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.

 

LRO zooms in on Apollo 15 once again. Amazing Detail

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by plube
 


I think you should came back when YOU actually understand what photographic resolution means YOU say Chinese pictures are better
LRO'S res destroys them!


You beat me to this one, wmd.

NASA's LRO spacecarft has at least 2 or 3 times better resolution than the best Chinese pictures. I'm not sure why people think the Chinese images are higher resolution when even the Chinese own stated spacecraft specs say they are not as good.

The high-res LRO pictures from Nasa can resolve boulders not much biggere than a beach ball. The Chinese probes can't do that.

Here is a nice image from NASA's LRO, which can be zoomed in on to see tremendous detail:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

and here are more:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...


edit on 3/11/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


YOu are still attempting to bang on about the Lunar samples, and trying to claim that they are meteorites??


What you said about the entry patina of moon meteors is a tough one (not really)
The burn/ heating could be scaled off like a fossil preparer would remove the excess matrix...


Firstly.....it would be obvious if a Lunar meteorite that was found on Earth had been "scraped" to remove signs of a patina of heating from entry through the atmosphere!! Do you think every geologist in the World is too stupid to notice something like that?


Secondly....I went to the trouble of posting a video that showed, from the Meteoritical Society's own records, a list of ALL the meteorites found on Earth, where they were found, and there weights (masses).

Why don't you view it again?:

www.youtube.com...

Go to 2:55.


"Between 1912 and 1964, a total of FOUR meteorites were discovered in Antarctica."


And, none of them resemble Moon rocks, at all.

93 meteorites were found between 1912 and 1917, in other places. Over half of those were found in Texas and California. Why send Von Brahn to Antarctica?? NO Lunar meteorites were known to be there.

In 1969 a Japanese research team found NINE meteorites in Antarctica. In 1973, another expedition found TWELVE more, in about the same location.

And, none of those 21 could be considered, nor passed off as, "Moon rocks".

Just watch, the video shows the list of meteorites, with their weights too. Add it up. Not even close to the amount brought back by the six Apollo missions.

Do the proper research......I have.


All you have said is quite nice EXCEPT, your claim of me making claims.
As I recall I said things to the effect that Wherner Could have brought back moon rocks from the deep south. Heck anyone on the team could have been SUPER MOON ROCK FINDER. Fact --he (they)were there and the rocks were/are there.
Also things like counting meteorites is left to folks that use goverment mony to do it. So the outcome and reports are pretty well designed to bolster whatever claim the money provider wants.
You have heard about climategate and such, haven't you?
Anyway I did not bring up the rocks I just added my 2 cents about them.
Fact, no matter what you say or repeat from what someone else tells you.
the tracks, the junk and the rocks on and from the moon, COULD,COULD, PERHAPS WERE, MIGHT BE accomplished or done by unmanned ROBOTICS.
If you need to beleive men in diapers at extreme temperatures and a most wicked enviroment did it, be my quest.
I look at things through possibilites not convictions. Especially others convictions.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


The Meteoritical Society is not U.S. government-run. Not funded by any one government. It is International in scope. (I keep getting the feeling that you haven't watched that short YouTube video?)

The Meteoritical Society


The Meteoritical Society is a non-profit scholarly organization founded in 1933 to promote the study of extraterrestrial materials, including meteorites and space mission returned samples, and their history.

The membership of the society boasts 950 scientists and amateur enthusiasts from over 33 countries who are interested in a wide range of planetary science. Members' interests include meteorites, cosmic dust, asteroids and comets, natural satellites, planets, impacts, and the origins of the Solar System.

The Meteoritical Society is the organization that records all known meteorites in its Meteoritical Bulletin. The Society also publishes one of the world's leading planetary science journals Meteoritics and Planetary Science.




Heck anyone on the team could have been SUPER MOON ROCK FINDER. Fact --he (they)were there and the rocks were/are there.


??? Just making stuff up now?



Also things like counting meteorites is left to folks that use goverment mony to do it.


See above. That is a group who are self-funded.



Fact, no matter what you say or repeat from what someone else tells you.
the tracks, the junk and the rocks on and from the moon, COULD,COULD, PERHAPS WERE, MIGHT BE accomplished or done by unmanned ROBOTICS.


Utter nonsense. Do you even have the first clue of the complexities involved?

Or, the fact that in order to do that, there would have had to been many, many huge....HUGE launches to get the "ROBOTICS" to the Moon!! Not to mention, all that hardware to "leave" there in order to "stage" it.

