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.

 

On the Moon - just some boulders or is this a Lunar Rover ?

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Planetary rovers are not equipped for soft landings, they are usually incased in some sort of shell and if the shell has any thrusters it is left behind when the rover exits the landing apparatus.
The only type of landers which are equipped with thrusters are stationary landers like the old NASA Surveyors, which were quite small and I don't believe any are unaccounted for, though the shape may look like the best match, except for scale.



We can rule out any of the Russian Lunokhods due to the short path and the fact LROC has imaged 1 and 2 so far and they don't have the characteristic shape as this pile of heap. Lunokhod 1A was destroyed on the launch pad and Lunokhod-3 was never launched due to economics.

We can also rule out India's Chandrayaan-1 and Japan's SELENE moon crashes due to their near cubical shapes, and we have no sighs of long solar panels at the site pictured here.

I suspect this is a lunar crash site, possibly from back during the space race as we know the Russian's crashed crafts on the moon in the late 60's, and I don't have images of what the crafts may have looked like.

I found it curious that I was briefly involved in that other thread only to measure the size of this heap, and if this is the best LROC image then the uncompressed tiff file puts this heap at 21 meters wide, nearly 69 feet! That's quite a large craft for any space agency to have crashed on the moon. The 29 pixel count the other way is over 42 and a half feet.

A quick marque of the area from the uncompressed NASA tiff file, and a copy/paste into a new file gives us the pixel count with little effort, see if you agree with the marque, if not it can't be much more that one pixel either way, which still indicates a very large pile of heap.




edit on 14-8-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


It sucks that we don't have more data to work with. We have never officially landed anything of this size on the moon so we can rule out everything public. I guesss that makes things easier in a sense, but it severely limits us nonetheless.

If it is technological in nature, I doubt any of us would be able to come up with anything beyond old 60s/70s space plans/papers(e.g .pdf files of theoretical satellites, landers, etc) to help explain what we are seeing.

It could be that there is some old NAVY or NASA space paper out there which has a picture of something remarkably similar to this, but the odds of finding it are slim.

However with the skills people have these days with image processing, it would be possible to determine hows the shadows of a particular theoretical lander would look with the sun at a given point in the sky should such a thing be found.

*Fingers crossed that we find something we can work with*



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I'm afraid we need much more data to get a grasp on things. Angle of the sun, some relative depth of nearby craters would help, but we would also need some elevation terrain map to help us with slope, as you can see some selected ares of rocks below have various shadow lengths due to terrain slope differences. I'm afraid the more I look at this heap the more it looks like a pile of rocks.

Maybe some rocks were already present (the ones with no trails leading to them), that could have facilitated the end of the rock slide that we see the curious trails leading up to, from what we have to assume is 'uphill' from the curiously isolated pile of something.

Now I've wasted enough time on this, I have to get back to work before tomorrow. Good luck!





posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Explanation: Surely the moons surface has been photographed in full at several different times?

If we can get hold of OLD footage [1960's -1970's time span] of the moon depicting this specific area in some detail, then we can start narrowing down the time frame it [may] have crashed or landed in! [or rolled if its just rocks]

We definately KNOW for sure that it was already there when these high resolution pictures were taken.

Personal Disclosure: We still havent gone through all the data we have! Sure we have done quite a bit and I am very proud of both the work I have done and that my fellow members have also done towards identifying its true nature. I intend to keep investigating this until I am satisfied one way or the other! I encourage my fellow members to do likewise.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I like this picture. Very intriguing.

I haven't seen anyone mention the straight lines of the shadow of the object.

Given the size determined by several, my first thought is that if it is man-made, then perhaps all or part of a crashed S-IVB?

I believe that those 3rd stage boosters from the Apollo flights are the largest man-made objects on the moon.

I have a list of impact sites (but have yet to see any high resolution images) for the S-IVB's from Apollo 13 through Apollo 17, and this is not near any of those (considerably to the northwest). I do not know why finding the impact sites for the others has been so difficult-- most list include just those five.

I have it in mind that at least some of those orbited the moon for a time before impacting the surface, so the path may have been relatively slow and tangential and so not leaving a crater but rather crumpling and rolling. I base that on something I remember hearing that seismic equipment left by Apollo XI recorded the impact echo of the third stage (the "ring like a bell" story) sometime AFTER the crew had left the surface.

.... OH! I just found a list-- (Wikipedia to the rescue!) those five are the only which impacted the moon-- all others are in solar orbit. So much for my idea.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Frira because: NOT an S-IVB



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: Surely the moons surface has been photographed in full at several different times?
The Moon was almost completely photographed by Clementine, with a 10 metres per pixel resolution (if my memory is not failing me).

