Why Can't We Get Photos Of ALL Sides Of the Moon?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenAngelWings33
 


Because then we would see the civilisations which supposedly exist on the moon, just like the Antartic, we only see what 'they' allow us to see. They don't show us the civilisations in Antartic either, or the holes at the top and bottom of earth which would lead to more people knowing about the hollow earth.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

Google Earth uses aerial photography which gives higher resolution than satellite imagery.

LROC imagery get resolution as high as 0.25cm/pixel. The best you will see with satellite imagery of Earth is 0.5.
edit on 12/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Your right.. I wasn't thinking difference between satellite and aerial pics.

I bet they do have satellite that can show just as well as aerial we just aren't allowed to know about it for national security purposes.

Still they can do much better with drones if they have to. Make that.. if they wanted to. Really give us some pictures people can appreciate. I cant appreciate the same looking craters even if I know they are much smaller and I'm seeing them much closer - they are still the same as the boring craters as the large ones seen from miles up.
edit on 21-12-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 




I bet they do have satellite that can show just as well as aerial we just aren't allowed to know about it for national security purposes.

Probably not just as good as aerial but the DoD does limit what is released. GeoEye is a commercial bird that can get 0.41 but can only release 0.5 for commercial use.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenixStill they can do much better with drones if they have to. Make that.. if they wanted to.


There's your answer in your own words: They don't have to, and they don't particularly want to. The primary purpose of LRO is to find potential landing zones for future missions. They don't need better than .5m/pixel resolution for that, and they really don't want to waste money & payload mass for the needless capability when they can use them for another sensor or more fuel.

The surface area of the Moon is roughly equal to the continent of Africa. We don't have a .5m/pixel map of that place yet, so why do we an even finer resolution map of the Moon?


Really give us some pictures people can appreciate. I cant appreciate the same looking craters even if I know they are much smaller and I'm seeing them much closer - they are still the same as the boring craters as the large ones seen from miles up.


Gee, I'm sorry that can't appreciate pictures like this one. but that's pretty much what the Moon has to offer. Mind you, the picture that I liked in my previous post had such clear evidence of alien visitation that even Phage would be forced to admit it, but I guess you missed it.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by BrokenAngelWings33
 

Don't let all those 'images' of the Lunar far side fool you into believing they have taken photos of the far side of the Moon. If you look into the instruments and film or CCDs you will find that they used Laser Altimeters, Infrared and Ultraviolet wavelengths, spectroscopic methods and photomultipliers to build those images. You can not just take a normal camera up there and get a photo, and as I have said before, the colour video cameras they tried to use on the far side showed nothing, and that is the only proof I will accept that anyone could see the Moon if they were on the far side when it is being lit by the Sun. Light in space behaves very differently from what we are told, and it really is very dark out there.


In the 50s and 60s, Soviet probes took photographic images of the far side. They used isochrome film, which was developed, scanned, and transmitted to earth automatically by the probe itself. The Apollo astronauts took images of the far side using hand-held Hasselblad cameras with Kodak film. They saw it with their own eyes too, otherwise how could they target certain features for photography, or describe it in their own words. "The backside looks like a sand pile my kids have played in for some time. It's all beat up, no definition, just a lot of bumps and holes." - in the words of William Anders (Apollo 8).

I think you're just confusing all the instruments together. Laser altimeters, spectrographs, all other various sensors, were separate instruments from the imaging systems.

About Apollo 8 photography of the Moon, including the far side: www.lpi.usra.edu...
edit on 22-12-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


The far side of the Moon from Apollo 8







Taken with a Hasselblad.

In fact if you use this LRO

Bring up the grid overlay and go to 45E -10N zoom in and you will see a nice image of the large crater with the grooves in the second image above.

Now Apollo 8 was launched Dec 1968 that LRO image was taken 40 years after and the match NO fancy light theory required to get the pictures now will you shut up about it!
edit on 22-12-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The 'Dark side' is where Darth Vader lives



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Now Apollo 8 was launched Dec 1968 that LRO image was taken 40 years after and the match NO fancy light theory required to get the pictures now will you shut up about it!


You need to do some research before your posts. The image of the far side was taken using the ultra high speed 2485 film, sensitised for increased UV response. Then you need to read about the problems they had with development of the film. It took a lot of work to get those images to look right. These images also demonstrate what I have been trying to say, that it is X-ray light from the Sun that excites the lunar surface materials making them give off UV light which the sensitised film can detect. Obviously their military grade video camera could not capture it, as the camera tubes only worked in the wavelength that our eyes can see. Your eyes would also see nothing. So it is you who should shut up until you learn some science.

