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.

 

The Moon Challenge

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Although the OP's image is physically larger, it lacks the resolution of the above NASA pic.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
This photo is from 1992, taken from the Galileo spacecraft.



Also, it's a huge picture.

I can has cookie now?
edit on 10/14/2011 by ThaLoccster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
Does this count?



Nope ... Must be from NASA



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Now here are some good pics:


From Galileo:
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The Galileo image doesn't qualify because half of the moon is in darkness.

From Clementine:

ser.sese.asu.edu... (32M)

Problem w/ the Clementine image is there are blur streaks all over it. Doesn't qualify either.

Now it was extremely difficult to find these images.

How many folks realized the moon is green?


edit on 14-10-2011 by freedommusic because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2011 by freedommusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedommusic
Nope ... Must be from NASA
It says it's a NASA image, which I don't really doubt, but I did wonder why it's on Flickr, and where the NASA link to the same photo was.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by freedommusic
Nope ... Must be from NASA
It says it's a NASA image, which I don't really doubt, but I did wonder why it's on Flickr, and where the NASA link to the same photo was.


Yea, interesting right?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 


What??!!


The Galileo image doesn't qualify because half of the moon is in darkness.


Are your goalposts on wheels, or mounted in the back of a pickup truck??

If you understand the fact that the Moon has appearance of phases, due to the shot will depend on the relative position of the camera and the Sun's angle, then you are not really serious about this so-called "challenge".

You prefer to go on a chest-thumping NASA bash-fest, instead?
edit on Fri 14 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   


What??!!

The Galileo image doesn't qualify because half of the moon is in darkness.


It is a simple challenge. Produce a high quality color image of the moon that is better than the ones I posted.

A picture of the moon where half off it is in darkness doesn't qualify.

We landed on the moon in 1969 right? So some 43 years later we can't get a good image of the moon?

Is there something wrong w/ this picture? (pun intended)

This is a good image:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

However I don't know if it is a NASA image and I don't know if it has been altered or colorized.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 


I'm pretty sure I did all that you asked, yet you ignore that one and bash the others.

Image from NASA - check

Higher resolution than yours - check

In color - check

You ignoring the obvious and continuing on some idiotic tirade - priceless.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 



It is a simple challenge. Produce a high quality color image of the moon that is better than the ones I posted.


And it's been a pretty simple answer.


We landed on the moon in 1969 right? So some 43 years later we can't get a good image of the moon?


The best photos possible are not going to be floating around on the internet. Film, of the quality used to produce holograms, and larger telescopes would be capable of exceeding any digital capture process available at this time and for a few more decades to come.

NASA's job is not to take better pictures of the moon. Their job is to analyze and explore. Only within the past ten years has digital technology exceeded the capabilities of standard photographic film. While there exist measures to convert film to digital images up to the quality where you can see the granulated structure of the compounds in the film... they are expensive, and not all that necessary for internet releases.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 



It is a simple challenge. Produce a high quality color image of the moon that is better than the ones I posted.


Yours weren't that great, to tell the truth. We have a member here who has posted much, much better ones, from his own set-up.

But, as pointed out, we are severely limited when dealing with access to photos that happen to have been uploaded to online sites, whichever the source.

Go to Washington, DC.....to an exhibit at the NASM (National Air & Space Museum). I saw an exhibit there (at the Smithsonian location on the Mall) two years ago (**) that was a collection of the most stunning NASA images of nearly every known major body in the Solar System (Pluto is yet to be imaged close-up....that occurs in 2015).


(**) Update: I checked the NASM website. It was a past exhibition, closed May 2, 2011.

Here: "Beyond: Visions of Our Solar System"


Dunno if this was a temporary exhibit or not (edit: it was, see above).....(The Udvar-Hazy location out by Dulles is larger, it may not have the need to rotate displays as often).....still, there are likely many, many other museums (or check at Planetariums) that have included displays of NASA photos as well.

But, tell the truth.....this thread's purpose was not really about a quest for knowledge......it is a thinly veiled attempt to impugn or *discredit* NASA in some way, isn't it??

:shk: :shk:




edit on Fri 14 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   


But, tell the truth.....this thread's purpose was not really about a quest for knowledge......it is a thinly veiled attempt to impugn or *discredit* NASA in some way, isn't it??