Try to think logically for a moment.



If you need to beleive men in diapers at extreme temperatures and a most wicked enviroment did it, be my quest.


You meant, 'guest', I presume?

"...men in diapers....", eh? Do you know what "straw man argument" means?

Oh, and by that ignorant "logic", then all of the EVAs seen since Apollo....on the ISS and Space Shuttle, for example....those are all "fake" too??


.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tachyeon
 


Hey Taky.
I thought those fotos sucked too.
The main one looks like someone spilled some yogert on Amy Wienhouse's face.
When the two are together it seems like a shrink should say "tell me what you see"



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Ah, here we go again: Moon Landing Hoaxers trolling a thread again.

I remember actually talking in person to someone that thought all the landings were hoaxed. I listened politely to what all he had to say about it, and about how he knew quite a lot about space and astronomy.

He was just about done, when he ended with:

"And another thing, them going on how 'cold' it is up there. Could you please tell me where this huge 'cold source' is?"

I think it was at that point I choked on my drink.
I thought very harshly how this guy was an idiot, but then realized I was not being fair, that he simply was ignorant in physics, and he simply THOUGHT he was an expert on things.

I politely explained to him the laws of thermodynamics. How cold is actually really a lack of heat. That heat is the source, and without it is how you have "cold".
Considering he was a HVAC tech, I had a very hard time that he didn't know this. I mean how can you work on air conditioners and not know how this? But apparently you can.

As for the Moon Hoaxers, I learned a long time ago that no mater how much you try to explain to them who, what, where, how, and why, it never works. It's like they stick their fingers in their ears and start shouting "LALALALALALALALALA!" so they can't hear you. I don't mind debating with someone, and even arguing in an intelligent way.

But most of these guys? Well, lets just say you better hope they are never a juror at your trial, since they'll dismiss anything brought up since they have long ago passed judgement and won't even consider what's presented to them.
edit on 11-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


The Meteoritical Society is not U.S. government-run. Not funded by any one government. It is International in scope. (I keep getting the feeling that you haven't watched that short YouTube video?)

The Meteoritical Society


The Meteoritical Society is a non-profit scholarly organization founded in 1933 to promote the study of extraterrestrial materials, including meteorites and space mission returned samples, and their history.

The membership of the society boasts 950 scientists and amateur enthusiasts from over 33 countries who are interested in a wide range of planetary science. Members' interests include meteorites, cosmic dust, asteroids and comets, natural satellites, planets, impacts, and the origins of the Solar System.

The Meteoritical Society is the organization that records all known meteorites in its Meteoritical Bulletin. The Society also publishes one of the world's leading planetary science journals Meteoritics and Planetary Science.




Heck anyone on the team could have been SUPER MOON ROCK FINDER. Fact --he (they)were there and the rocks were/are there.


??? Just making stuff up now?



Also things like counting meteorites is left to folks that use goverment mony to do it.


See above. That is a group who are self-funded.



Fact, no matter what you say or repeat from what someone else tells you.
the tracks, the junk and the rocks on and from the moon, COULD,COULD, PERHAPS WERE, MIGHT BE accomplished or done by unmanned ROBOTICS.


Utter nonsense. Do you even have the first clue of the complexities involved?

Or, the fact that in order to do that, there would have had to been many, many huge....HUGE launches to get the "ROBOTICS" to the Moon!! Not to mention, all that hardware to "leave" there in order to "stage" it.

Try to think logically for a moment.



If you need to beleive men in diapers at extreme temperatures and a most wicked enviroment did it, be my quest.


You meant, 'guest', I presume?

"...men in diapers....", eh? Do you know what "straw man argument" means?

Oh, and by that ignorant "logic", then all of the EVAs seen since Apollo....on the ISS and Space Shuttle, for example....those are all "fake" too??




Yeah sorry I can't watch videos on my computer rig.
I did search out your society but could not find out where thier capital actually comes from. Like who are the contributors. On the surface they seem pretty solid.
No matter, the rocks are not the subject here, it's the photos.
Thank the cosmos you are not a refector nut too.
You seem well versed in the supposed missions so I agree to disagree with you when it comes to robots. In your words "It is ignorant logic" the best oxymoron I have ever heard. Anyway I did a post that pretty well sums up my view of the moon photos on the thread. Oh, perhaps you could send a check to the Society so they can increase thier pounds of rocks per dollar. Whatever the cost I am sure it's 50 fold cheaper than having to travel a half million miles to get em with people.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Dude,
All that open minded retoric and la la la and no photo spesk? LA LA LA LA



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Dude,
All that open minded retoric and la la la and no photo spesk? LA LA LA LA


Nope. The photo that is needed is in the OP. You know, the original topic of the thread? A high resolution picture of an Apollo landing site?
Not the off topic rhetoric (that's how you spell it by the way), that the moon landings were faked.

