Zoom in on the moon: Astronomers create most detailed lunar landscape images ever seen (You can go u

Please remove this post.

This is the link for Apollo 16 traces on the moon (rover, lunar module...), but couldn't find a damn thing.
Also, its a great resolution image, 0.52 meters/pixel.
Need help for this.

reply to post by Equinox99


the moon does spin on its axis.The Moon rotates — at the same speed as it orbits the Earth. So, in the 27.32 days it takes the Moon to go around Earth, the Moon also spins about its axis one full revolution. That's why we always see the same face of the Moon.

reply to post by Slipdig1


Just because your friends dad is in charge of 'touching up' photo's doesn't mean NASA is hiding anything. They have to touch up all of their photographs. Ever seen a picture of space that's coloured in? That colour is added artificially

Though this is a good gesture by NASA, we have to realize that these pictures may have been "processed" (if you know what I mean), heck with a good photoshop class you can "process" photos to show, hide, or create whatever you want. We have some precedence for NASA tampering with images, look at the clementine photos:

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

It's not as if independent investigators are competing with NASA, don't trust NASA, or don't trust the US. It is simply the scientific method, the scientific method isn't "Take our word for it, it is true" or "Take our word for it, it's not true". NO, the reason why the scientific method has worked so well is because any competent investigator(s) with their OWN equipment can perform their OWN experiments, take their OWN data and determine on their OWN that certain phenomena exists, or does not exist.

The more NASA reacts to the prospect of independent investigators sending up their own satellites and rovers, the more NASA makes it seems as if there is something up there. Think about this, if the moon where truly and completely barren, do you really believe that there would be near panic at NASA? Do you really believe NASA would be trying to subtly discourage people from sending their own satellites and rovers, if there was nothing up there. Take note that when the Xprize was announced NASA didn't really react, now that the Xprize may be combined with exploration for moon towers Ah, now NASA is reacting!!

There is nothing wrong with searching for the truth on your own, it is one of the most noble activities you can engage in.

The proposed "moon tower" mission to the moon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I found something strange inside a crater ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d346ce1bdc2f.jpg[/atsimg]

This image is absolutely stunning and I have put in in my Moon photo file.. Thanks to the Op. Great find..love it.!! BUT..as good as this is ..it a full view pic of the moon. That is kinda like taking a picture of a baseball with just a regular camera a block away and trying to magnify to see all the scratches, holes and rips in it.

But I have really enjoyed roaming with the zoom. But the detail just is not enough.When I look at my Nasa images they are more detailed and even that is not enough. Too far away.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


NICE FIND! A lot of people have looked at the cropped LROC images of Apollo hardware and griped that, "the resolution sucks." Your post shows the real nature of the problem, which is that the hardware is very small (nothing lager than a garden shed), and the Moon is very big (roughly the same surface area as Africa). The LROC NAC produces the highest resolution images ever made from Lunar Orbit, and they are comparable to comercially available orbital images of Earth.

It took me a minute to find Apollo 16, but the only reason that I found it so fast was that the high sun-angle brings out the contrast between the relatively pristine lunar surface, and the disturbed soil kicked-around by the astronauts. The latter looks almost black.

Scroll-down ~2/5ths of the way, and look just left of center. Find two black dots and zoom-in. The larger black area on the left is the area around the octagonal descent stage of the lunar module Orion. The smaller black area to the right is where the rover was parked to video the LM liftoff.

You can see several footpaths. To the lower left of the LM you see a lot of disturbed soil and several bright spots. This is where John Young & Charlie Duke set-up the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP). The 5 ALSEPS transmitted sceintific data to Earth for several years after the Apollo program ended.

Incidentally, this image is upside-down and mirror imaged. Up is south, down is north, left is west and right is east. Many LROC NACs are like this. I don't know why.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by Grumman

Belive in google moon

WHY??!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5efbaac8ab8.jpg[/atsimg]

And here is the Google Earth view:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/504c6709f92d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d26eab01410.jpg[/atsimg]

And here it is on Google Earth, from approximately the same angle:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2822130eb65b.jpg[/atsimg]

Yup, i think i came across these pictures a few months back.
very grossly distorted images of course. no doubt.

but i also came across some images i photoshot direct from google earth and found them even far excellent from the postcards my old friends in gibraltar regularly sent me :
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55af82e920a2.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6981ec2133c2.jpg[/atsimg]

why cant usgs/google/nooa et al , present a better shot from the mainland USA and have the best shots in Europe?
infingement issues?,


what ever that is , point is, they have the magic wand...

reply to post by Equinox99


If you go out on several different nights and look at the Moon, you will always see the same features, at about the same position. It looks as if the Moon doesn't rotate! Ah, but it does.
This can be seen using a model. Grab two oranges (or apples, or baseballs, or whatever roughly spherical objects you have handy). Mark one with an "X"; this represents a feature on the Moon. Now put the other one down on a table; this is the Earth. Place the Moon model on the table about 30 centimeters (one foot) away with the X facing the Earth model. Now move the Moon model as if it were orbiting the Earth, taking care to make sure that the X faces the Earth model at all times.

