Comments on: Lunar orbiter photographs Apollo landing sites
Not yet in its final orbit, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has snapped pictures of five Apollo landing sites, showing abandoned equipment and astronaut trails in the lunar dust.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About The Space Shot
Timely coverage of breaking space news, from shuttle operations and assembly of the International Space Station to planetary exploration, space science, and development of the next generation of manned spacecraft. You can follow Bill Harwood's frequent status updates at the CBSNews.com Space Place.
Add this feed to your online news reader
The Space Shot topics
seriously?
3X this resolution? I might as well step outside and take my own photos.
http://moon.eu-tube.com
Egads, "concrete" proof that it's fake.
lol how sad
Black holes are (typically) surrounded by a massive amount of matter that they are slowly collecting/"consuming". As this matter is pulled in, a *tremendous* amount of radiation is given off. Needless to say, its entirely possible to 'view' the space a black hole occupies.
Black holes don't really "consume." Rather, matter is pulled into the black hole by the intense gravitational forces. It's more like matter "falls" into it. Black holes can't be filmed directly, as they pull light itself into it. What they often do is look for the gravitational affects caused by it. It's indirect detection because you can't "see" a black hole.
What's more, black holes don't release a "tramendous" amount of energy. Look up Hawkings radiation. Relatively speaking, it's a very small amount of energy that escapes a black hole. Please don't talk about physics without researching it first.
The resultant jets spewing out of the poles is an enormous amount of energy.
Now granted, it doesn't emit them constantly, but it certainly is capable of releasing a large amount of energy.
That said, the black hole itself doesn't spew out energy. Once energy/matter crosses the horizon of the black hole, it can't escape (except for Hawkins radiation).
Finding a moon landing site using an orbital satelite is not so easy. It's the equivalent of standing at the top of Mount Everest and trying to see a mouse running around at the bottom.
Meh.
You do know those are craters and not rocks right? The sun comes across the landscape, the shadow from the side of the crater that is facing the sun is dark. The other side is lit up from the sun. I am not seeing what you are.
You are saying that every one of them is crater, not even a single elevation, not even a single rock.
Forget them, Look at the bloody terrain and the shadows. Do you seriously do not want to look. I am not on either side but I noticed something and I thought I should discuss here. The discussion is just about this photograph and not the lunar landing history.
Look at the crater to the right of the lander.
The sun is coming from the left, the left rim of the crater casts the shadow into the crater but the sun is able to light up the "left face" of the right edge of the crater.
Now look at every other crater, they shadow and light are consistent and how the shadow and light SHOULD be given that the sunlight is coming from the left.
Not all craters are raised above the surrounding area, which typically makes them impact craters (as opposed to volcanic/geologic craters which tend to be raised above the surrounding area)
Now look at the lander, if the sun is coming from the left it's left face is lit up and it's shadow goes to the right, as expected.
This would be attributed to the sun's angular aspect and elevation to the surface of the moon.
and historically, the landing site was chosen for it's relatively low rock density/population as a rugged rock terrain makes for a bad/unsmooth landing.
Alright. Seems like I am not being clear in my questions here. Look at the following pic(I have edited it to add some red circles around shadows of terrain that are definitely not craters. How do you explain these. They are circled in red.
[IMG]http://i30.tinypic.com/2wre0cy.jpg[/IMG]
NP, I'll check on this post later then. I am not a believer neither a skeptic. I am just trying to understand something that I don't.
It looks to me that those areas are mostly small depressions that don't have a defined rim. Such a depression would cause there to be a darker area to the left of a brighter area than the surrounding terrain. If there were to be an elevated area, it would appear as a brighter left side and darker right. The LM displays this perfectly. There is a curious shadow cast in the area you circled in the middle left of the photo. This shadow seems to defy the basic directions of the other shadows. Yet, it is easily replicated with different topography. The Mythbusters provided a wonderful explanation and demonstration of such an effect in their NASA Moon Landing special, much better than I could provide.
I agree they most certainly aren't craters, just ground depressions.
Another way to approach this is ok, decide which direction you consider the sunlight to be coming from.
I say it's the left, and I'm gathering that you think it's from the right.
So, with that basic assumption on which direction the light is coming from, you have to look at the picture and see if the objects in the picture, regardless of what you identify them to be, do they consistently behave (or does the light around them) behave in a consistent manner if the light were in fact coming from the direction you think.
When I look at the picture using the assumption that the light is coming from the left, everything I see in the picture casts a shadow (and shows a highlight) that is consistent with what I expect it to be.
going from deepest to shallowist to highest in height,
The objects I'm calling craters exhibit light/shadow behavior that's consistent which anticipated outcome,
what I'm calling depressions behave as expected,
the lunar lander behaves as expected.