The problem is that each time we double the resolution of the photos we need four times as much photos as before for a full coverage, so if we have, for example, 100,000 photos at 10 metres per pixel we will need 400,000 photos (of the same size) at a 5 metres per pixel.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Versa
 


Explanation: I fully agree! I have looked at what I thought it was [a crashed bit of space junk] and I can no longer support that as there is NO IMPACT crater and I started to think it might of crashed where it is and due to momentum some bits broke off and rolled up the rille. As I cannot discern any space junk at the bottom of the picture where the trail appears to start [ie top of the rille] I am forced to agree that its most likely boulders that have rolled from that point as there are many boulders visible at the top of the rille.

Personal Disclosure: I did a screen grab of the area from this website...

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

And it was 710 pixels wide to cover the 1.5km width of the area. This gave me a 2.1m per pixel size guestimate.



The objects is over 30m long and 10m wide! Its HUGE whatever it is?




Please note that the above picture is a screen grab of a highly zoomed original and rotated 90degree.

1 apparent pixel is 5real pixels. 1 apparent pixel = 2.1m^2 in size.

I hope this helps.


P.S. I'm now very disappointed I didn't upload all these pictures to my ATS media ItsARock album.
:shk:




The info re resolution is on the LRO site it was taken at 0.6mtr per pixel so you better redo the calculations!

So its a fraction of the size you claim!



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
nope,

i just downloaded that LOCR image too and you can easily count the pixels.
I also got somewhere around 20m width and possible 30m/40m "long".

The problem i am having that it does (to some extent) look like a pile of rocks/rock formation...but i cant explain how this GROUP of rocks would roll down a hill and stay together like this.

The track down that hill seems to be SEVERAL hundreds meters long, how should a group of rocks stay together like this...this does not make any sense.

(The question WHAT moved the rocks is actually still not answered also...)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Hi ALL

Went to the site downloaded the tiff didn't take to long here is a screen shot zoomed in no rotation or anything looks like rocks !




Also whats supposed to be the trail doesn't look like that as you can see, looks like a depression in the surface there are others further down on the LRO picture just not as clear as that one.

The picure is 3644x26877 pixels according to photoshop.
edit on 14-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: pic size added



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Yes the original tiff file is 3,644 pixels wide, you subtract the black strips on each side I got 3,444 pixels wide at the site, giving us 2,296 pixels per km. The black strips aren't square, so allowing for averaging (seeing how different the full and cropped sizes are) lets call it an even 2,300 pixels per km. That's 2.3 pixels per meter! Or a bit better than the proposed half meter per pixel.

My friends if everything is as stated, that's 1 foot 5.1 inches per pixel.

But let's just call it a bit of a single pass error and LROC images are indeed about 18 inches per pixel and I think that's phenomenal!

So you can bump up a bit my measurement of the debris pile as larger than 69 by 42.5 feet, it's a big pile, house size and not a small house. Is your house foundation over 70 X 43 feet?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I can't seem to get away from this but observe what is evident in the image below. I simply duplicated the trail leading up to the pile of an object and it tells me something. It tells me the trail could be from a tumbling object (or rock roll), because as you see about 3 of the 6 noticeable trail similarities happen fairly uniform half way through, then the spacing lessens, and changes, indicating to me further breakup, or dispersal) of a tumbling heap of something, slowing, indicated by the shorter distance between the similar trail markings. At first it's not so significant of duplicate marking which is also understandable characteristic of a crash site, (or rock slide/roll).

This could have been a huge failed lunar observation mission by some space affluent space organization, I wonder who, (if it's not just rocks).





posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Have to say this is one of the more interesting threads recently.


* For a rover/probe it is simply too big.

* The only thing i can think of which would cause such a thing would be an impact of a meteorite, impacting some huge rock and break off pieces - this ODDLY shaped chunk of rock tumbling down the hill and causing those odd traces.

An explanation would be reduced gravity on moon..it would be interesting to see how this would look like in a simulation or similar...whether this would explain the "rock" tumbling down for MANY hundreds of meters and always causing those extremely identical looking "dents"...basically bouncing - which would not be possible on Earth due to higher gravity??

Would that be possible?

But there are questions too..why the rock didn't simply break apart (gravity again??)...and it still looks "odd" in some sense. Also, there is no impact crater?

***
When you watch the tracks...the "rock" or what it is didnt lose momentum since the ditches are in EXACT the same distance from another...wouldnt you expect

a) the pattern more irregular
b) those ditches NOT in the same distance but instead (due to loss of energy/momentum of the tumbling rock) closer together at the end?

It looks like it bounced several times with the same energy/same distance and then ABRUPTLY came to a halt. This is not possible!

The other explanation is that this "thing" is actually still moving...and we are just seeing it resting in the most recent ditch? (Yes i know, sounds fantastic).