OP, come back with better hi-res photos ON the moon and then we'll talk



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Well here is an image from NASA JPL site.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Description of image:

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

High Res JPG:

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...


edit on 14-10-2011 by freedommusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   


Yours weren't that great, to tell the truth. We have a member here who has posted much, much better ones, from his own set-up.


Completely agree. I clearly stated that others have MUCH better images of the moon. The OP was focused on finding NASA images.

So honestly how many people here today realized that the moon is green and dark blue/purple?

How common is this knowledge?

Why are the majority of images of the moon black and white?

This was a learning process for me. I took some random moon shots last night and it took me and a lot of other interested, thinking people the better part of the morning to find ONE good image of the moon from NASA.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Not specifically about the Moon, but this thread I posted a while ago on another site
looks into the lack of images from the Shuttle or ISS of the Sun, or any of the planets,
using a regular camera, film or digital. I am told there just has never been an interest
in astrophotography from the ISS, but I find that hard to believe.
thunderbolts.info...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 




.... Is that what I'm getting from this whole thread?

And, yes, I suppose you could say the moon is "green" ... it's likely more of a dark gray/brown mix that appears green from our perspective, though.

I'm not quite sure where you are/were going with that point, though.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedommusic
So honestly how many people here today realized that the moon is green and dark blue/purple?

How common is this knowledge?


How could you possibly come to such a conclusion? You can see the Moon with your own eyes and you don't even need a telescope. The pictures in which the Moon appears green dark purple yellow magic mushroom rainbow color were explained on the first page of this thread:

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



"Explanation: Earth's Moon is normally seen in subtle shades of grey or yellow. But small color differences have been greatly exaggerated to make this dramatic mosaic image of the Moon's gibbous phase. Though exaggerated, the different colors are recognized to correspond to real differences in the chemical makeup of the lunar surface..."



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedommusic
So honestly how many people here today realized that the moon is green and dark blue/purple?
I have to agree with famalhut, I hope that's not what people learned.

Really the one color more than any other I associate with the moon, when viewed from certain angles close up, is kind of a brownish or tan color, as seen in the right side of this image:

heasarc.nasa.gov...


But as you can see that was shot from a low angle and fairly close to the moon. The astronauts reported that they could view the same landscape from a different angle and not see the brownish color, so the color depended on the viewing angle.

The exaggerated NASA color image I posted was identified as aiding in determining surface composition. If you're more interested in actual colors, these are still exaggerated but since there is no attempt to identify surface composition I think it's a little closer to reality, and there's not much green, so I don't want to give people the idea the moon is green, I wouldn't call it that:

blog.deepskycolors.com...


While the Maria appear dark, I'm not sure that dark blue/purple is the best description, maybe very dark blue would be better?

That image was made by an amateur photographer like you, who added this description:

Is the moon really like this? Well, sort of. This is what happens when you take a picture of the moon, neutralize the colors (so the median of the values of R, G and B is the same) and then saturate the image. So in a way, yes, those colors are real, and the only difference is that they've been exaggerated a bit.
If you want to try to visualize more vivid colors on the moon, this photo might be a better aid than the surface composition determining photo I posted earlier.

I wanted to try to get a better idea of the dark colored maria on the moon and for comparison purposes, I found this photo of a basaltic lava flow on Earth:

I'm not sure how to describe that color exactly, I guess there is a hint of blue in there but it's mostly kind of dark looking. How closely it resembles the moon maria I can't say for sure, but it was probably a closer match before the moon maria became covered with billions of years worth of regolith and dust from cosmic debris.

That color image also exaggerates the tans into brown. The real moon colors definitely can have a brownish hue, but not as brown as those exaggerated colors suggest.




edit on 14-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by freedommusic
 

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur, I would've assumed you, at least, would be able to figure out why that image is on Flickr. It's not rocket science - pun intended.
It's on Flickr because it's NASA's Flickr photostream.
So, Freedommusic, it is a NASA photo. I'm not an idiot. If you ask for a NASA photo, that's what I'm gonna give you.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Here is another NASA photo that is better, has a higher resolution and more detail than yours. And it's an official colour NASA photo.



PS: the image will be online only for 24 hours, unless someone requests it again.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join