I don't see anything in the picture (at least from a light and shadow perspective) that is out of place.
if you consider the light to be coming from the right and that your circle items are objects,
why don't they reflect any light?
to cast a shadow, you either have to have something that's elevated above the surface or an area that's lower than the surrounding surface
and I believe that's what you've circled, areas that are below the surface area, and the bright areas in the pictures show objects that are elevated above the surface.
hard to imagine THIS is going to resolve anything...no we did NOT get to the moon, it would be nice if we had...but there is very little PROOF...just a bunch of bad images made by lazy conspirators who must have thought it funny to mess up on purpose..sorta kinda like the guys who put together the warren commission report and thought it was funny to time line the gun purchase AND the rifle purchase paperwork on the exact same timeline, look it up, a mathematical impossibility...pretty funny actually when you think about it...even funnier when you have an inside joke, like the 404 error...what you think the building in new orleans was the only one with two addresses leading to the same office...be well...
Most of these craters are relatively close if not flush with the surface (as consistent with most impact craters as opposed to volcanic/geologic craters), and the lunar lander is of course jutting up from the surface.
The crater imagery is consistent with what is observed on Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369444main_lroc_apollo17_lrg.jpg look at this image. There are rocks in the surrounding areas and they too show a shadow coming from a Sun positioned to the left.
The images above aren't at the same resolution as the actual images from Nasa. Follow the links and you can clearly see the vast majority of artifacts in the images are indeed craters all showing the Sun being to the left.
Heck, go buy a telescope and you can literally see these things for yourself!
For starters lets bring some basics into the conversation. The Hubble's primary mirror is almost 8 feet in diameter, and with it's systems it's able to remain in a stationary orbit and focus on a particular area of space for hours, days, capturing light and optically resolving an area.
Objects like black holes and galaxies are not only millions of miles away, but they're millions of miles across in size.
Now let's talk about optics and focal length.
The Hubble, which is capable of imaging massive objects like black holes and galaxies in stunning detail, is incapable of resolving any decent images of the moon.
It's simply too close and the focal length is too short.
Now lets switch over the the lunar orbiter, which has a smaller camera, no primary mirror to concentrate an collect light and the very fact that it's MOVING and having to capture images while it's moving.
Add to this once again focal length given aperture and these are remarkable images.
This was also just the first pass, many more are scheduled and from multiple directions and multiple elevations.
The Hubble was just recently updated on it's last servicing mission with (4) larger color CCDs that were planned for the James Web space telecscope, giving it a combined optical detection area that exceeds that of the lunar orbiter.
The Lunar orbiter has a smaller single black and white camera.
And one last point on focal length.
Read the text on your screen, now slowly move your eyes towards the screen until your eye is almost touching the display.
How well are you able to read it? ;-) welcome to focal length
But yeah, let's continue with the uneducated criticism of the image quality.
Focal length is not an issue. Nor is movement, for the designers would surely have considered it. The LROC team thinks the focus is "fantastic;" some of us think it blows goats. Hopefully, the 2-3 times improvement will impress.
And, speaking of uneducated: the LRO has three cameras, not one. And the pics were taken after the LRO had been in orbit over two weeks, not on the first pass.
I dont' think the Hubble is actually 'stationary' It's moving around the earth at a pretty good clip isn't it? It might be geo-stationary but if it was literally stationary it would decay in orbit pretty rapidly no?
.
The explanation of the mirrors is right on though :)
I referenced the Hubble to make a point about optical resolving power and it seems to be something that people bring up often.
Despite your claims, focal length and resolving power do in fact play a factor. Being both a telescope and camera enthusiast, I firmly know/believe that they play a factor, as does aperture. But if you are of the opinion that they don't then by all means educate me as to WHY it isn't an issue.
As for first pass, I'm referring to the first wave of images released, not literally the first pass around the moon.
Yes, the designers do take movement into account and they did, but there's a trade off for image quality to gain image stabilization.
Just as SLR camera lenses that have image stabilization technology have a narrower field of focal ranges.
as for example, you can find regular lenses that go 50mm to 200 mm, but you'll find image stabilization lenses running from 50mm to 100mm and 100mm to 200mm (arbitrary values to make the point)
@pixelpusher, yeah, you're right, I responded too quickly, it is in geosynchronous orbit, but it's my understanding that it has the ability to be stationary for periods of time.
Aside from the disruption factor of observations scheduled a year in advance, the wiz kids had absolutely no concept of angular resolution capabilities. The 60-inch telescope could barely resolve a one-mile object from 238,000 miles away, let alone a 30-foot lunar lander or a 6-foot astronaut. We did have a good laugh at the story.
Be careful about making disparaging remarks about taking pictures from orbiting platforms without doing the math and physics. Can your hand-held camera resolve a one-inch object from 500 feet? Consider angular resolution, circle of confusion, diffraction, platform stability, sensor quality, lighting angles, etc.