@DenyObfuscation reply to post by GaryN




OK then, what is it from?


Well it is from sunlight, but not directly. Again it is Solar X-ray and EUV/UV planewave emissions from the ionisation of (mainly) hydrogen that are being absorbed and re-emitted at lower wavelengths, and are eventually creating a process similar to airglow in Earths ionosphere, but in this case it is moonglow, from a region above the Lunar surface. They also used that 2485 film to detect the airglow regions, and the gegenschein, zodiacal light, and other very low light phenomena.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


You need to do some research before your posts.
You need to follow your own advice.


Film type 2485, a very high-speed panchromatic thin-base film, was selected for photography of various dim-light phenomena, such as gegenschein, zodiacal light, dim stars, solar corona, and the lunar surface in earthshine.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Nothing in particular regarding UV sensitivity but film in magazine D (12) was not type 2485 anyway. There was one magazine with 2485, that was magazine G (18).
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Magazine D, the above images, was type 3400. Now go ahead and twist that to fit your odd world view.
edit on 12/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


On Apollo 8, only one magazine has the 2485 film in it. Other magazines had much lower speed. www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here are Apollo 17 photos using a 2485 film. You can see that a lot of them are over-exposed. www.lpi.usra.edu...

The 2485 film was used mostly for astronomical observations by the Apollo crews.

Here's a photo of the far side of the Moon using a slower film : www.lpi.usra.edu...

Show me the source that states the Apollo films were sensitised for UV.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Well GaryN lets educate you first of all BOTH images posted were not on the far side of the Moon YOU should have checked


Only the First was but both were taken with the same Film TYPE!!!!



Now lets look at some details re that image lets look at say film type

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The other image

www.lpi.usra.edu...

You will see in the links above the film type 3400 NOT 2485 as you claimed


Lets look at an extract from a NASA report on type 3400


The advantages to be expected from type 3400 film are:
1. lower granularity
2. increased resolution
3. enhanced image.contrast.
The one disadvantage of film type 3400 is its lower speed which necessitates larger lens aperatures, which can cause increased
vignetting with the 40mm lenses.



Type 3400 film should be substituted for type 2402 film


Type 2402 film speed


Nominal speed, daylight (no filter): EAFS or ISO A 200


Now 2485 was rated at 16000 asa for NASA

Now GaryN any photographer worth his salt KNOWS what happens to grain size with higher and higher asa rating for film or now with digital cameras NOISE.



With the picture above YOU should have been able to tell that's a low speed film

So back to the drawing board for YOU GaryN



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenAngelWings33
 


In other breaking news, the Gauls are rebelling against the Roman Empire!!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I cant believe you guys are actually trying to convince a guy to do research who cant seem to do a simple Google search for "ISS Moon video" ...I found a couple, i could probably find more if I cared
I dont quite know how to embed video, so you'll have to make do with the links.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

These pictures Suck. I choose the dark side, zoomed in all the way on a random spot and it still looks like I'm a mile above the surface. I thought LRO images were supposed to look similar to google earth.. a lot closer to the ground.


I hate to break this to you, but if you can zoom in closely on google earth, it's an aerial photo from a plane.

You can't get those nice pics from space. Not yours.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Your right.. I wasn't thinking difference between satellite and aerial pics.

I bet they do have satellite that can show just as well as aerial we just aren't allowed to know about it for national security purposes.


Behold. Here ya go.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


What's up trying to re write your theory



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Coratoan
 


Yes, I know we can see the Moon when it is being viewed through the Earths atmosphere. I want to see it when looking out away from the Earth, into deep space, not towards the Earth.

@wmd
What's up trying to re write your theory

No, I'd rather be skiing, back after the New year.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Gary, you specifically asked for a video of the moon from an external camera on the ISS:


Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



When NASA can show me a simple video of the Moon from an ISS EVA, then I will believe that even the near side can be seen from space, when it is not being viewed through the Earths ionosphere.




A video which I provided:
www.youtube.com...