How about contributing to the original topic, instead of derailing it and hijacking the thread? I mean there are literally TONS of threads on ATS that are dedicated to the idea that all the moon landings were faked. You'd be staying on topic in those threads and not hijacking them.
-----------------------------------------

That reminds me: I'm doing some research on the LROC website, gathering the high resolution pictures of areas where some of the US and USSR moon probes went down. Not all of them are there since not all the areas are mapped yet. I'll start a thread with them once I get the one's I think I've found organized.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawfulThat reminds me: I'm doing some research on the LROC website, gathering the high resolution pictures of areas where some of the US and USSR moon probes went down. Not all of them are there since not all the areas are mapped yet. I'll start a thread with them once I get the one's I think I've found organized.


This page may be useful to you.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If you knew anything about robotics it is the main reason why the Russians went ahead with their Lunokhod program after Apollo landed men on the moon, because they were a decade ahead of NASA in robotics. NASA could never have landed a robot on the moon in the 60's because they didn't build any until the 80's. You are referring to rovers eh?

As far as the "reflectors' go, you have no 'robotic' leg to stand on. Its like me accepting that the jet engine came before the glider because someone says so. All you have is a bunch of 'I say sos'.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I'd like to see a couple of third stage fuel tanks, I understand one third stage beat the command module to the moon. I'm not sure how that happens, but maybe I'm thinking of Apollo 13. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Oh great page link BTW, thanks!



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I wonder how long debris like that would stay intact...for a long time with no atmosphere to corrode it I'm guessing.

They should be able to find something. You are right.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I'd like to see a couple of third stage fuel tanks, I understand one third stage beat the command module to the moon. I'm not sure how that happens, but maybe I'm thinking of Apollo 13. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Oh great page link BTW, thanks!


Images of the the third stage (known as S-IVB) impact sites are listed on the linked page, listed as:

A13 SIVB
A14 SIVB
A15 SIVB
A17 SIVB

A malfunction resulted in premature loss of tracking data for the Apollo 16 S-IVB. They estimated a position, but I don't know if the LROC teams has found it yet.
edit on 12-3-2012 by Saint Exupery because: if I hadn't remembered to add that hyphen, it would have been curtains for the free world.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tachyeon
You guys really crack me up NASA lowers the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to 15miles and this is the best crappy photo they can show? Google maps shows a better photo from 120 miles up pointing looking through the earths atmosphere I can see my car parked in the drive way. Moon is smaller no atmosphere craft is flying only 15 miles up and this is the best they can do LOL you have to be on crack to believe these photos. NASA lies left right up and down. Wast tax payers money damn craft cost 600 million but takes photos look like from a target 20 dollar telescope. Something is on the moon they don't want us to see that is why we only crappy ass photos of the moon. Mesas were throwing orbits off back in the 60s were discovered to be large metal objects were talking 70 miles per side buried under craters. Basically large under ground bases.



It's always good to see a quote like this because it shows the poster knows NOTHING about the subject, then when others give him stars or quote his post as correct its shows the same about them.

As has been stated many times on here on many threads, google earth and the microsoft wwt are just huge data bases of other peoples image they are not real time and some are many years old.

Google has images from satellite, AIRCRAFT (for your car close up) and now of course streetview taken from cars and sometimes bikes at ground level ( you thought those were taken by a secret high tech camera didn't you)


WHY don't people like you find out how things are done before you shot yourself in the foot , mind you we would miss out by not seeing as many IDIOTIC statements that give us a



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Hey there proud....thanks for all the info....it is good to see such well thought out debate.....Always appreciate a good reply.....

yes i agree saying the moon is protected by the earth was way out there but hey got some good responses...not all things about the moon are straight forward......

you see the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun and happens to be 400 time further out....and yes there is a pocket of a few thousand km(and just come back and say 2000 as we know the scale is bigger than that) where if the moon was further out the total solar eclipse would not happen.(i know coincidence).

and i do appreciate that when the earth and moon were being born so to speak they would have had a much more turbulent past.

but in all the years NASA has had an advantage of taking close up hi res moon pics....they only seem to show minimalistic images.....



now this pic from china is so much clearer from a greater distance away....and yes it does not pick out individual boulders as WMD was sooo proud to point out....but if NASA is soooooo much greater quality....apparently 20TIMES greater then where are the results that show it....also as far as putting up a better camera for imaging....that is peanuts in the overall NASA budget and the photos would be valuable for any research and future missions to the moon.

