This seems odd to me.....a lunar photography question....
- Thread starter boneyguy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I thought that was explained very clearly.
(Edit: with corrections from posts below)
The satellites are only 1200 miles or so above us.
The moon is 240,000 miles above us.
Even doing something silly like multiply the 5" by the scale factor of 200 gives us the lowest resolvable area a 1,000 inches or 83 feet.
(maybe)
Last edited:
There is an angular issue involved along with the resolution of the camera. The Lunar orbiter has lower resolution, possibly 50 CM at best, more likely 1 meter. Shots from Paris will be side views of the landing sites, not straight on like the orbiter and may not be able to view the objects.
Today's commercial Earth imagery is about 30CM for satellites and about 3" - 6" for aerial swaths. For other usages (non-commercial) it is much better resolution. Turtle on the fence post stuff. As stated previously that's from low earth orbit.
The issue is probably more where the sites are in relationship to the Earth's location rather than resolution limitations.
In the images you posted from 2011, the scale bar at the top sort of confirms my estimate of a pixel resolution. Depending on the pass those images might be shadows of the objects more than the objects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...moon-landings/2011/09/06/gIQA31e76J_blog.html
(link removed)
Today's commercial Earth imagery is about 30CM for satellites and about 3" - 6" for aerial swaths. For other usages (non-commercial) it is much better resolution. Turtle on the fence post stuff. As stated previously that's from low earth orbit.
The issue is probably more where the sites are in relationship to the Earth's location rather than resolution limitations.
In the images you posted from 2011, the scale bar at the top sort of confirms my estimate of a pixel resolution. Depending on the pass those images might be shadows of the objects more than the objects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...moon-landings/2011/09/06/gIQA31e76J_blog.html
(link removed)
greggorypeccary
Friend of Leo's
I sincerely don't have a dog in this fight either way (did it or did it not happen)..but I have what I think are some reasonable questions.....maybe someone has a reasonable, scientific, rational answer to this one particular question...
Sometime ago it occurred to me I'd never seen a photo of the lunar landing sites with the various objects left behind. When I stated that in a thread someone else had started on this forum back a couple years or so ago here's the type of photo I got back as a response to my 'where's the photos?' question.....
I have to admit I wasn't very impressed.....I thought in this day and age when we can read newspapers that people are holding on earth from satellites in space....when we have telescopes in space that take brilliant HD pics of galaxies and solar systems millions of light years away....this can't be the best we can do with moon photos!!! I was shocked actually....lol
I've seen friend's pics of the moon that have greater clarity.....and then I found these photos.....these were taken in a Paris suburb by astrophotographer Thierry Legault ......a Paris suburb!! http://phys.org/news/2012-09-incredible-images-moon-earth.html
Now I'm no Mr. Science but it begs the question (for me at least) "What's going on here?"
Where's all the high res photos of the moon landing sites by NASA or the military or anybody else for that matter and the objects left behind? Why are there only distant, out of focus photos where no details are clearly visible..... I can't reason this one out....help me.
I'm asking this as a science question....I'm not trying to stray off into other realms....
The lunar lander is only a few meters across, we can't get the resolution to see that stuff from 230,000 miles away the 400,000 number a few people quote is km) But those LRO photos are pretty good IMO. You can clearly see the lander, instruments and rover tracks.
Sure, but we need to put the cameras on a rocket into orbit around the moon. The photos from Paris look great, but they aren't resolving to a couple of meters.
Perhaps NASA doesn't have the funds for spy-satellite level photo quality. The spy-satellite has more $$ backing it up. Just a guess. For instance NASA sent out the Pluto probe with not-the-best tech (a) to be able to afford it and (b) to get it launched quickly.
It's all made in a Hollywood basement. Move along...there's nothing to see here!!! Move along...move along!
62 Jazzmaster
Friend of Leo's
Thanks for that ... um, wow, I've had the wrong numbers stuck in my head for a while now.
gpasq
Friend of Leo's
Wow.
