200 foot diameter hole found on the Moon's surface

reply to post by Miccey


You can't just point Hubble at the moon - well you can but it's pretty pointless, it's set up to look much much further away than that... And I'm yet to be convinced that a spy satellite can 'ready the side of a coke can' - I think the maximum resolution is in the 30 or 40 cm squared range, meaning that it probably wouldn't see the can any way.

And this Jap probe is the most powerful yet I think - so it's not surprising it's coming up with new stuff.

Originally posted by Miccey
And the pissingcontest continues...

Using the Hubble to see further and further out in space with
more and more graphical detail, when they can use it to actually
SEE whats going on at both the MOON and MARS..Is beyond me..

Seeing far away galaxies that are thousands of lightyears in size and yet are occasionally nothing but quasi-stellar objects does not equal resolving objects on the moon or mars at sizes even close to what our current moon and mars orbiters can do. For comparison, I've had my telescope looking as far back in time as the dinosaurs, and it could theoretically go as distant as a couple billion light years with one of the brighter quasars, but it can't even resolve a football field on the moon.

Um...yeah good point about Hubble 'itself' but with all the 'technology' and all the money spent they can't even build a telescope capable of taking a 'Decent' picture of the surface of the moon!

I mean I can see my Rose bush from space on Google Earth...but can't make this hole out or the LM

Is it a lava tube... or is it Drilling/Mining holes... Hmmmm

2nd Line

Originally posted by DownUnderoid
I mean I can see my Rose bush from space on Google Earth...but can't make this hole out or the LM

As said before, the satellites used in low earth orbit are allowed to be much more massive than the ones sent to other planets; such trajectories have very tight mass requirements. It's infinitely easier to orbit a spy satellite the mass of the command/service module around the earth than it is to do the same around the moon; the latter requires a Saturn V size launcher.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by DownUnderoid

Most of the best photos on Google Earth that are not from aeroplanes have the same resolution as the ones from LCROSS, near 1 metre per pixel.

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has a higher resolution, 0.25 metres per pixel.

Instead of wondering why the resolution of the Moon photos are so poor, we should be contacting our Senators and Reps (as I have done) to ask why we the taxpayers are not being shown what we are paying for.
Of course the NSA and CIA know what is on the Moon ! They have had remarkable photos since the Clementine Mission and before no doubt.
One of my relatives developed the optics used on the original Moon satellites back in the late 50's/early 60's. But he died before I could ask him anything.
They have very high resolution photos and show us only blurry stuff on purpose.
Please contact your Senators and demand the truth ! We deserve the truth.

reply to post by jra


So, how does that answer that we get the blurry low res images, while they keep the good ones?

What a great way to exsplore the inside of the moon.At a later date we can send some people down the hole to see what down there.

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
What a great way to exsplore the inside of the moon.At a later date we can send some people down the hole to see what down there.

You go first

But seriously, I would love to see whats inside that hole. Even it's just to say "Ive been in the hole in the moon" to my grandkids.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by DownUnderoid
I mean I can see my Rose bush from space on Google Earth...but can't make this hole out or the LM

As said before, the satellites used in low earth orbit are allowed to be much more massive than the ones sent to other planets; such trajectories have very tight mass requirements. It's infinitely easier to orbit a spy satellite the mass of the command/service module around the earth than it is to do the same around the moon; the latter requires a Saturn V size launcher.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Oh ok...thanks for clearing that up, so in other words we'll NEVER be able to see a clear picture of the Moon's surface?

"There's a hole on the surface of the moon
there's a hole on the surface of the moon
there's a hole
there's a hole" etc.

Sang to the tune of "there's a hole on the botton of the sea".

Originally posted by Mookite
Instead of wondering why the resolution of the Moon photos are so poor, we should be contacting our Senators and Reps (as I have done) to ask why we the taxpayers are not being shown what we are paying for.

You ARE being shown what you paid for. You sure didn't pay for a Saturn V to launch a spy satellite to the moon.

They have very high resolution photos and show us only blurry stuff on purpose.

Where's the proof of this statement?

Originally posted by DownUnderoid
Oh ok...thanks for clearing that up, so in other words we'll NEVER be able to see a clear picture of the Moon's surface?

These pictures are in the same ballpark as google's satellite imagery, not to be confused with google's aerial imagery:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
They look incredibly clear to me. If by "clear picture" you mean millimeter resolution, you'll have to wait until we land on the moon again and start doing surface imagery; that's your best chance for millimeter resolution lol.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by DownUnderoid


It depends on what you mean by "clear picture".

We have the Apollo missions photos, those taken on the ground show a clear picture, some of the ones taken during descent also show a clear picture. The mapping camera photos also show a clear picture of the Moon's surface, specially the ones available on the Apollo Image Archive, that are being converted in high quality digital images.

We have the Clementine photos with a resolution of 100 and 10 metres per pixel, that although not much show a good picture of the Moon's surface, and in the case of the 100 metres per pixel images, they show almost the whole of the Moon.

And now we have LCROSS photos, with a resolution around 1 metre per pixel (better than most Google Earth photos), and those show a clear picture of the Moon surface, I have seen many things in those images that I had never seen in older photos.

Originally posted by ArMaP
And now we have LCROSS photos, with a resolution around 1 metre per pixel (better than most Google Earth photos), and those show a clear picture of the Moon surface, I have seen many things in those images that I had never seen in older photos.

Just two minor nitpicks. I think you meant to say the LRO and not LCROSS. And LRO has been in its mission orbit since mid sept. The latest photos have been at ~50cm/pixel.

reply to post by jra

You're right, I should have said LRO, all those letters are starting to create an alphabet soup inside my head.

And thanks for the information about the newest photos, I haven't been following them as close as I wanted for the last weeks.