Now the clarity in the Chang-e2 photo speaks for itself.....Would i trust the Chinese to be anymore forthright than NASA......I doubt it....now i did not say to put a camera to prove or disprove the landings....I said put a cam up for research.....now another question...why would NASA even bother lowering the orbit to take a shot of the tracks in the first place...If they went to the moon....and they know it...then nothing to prove.

Anyhow...the more we look at things the more ordered they appear.....Out of chaos comes order.

edit on 043131p://f09Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by eriktheawfulThat reminds me: I'm doing some research on the LROC website, gathering the high resolution pictures of areas where some of the US and USSR moon probes went down. Not all of them are there since not all the areas are mapped yet. I'll start a thread with them once I get the one's I think I've found organized.


This page may be useful to you.


Thanks! I'd had that link before but lost it.




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I am SOOOOOOOOO TIRED of people using the reflectors as proof we have been there.

It DONT MEAN BUBKIS.

The russians have a reflector on the moon that was put there by AN UNMANNED ROCKET.
GASP SAY IT ISNT SO JONNEY.

So is this proof the russians have been to the moon?? Short answer for the NASA blind supporters NO.

But for some reason its a " slam dunk now any reasonable discussion/dissent shut up".

Now on to something else reasonable that drives BLIND NASA SUPPORTERS NUTS.

Please explain to me how the most important event in human history (going to our first body outside our atmosphere) and on anniversary we send TWO SATILITES up there to take pictures of the landing sits and all we get is pictures that look like technology version 2.0 from the origional landings?

I again continue to DEMAND explination why I can get a picture of my house from space so good I can see the roof repairs I need to make (no joke you can). But NASA with access to the latest high tech photographic equipment and access to military technology (unclassified even so save they cant use the "secret stuff" argument) can't give us the same resolution??????

Look I am not saying that the moon landing were a hoax or they are not.

But given the technology we have today does ANYONE find it suspicious we are trying for a mars mission but we have not gone back to the moon. Which is closer, easier to supply, study, a place to practice for a mars mission, test equipment for mars mission in REAL SPACE and a great refuel/supply/jump off point ?

Please someone tell me there is SOME common sense here?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger
reply to post by smurfy
 


I am SOOOOOOOOO TIRED of people using the reflectors as proof we have been there.

It DONT MEAN BUBKIS.

The russians have a reflector on the moon that was put there by AN UNMANNED ROCKET.
GASP SAY IT ISNT SO JONNEY.

So is this proof the russians have been to the moon?? Short answer for the NASA blind supporters NO.

But for some reason its a " slam dunk now any reasonable discussion/dissent shut up".

Now on to something else reasonable that drives BLIND NASA SUPPORTERS NUTS.

Please explain to me how the most important event in human history (going to our first body outside our atmosphere) and on anniversary we send TWO SATILITES up there to take pictures of the landing sits and all we get is pictures that look like technology version 2.0 from the origional landings?

I again continue to DEMAND explination why I can get a picture of my house from space so good I can see the roof repairs I need to make (no joke you can). But NASA with access to the latest high tech photographic equipment and access to military technology (unclassified even so save they cant use the "secret stuff" argument) can't give us the same resolution??????

Look I am not saying that the moon landing were a hoax or they are not.

But given the technology we have today does ANYONE find it suspicious we are trying for a mars mission but we have not gone back to the moon. Which is closer, easier to supply, study, a place to practice for a mars mission, test equipment for mars mission in REAL SPACE and a great refuel/supply/jump off point ?

Please someone tell me there is SOME common sense here?


How about using some of that common sense yourself, and actually READ through the entire thread?

The REASON you can see your roof repairs on Google Earth, is because when you zoom into your house, the picture images shift from satellite images, to images taken by air craft from only a few thousand feet (not MILES).

Please also try not to distort what the goals are for certain probes sent up. Not one nation on this planet has sent probes to the moon to simply capture images of landing sites. Even China's Chang'e 2 probe was sent up to image areas of the moon to help map areas for possible landing sites for Chang'e 3 to do a soft landing.