Surprise! You'll see that to keep the X facing the Earth model, you have to rotate the Moon model as it goes around the Earth model. Furthermore, you can see you have to spin it exactly once every orbit to keep the X facing the Earth model. If you don't rotate it, the Moon model will show all of its "sides" to the Earth model as it goes around.

Now, I have been a bit tricky here. We are talking about two different frames of reference; one on the surface of the Earth looking out at the Moon, and one outside the Earth-Moon system looking in. You performed the experiment from the latter frame, and saw the Moon rotating. From the former, however, you can see for yourself the Moon does not rotate. What is being argued here is that in one frame the Moon rotates, in another it does not.

We've actually learned three things:

1) the Moon rotates as it orbits the Earth (as seen by an outside observer);
2) it rotates one time for every orbit (to that observer); and
3) if it didn't rotate, we would eventually see all of the Moon as it orbited the Earth.
There is a bit more to this story. We actually can see a bit more than just the one face of the Moon. Because the Moon's orbit is not a perfect circle but actually an ellipse, its spin and rotation don't exactly match up. This means that sometimes the spin lags behind the orbital speed, and sometimes it moves ahead. This in turn means that sometimes we can "peek" around a bit onto the far side of the Moon. This is called "libration". You can see it yourself! If you happen to observe the Moon a week after perigee (closest point to the Earth) and then two weeks later, a week after apogee (farthest point from the Earth) you can see that the face looks like it has rotated a bit. This is easiest to see with binoculars or a small telescope. It's very hard to see with the naked eye, but remember, ancient astronomers knew about this effect long before the invention of the telescope!

Very great pic indeed I zoomed in on a couple areas and found some crazy crater fomations, Theres a part where you can zoom in and see what looks to be a wall or mound of some sort, and on top of the Wall/mound are a strange set of craters, or what ever they may be? almost in a perferct line seemed very strange to me that they are so close together and about the same width as the wall or mound they are on. I'll see if I can post the image I'm talking about, I might need some help cause I am somewhat computer stupid. It may be nothing at all but interesting none the least...how do I ad a photo from my computer I put a red box around the area to zoom in on but when I go to add a image it only lets me put in a URL...any help please

reply to post by Nitemare26


I found numerous craters with that in the center, there are quite a few of them,maybe someone with more craters exp could fill us in on what that is. thnx

What would be interesting would be to have very high resolution stereo images of some of the Apollo landing sites. I know someone who was studying the Apollo 15 photographs taken by astronauts with Hasselblad cameras of Mons Hadley (they are all available online, warts and all). He claimed that when he plotted the skyline of Mons Hadley from orbital photos taken at different angles (to get stereographic information) the skyline of Mons Hadley did not match the photographs supposedly taken from the surface by the astronauts!

I spent far too long pouring over the data he supplied me with and was unable to replicate his methodology. The data available at the time he did his study was simply too sketchy in my opinion.

Recent data however has the necessary resolution to settle it once and for all. I wrote to some of the scientists who had access to data from the JAXA spacecraft, hoping to get data on the Hadley range. Unfortunately they were not in a position to release the data to me. They were busy constructing their own 3D models of Apollo landing sites at the time. They did release a press statement on the Apollo 15 landing site, but unfortunately the publicly released data excluded the region of interest: Mons Hadley itself.

This is completely knowable, once and for all. I don't personally suspect that the Apollo 15 data is hoaxed. My colleague was quite convinced that it was. I wish I had the time to chase the data down and settle it. It's also a shame that the data available to the public is of such low quality compared to what is available to the scientists who have direct access. :-(

reply to post by Saint Exupery

Got it! Amazing, isn't it?
Thanks a lot Saint Exupery, star for you.
But, nevertheless on THIS image there's a FLAG!
Same problem, couldn't find it, my brain loosing its functions.

Originally posted by NewEmpire816
reply to post by Nitemare26

 

I found numerous craters with that in the center, there are quite a few of them,maybe someone with more craters exp could fill us in on what that is. thnx

Maybe they already have.

Several times.

In this thread.

Great site, I'm currently exploring. But it's not hi-rez enough to spot the Apollo landing stages. Try it yourself - find where on the Moon are the Apollo landing sites (Google Moon)

An if I was an alien living on the Moon, I'd live underground.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


I know people love to be smart asses on here but Sorry I did not read through the 7 pages of posts i figured I'd get the anwsers from someone thats posting now,so thanks for nothing

Wow, since when have there been cables suspended on the moon, or even some kind of contrail or something.

WIERD


couldnt figure how to embed this image but its definitly work looking at. Very strange indeed!

reply to post by wildespace


Yes, it's not anywhere near detailed enough to spot the descent stages. But in my opinion this is not what you want. These could be photoshopped into any image released by NASA.

One needs to examine carefully the consistency of the data NASA released from the Apollo missions themselves. There's terabytes of it available online. There are many more interesting ways to settle the issue once and for all.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


With all do respect,Why even reply at all to my post?,but for you to be a smart ass, man it is never ending on this site with some people, Can someone ask a question without someone who thinks they are a rocket scientist trying to make you feel dumb