If you watch the video, you will see the moon rising. By the end the moon is far from Earth. The Earth isn't even in frame anymore.
If you're planning on giving me some nonsense about the low orbit ISS being still withing the "influence" of the ionosphere, than why would you infer in your previous statements that such a video could be used as evidence by opponents to your theory?
I'm genuinely curious, growing up, I spent a lot of time at the university with my parents and their colleges. I have heard many unusual theories over the years, yet not a single astrophysicist ever mentioned anything near what you are talking about. Quite to the contrary; we often receive pictures from our satellites and probes, far away from any ionosphere, many of striking quality, of both planets and moons.
For example, from the Cassini probe:

We have Saturn's moon Enceladus:
images.nationalgeographic.com...

Another one of Saturn's moons; Hyperion:
images.nationalgeographic.com...

And from Voyager, 7 million miles away, we have a picture of both the Earth and moon (I only included this because it's one of my favorite pictures, the picture is enhanced):
www.space.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I looked at the Apollo 8 image gallery and see that they used the 3400 on approach to the moon, and the 2485 when leaving. I believe they standardised on the 2485 afterwards. The images don't look much different, but I think the 3400 was sensitive to IR and the 2485 to UV, and the 2485 was super UV sensitised for use in the FUVC device on A16, I'd have to double check that claim though.
I did have a look at the Apollo 8 Crew transcript, and to be honest, these guys sounded like a joke. Disorganised to say the least, swapping film cartridges and lenses and exposures without keeping a decent track of what was used for which shot, so I wouldn't put a lot of faith in determining lighting conditions from the images. Also film development is just as important as the exposure.
The transcript is worth a read, pretty long and dull for the most part, but there are some gems in there. For one, it seems the G&N computer was the only reason they got to orbit the Moon. They were lost most of the time, didn't even know which way they were pointed and couldn't even find the Sun and Earth half the time. The power optics for the G&N computer was obviously using a Vidicon type device, they talked about sparks coming out of it till it warmed up, and how they could see millions of stars, after a urine dump. The Vidicon uses high voltage, and sees ice crystals just as well as stars. The G&N computer was a 3 axis inertial system and kept track of where they were and all they had to do was zero the adjustments and find that the stars they used for reference were smack dab in the middle of the crosshairs of the scope. They never did any navigation, only confirmed what the computer told them really. The sextant was all but useless.
The transcript had also been altered in at least one place, when they were approaching the Moon. The video of that approach has one of them speaking and saying the Moon was a "dark, uninviting place", in the transcript the word dark is left out. There is no transcript from the trans lunar cruise, I bet that would have been priceless listening to those clowns arguing.

@coratoan



A video which I provided:


The location of the camera does not allow them to look into deep space, and even though the Earth is not in frame, it is still pointing sideways through the ionosphere. There are no windows or portholes they can look out into deep space, and no video cameras pointing out there either.




And from Voyager, 7 million miles away, we have a picture of both the Earth and moon (I only included this because it's one of my favorite pictures, the picture is enhanced):


They have moved or hidden the originals for that shot, as the originals showed just about all black, with a couple of gray, barely visible smudges that were the Earth and Moon. Long exposures no doubt, but no stars visible.
The other images are taken with instruments that you need to do research on to find out what they were detecting, and they use spectrography, mainly in the UV, some in IR, but I bet if you were out there, your eyes would see nothing, pitch black. They have never used a regular camera, because it would see nothing. NASA is very good at hiding the truth, they've had lots of practice. It is up to the individual of course to decide if they believe it all, or any of it, but for my money it is all a big con job. All I want is a simple video taken on an EVA (because there are no back windows) looking out to deep space of a big bright moon, and moonlight lighting up the whole space station. No, you've never seen moonlight up there either.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Other countries and space agencies have sent cameras and telescopes into space, are they also keeping NASA's secret? It would have to be a damn big secret, kept by all the major academic institutions (or kept from them?). It's just too way out there, and follows no logic or reason. If the scientific community had encountered the inability to see and photograph space outside of an atmosphere or ionosphere, it would have become widely known. Any space mission would have to adjust for this.

You keep confusing various instruments together. Spectrographers or magnetometers do not produce photos. You need an optical camera for that. The Hubble and other space telescopes use normal imaging system for visible and IR light. You mention IR and UV, but your claim about the invisibility of electromagnetic radiation would apply to them also. If a camera can see in UV or IR, it should be able to see the visible light (unless you use a filter that blocks it).

Regarding the video presented to you: if your theory were true, the Moon in that video would diminish in brightness as it gets further and further from the limb of the Earth. But there is no change in brightness.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join