The GRAIL probes were sent up to map the moon's gravitational density.

LROC is mapping the moon with resolutions as low as 0.5 meters per pixel. But maybe you do not understand what that means. It means that a very small colored square in the picture is half a meter wide. Have YOU tried to take a picture of something that is just over 1.5 feet wide from 15 km away? Oh, let's not stop there: you need to be in motion while doing so. Specifically at orbital speed, thank you.

Seriously: do you honestly think that anyone is going to spend an extremely large amount of money to lift a heavy package of a satellite probe out of Earth's gravity well, to go to the moon and it's only purpose is to try and take images of previous landing sites? That they have lots of money to blow on things like that?

The images we get are what we call "Targets Of Opportunity", not primary mission goals.

Oh, and by the way: NASA does not currently have a plan to get us to Mars. You can thank Obama for that. Take a look at his budget cuts for NASA. Was actually in the news quite recently.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Tachyeon
You guys really crack me up NASA lowers the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to 15miles and this is the best crappy photo they can show? Google maps shows a better photo from 120 miles up pointing looking through the earths atmosphere I can see my car parked in the drive way. Moon is smaller no atmosphere craft is flying only 15 miles up and this is the best they can do LOL you have to be on crack to believe these photos. NASA lies left right up and down. Wast tax payers money damn craft cost 600 million but takes photos look like from a target 20 dollar telescope. Something is on the moon they don't want us to see that is why we only crappy ass photos of the moon. Mesas were throwing orbits off back in the 60s were discovered to be large metal objects were talking 70 miles per side buried under craters. Basically large under ground bases.



It's always good to see a quote like this because it shows the poster knows NOTHING about the subject, then when others give him stars or quote his post as correct its shows the same about them.

As has been stated many times on here on many threads, google earth and the microsoft wwt are just huge data bases of other peoples image they are not real time and some are many years old.

Google has images from satellite, AIRCRAFT (for your car close up) and now of course streetview taken from cars and sometimes bikes at ground level ( you thought those were taken by a secret high tech camera didn't you)


WHY don't people like you find out how things are done before you shot yourself in the foot , mind you we would miss out by not seeing as many IDIOTIC statements that give us a


Really sir they are not real time? Gee I did not know this, thank you for your insite (sarcasm over).

Hate to break it to you blind nasa supporter/doc obvious, but NEITHER IS THE MOON PICTURES, FROM THE ORIGIONAL "MISSIONS" OR ANNIVERSARY PHOTO MISSION.

To tell me again how this justifies your condencending self importance comment?

Now on to the "taken from aircraft" comment.

Can you SHOW ME THE LINK WHERE THEY STATE THEY DO THIS? Because every time I go directly to the site or to my county assessors website (where they show photos of properties) they never mention "aircraft" photos.

Also given that they update them every few years all over the country (I know because I have owned my house for 5 years and seen the changes to my property about every 2 YEARS). I HIGHLY DOUBT my county is going to spend the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS on aircraft fuel alone to update their pics.

Now on to some RELALITY/FACTS.

Google earth did not just send up new photo satilites with the latest photo technology every year. So I feel safe to presume (I could be off) their commercial bird at least 8 or so years ago (with same age photo tech) taking pictures THOUGH our atmosphere and continuing to give exellent pictures PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR.

Now NASA has access to cutting edge photo tech and "off the shelf" leftover tech that has to be at least as good as goggle earth 8 year old tech.

To celebrate the GREATEST HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL TIME they send TWO photo satilites to take pictures FOR THE NASA PUBLICITY of the lunar landing sites and we get pictures that (AT BEST) are one level above the origional pictures using photo tech 40 YEARS OUT OF DATE?

Sorry but to claim "they could not affoard better" is at best unbelievable, at reality level assume we are all have eggplant intelligence/tech savy.

Lastly I find it funny NASA has the tech and money to get MAGNIFICANT PICTURES of celestial objects/phenomion millions of light years from earth, but crappy 110 pictures of our own moon just a hop, skip and jump (in cosmic terms) away.

And you say WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT?

I can recomend some good farm workers to shovel that load your pushing.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


BTW I did read about the obama budget cutbacks and it affecting a mars mission.

But why don't you tell the rest of the story and be honest on this mars issue.

Up to and including the cutbacks they were (and on paper) still are PLANNING ON A MARS MISSION.

Just what links can you provide on their ACTIVE PLANNING on going back to the moon?

Crickets cherping




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join