But something doesn't make sense looking at the picture and imaging a tumbling rock..but then i am not a lunar physicist



edit on 14-8-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


I'm edging away from an impact roll scenario because we see no signs of an initial impact, and if we did we should see a perfect ballistic oval or circle of debris splatter around the impact point because of zero atmosphere, and we don't see none of that. Plus that trail lead around a very large protrusion near the end, I point that out as a rock that didn't make it all the way down. No set of wheels could do that, no impact signature.

I'm going to sleep tonight satisfied it is a bunch of rocks, some rolled into some that were already there. Or a large fragile rock that rolled into another breaking up near where it stopped.

Lighting can play particularly peculiar games to images of small pixel counts, making perpendicular algorithms and rounded ones depending on where the surface crosses the pixel averaging and at what angles.

Take a look at a grayscale portrait at 40 x 29 pixels, then rotate that small image, you will see entirely different anomalies show up in the rasterization of the new grayscale image's pixels. It may even start talking to you, then play it backwards, OMG!



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
Have to say this is one of the more interesting threads recently.
And some months ago, when it was originally posted.



But there are questions too..why the rock didn't simply break apart (gravity again??)...and it still looks "odd" in some sense. Also, there is no impact crater?
Why should it break? A rolling rock is not under great stress.
(I think there's something on your post that I am missing)


When you watch the tracks...the "rock" or what it is didnt lose momentum since the ditches are in EXACT the same distance from another...wouldnt you expect

a) the pattern more irregular
b) those ditches NOT in the same distance but instead (due to loss of energy/momentum of the tumbling rock) closer together at the end?
No, any rolling object will keep its shape, so as it doesn't change shape or size, its perimeter is the same, so any pattern will be repeated at the same distance, the same as the object's perimeter. Speed has nothing to do it that, unless it started bouncing (like the rocks on some photos from Mars)


It looks like it bounced several times with the same energy/same distance and then ABRUPTLY came to a halt. This is not possible!
To me it looks like it rolled, the track is not interrupted as it would be if made by a bouncing object.


The other explanation is that this "thing" is actually still moving...and we are just seeing it resting in the most recent ditch? (Yes i know, sounds fantastic).
But possible.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
I'm going to sleep tonight satisfied it is a bunch of rocks, some rolled into some that were already there.
That's what I think happened, as I said in the original thread.

edit on 14/8/2011 by ArMaP because: I forgot a "in"




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Just because it may be a rock, does not mean it must be a meteor-- it could be a bolder ejected from another impact and so no resulting crater.

Off on my own tangent, I did find LROC images of the Apollo 13 and 14 booster impact craters for comparison. NASA says the Apollo 13 S-IVB crater is about 30 meters in diameter. The Apollo 14 appears to be about the same.

Apollo 13 S-IVB crater:


Apollo 14 S-IVB crater:



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Yes the original tiff file is 3,644 pixels wide, you subtract the black strips on each side I got 3,444 pixels wide at the site, giving us 2,296 pixels per km. The black strips aren't square, so allowing for averaging (seeing how different the full and cropped sizes are) lets call it an even 2,300 pixels per km. That's 2.3 pixels per meter! Or a bit better than the proposed half meter per pixel.

My friends if everything is as stated, that's 1 foot 5.1 inches per pixel.

But let's just call it a bit of a single pass error and LROC images are indeed about 18 inches per pixel and I think that's phenomenal!

So you can bump up a bit my measurement of the debris pile as larger than 69 by 42.5 feet, it's a big pile, house size and not a small house. Is your house foundation over 70 X 43 feet?



Your math matches closely something I ran across on a NASA page stating an image which I was viewing from LROC was .52 meters per pixel. Same camera, same resolution, I assume.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Largely depends on the altitude of the camera, which they have been edging to get under the 50 km range and probably have for a few passes. It has been a pedestrian interest for me.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This is certainly not a satellite if it is 30m x 10m anyway it would have broken into pieces on impact. My opinion also that it is not a pile of rocks, it appears to be some sort of technology. What nobody has mentioned so far is that this could be a probe from another world, I should imagine if there is life else where in the Universe that they would eventually send probes out at varying levels of technology much like we do. We will one day get to the point where we can send a probe to land on the surface of a celestial body in a far away planetary system.

Just another idea to add into the mix. And also who says it has stopped, maybe when the image was taken the item was moving, we certainly could do with an older and a newer picture of this area of the moon.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


I would love to think it is a probe from "another world", but I really don't think that's what we have here. If it is technological it is fairly primitive, it vaguely resembles some sort of Earth technology imo. I have an extremely hard time believing it's just a pile of rocks. Taking into consideration what we know so far the chances a 30m wide rock tumbled down a hill and created such a weird track with odd markings is extremely slim in my mind. Not to mention that actual bunch of "rocks" themselves, with odd shapes and protrusions and interesting shadows. Rock explanation = Fail.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join