapen your theory. Science must prevail no matter where that science is taking us. Pythagoras crater is showing us alien artifacts and that is obvious. Despite the fact that according to the mainstream opinion aliens do not exist. None the less aliens do exist. I suppose that some will not believe that aliens exist until it is such that they get abducted personally. Any one here seen the movie THE FOURTH KIND ? Thank you for looking at the pythagoras photo and thank you for pointing out to us the anomally that you found there.

[edit on 31/1/2010 by CAELENIUM]

reply to post by CAELENIUM


The earths hollow is it what can you back that up with please let us all see this evidence you have.

reply to post by wmd_2008


not for anything but we put the spy sats in orbit, we put 3 men plus on and around the moon, we put some great optics around mars and out into the rest of the solar system.

lol, come on, isn't that a little strange? the hubble is the size of a bus or at least a pick-up.

all the sats we send up there make a couple runs then crash or get lost or fly off. why not a more long lived observatory?

maybe we could figure out the LTP or seismic activity or any other stuff
that needs long term observation.

but then, we as the people, aren't shown all this.
national security, world security, from what? seems like we would want to cover a big hole just in case.

it just seems so obvious that we are incompetent or it's covered and we won't know yet.

Click here for more information.