Well... the moon is about 240,000 miles away
Most satellites are about 1200 miles up. The ISS is 200 miles up, and that's about as low as you can go. Geostationary satellites are up to 20,000 miles away. The SOHO satellite is nearly a million miles up.
Man, am I wrong on these numbers.
I admit I guessed on the satellites (just thinking immediately past the ISS), but I thought I had the number right for the ISS and Moon.
I should use google before I rely on my bad memory and even worse WAGs.
I can post about how some of the hi-res moon shots are done, and they are not single images, but rather stacked images. I've done this with my various astro photo attempts.
Here is a short example. Not mine, but from the Registax software site.
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6singlerun.html
Same scope and camera, just the best parts of a lot of pics stacked together to increase the resolution.
From this:
To this (in 50 stacked frames and some processing):
I admit I guessed on the satellites (just thinking immediately past the ISS), but I thought I had the number right for the ISS and Moon.
I should use google before I rely on my bad memory and even worse WAGs.
I can post about how some of the hi-res moon shots are done, and they are not single images, but rather stacked images. I've done this with my various astro photo attempts.
Here is a short example. Not mine, but from the Registax software site.
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6singlerun.html
Same scope and camera, just the best parts of a lot of pics stacked together to increase the resolution.
From this:
To this (in 50 stacked frames and some processing):
Last edited:
Ever wonder what a KH-11 "spy satellite" looks like?
Take a look at the Hubble Space Telescope.
Really pretty much the same thing.
KH-11 was developed in the "black" world.
HST in the "white" world and couldn't talk to/get help from the people on the other side of the fence who had already developed their technology.
The National Reconnaissance Office (or at least I remember it as the NRO) has even offered some surplus HST/KH-11 mirrors. I believe budget constraints have kept NASA from doing much of anything with them.
Take a look at the Hubble Space Telescope.
Really pretty much the same thing.
KH-11 was developed in the "black" world.
HST in the "white" world and couldn't talk to/get help from the people on the other side of the fence who had already developed their technology.
The National Reconnaissance Office (or at least I remember it as the NRO) has even offered some surplus HST/KH-11 mirrors. I believe budget constraints have kept NASA from doing much of anything with them.
boneyguy
Doctor of Teleocity
Interesting stuff guys.....thanks for the responses. I guess the imaging technology is not as advanced as I thought it might be.
62 Jazzmaster
Friend of Leo's
Comparing the photos taken in Paris with those provided by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera is a bit like comparing the volume of a Tweed Champ in the bedroom to the same amp from the other side of the Grand Canyon.
Inverse Square Law and all that...
Inverse Square Law and all that...
flyingbanana
Poster Extraordinaire
I believe in keeping an open mind. Nasa can't even produce a decent "press release..." If you can call it that.
greggorypeccary
Friend of Leo's
That may be part of it, but when sending out space probes, one also needs to consider size and weight. Not to mention that New Horizions has been up there for over nine years. Even if they did use state of the art at the time (which they most likely did, because that's what NASA does), it's nine years out of date.
Camera maker Hasselblad, whose cameras were used on the Apollo missions, used to run ads in photo magazines saying some of their cameras are free for the taking if you can get to the moon.
They were left behind after being used by NASA astronauts to save room and weight in the Lunar Module.
https://120pearls.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/space-film-theres-12-cameras-on-the-moon-right-now/
Kestrel
Tele-Afflicted
Lunar landings? Please. It was all Cold War fakery. The lunar landings were staged in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. There's no way humans could survive the radiation exposure travelling through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
Seriously, didn't you guys watch Interstellar?
Seriously, didn't you guys watch Interstellar?
gpasq
Friend of Leo's
Math please. Estimate REM dosages and why they're not survivable.
This oughta get good from here on!
(and I realize you're probably kidding, but you know there's someone just waiting to go off on this!)
This oughta get good from here on!
(and I realize you're probably kidding, but you know there's someone just waiting to go off on this!)
Kestrel
Tele-Afflicted
Of course I'm kidding, but there are conspiracy theorists out there the believe that sort of stuff.
Tesla_HV
Tele-Afflicted
This from Popular Science: "Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.".