As for Hollywood, well, to quote someone from the past, any high-tech society or object is indistinguishable from magic. Captain Kirk's communicator was really something, I have one in my pocket too and can reach almost any other phone on the planet. Do you think that occurred to Mr. Bell in 1880? If you think the lunar landing was faked, go back and do the science before blabbing.
Monkey the Troll?s move-closer-to-the-monitor example implies that the Hubble is too close to the moon to shoot it. Nothing could be further from the truth. [Class: Google Hubble+moon.]
Focal length, even poorly described, is basically important in terrestrial photography to define, among other things, how close you can get to your subject. When the distance is huge, it only matters in how well we can magnify the image.
Swings Thru Trees is obviously a film photog. Things like focal length, aperture, shutter speed, whatever, are important when collecting photons on a piece of film. Unless we are designing cameras, all we are concerned with in digital photography, *for the most part* is [drum roll]:
Resolution.
For our purposes, resolution is the width represented by a pixel. The Hubble?s resolution, according to NASA, is 60 meters. So an object 60 meters wide makes one little dot on a picture. The largest man-made object on the moon is 9 meters wide. Thus, it would be nonsense to use the Hubble to shoot any of the landing sites.
Which has NOTHING to do with the subject matter, troll. Care to guess where I suggest you shove your ?education??
Hubble's star-tracker can point to an object in space and track it while it is orbiting earth. It does this by using its onboard gyros.
Geo-synchronous means (stationary over one point on earth). It's still orbiting the earth and moving with respect to other objects in the universe. The moon orbits the earth at a distance of roughly 250,000 miles and still changes its relative position to other galactic objects.
The Hubble can't possible have the ability to be 'stationary' as it would require slowing down from orbital velocity (17,000 mph?) to zero and back.
.
For 'periods of stationary' I think what you probably mean is that it can focus one it's cameras on a single point in space and keep it there even though it is orbiting the earth. That way it gets time to let light expose it's image. So for that it needs to match it's rotation speed to be exactly the same as it's orbital velocity. The same way the moon's rotation matches it's orbital velocity, we always see the same side of the moon facing earth. The one difference is moon rotates in the direction of its orbit, but for this exercise the Hubble would rotate in the opposite direction.
News Flash: This just in - Big Bang Theory Explained. In an attempt to come up with the "Like, Totally Unified, You Know?"(LTUYK) theory, astrophysicists now think the universe will end with everything just turning incredibly dense. After the recent upgrade of the stationary, but always moving Hubble Space Telescope, pictures are now available for the first time ever of incredibly large black holes. These stellar oddities were previously believed to be invisible, and relatively small, by astral standards. It is now speculated that the previously unobserved phenomena of ?dark matter,? hypothetical matter that is also undetectable, is coalescing into huge black holes. ?Actually, we don?t know what dark matter is, but is makes up 96% of the known universe? said Emma Peal, renowned astrophysicist at University of Ithra at the Mists. ?Now, thanks to these new pictures from the HST, we have a pretty good idea that it is actually billions, and billions, and billions of teeny, tiny itsy bitsy black holes that are, for some reason, associating with each other to form huge black holes millions of miles across, in size.? Some projections show that this process is rapidly accelerating and that we may have only minutes until the entire universe turns into one big block of m??
1) The Hubble can (and has) taken pictures of the moon, but the objects left by the Apollo mission are too small to be seen. Hard as it is for some people to believe, huge galaxies jillions of light years away are still big enough to be resolved while a tiny object 240,000 miles away is not. Remember, while the cameras on the orbiter aren't as good as Hubble's, it is about 8,000 times closer to the surface of the moon. That makes quite a bit of difference
2) The Hubble telescope is in low earth orbit (not geosynchronous as a previous poster suggested). Geosyncronous orbit is significant for communications satellites since it allows them to remain stationary relative to the earth. A telescope in any orbit will not be stationary relative to the stars.
3) The Hubble telescope gets it deep exposures by combining hundreds of shorter exposures taken of the same tiny section of sky. Each exposure is taken on a separate orbital pass.
About the shadows:
All the shadows except the ones from the Apollo landing objects are from impact craters. The dark areas are shadows falling inside the crater, just like in a canyon on the earth.
re: shadows... in the 11 pic, at about ten o clock is a boulder, the shadow is in the correct direction.
ditto the large crater directly to the right, the "innie" has the shadow area on the left, but the right edge extends upward a few feet, and there is a shadow to the right of it.
Hey all the "we never got their" types I haven't seen any comments about the other photo ,
my favorite part is the "Astronaut Footprints" ! Wow ! almost a hundred meter stride !
Do you think it could be a Big Foot track and not some from the Astronauts ?
Im not Lisa
itsDonagain
LOOK AT THE PICTURES UPSIDE DOWN AND CONSIDER THE SUN TO BE ON THE RIGHT.
It helps so much. You will find that the confusing areas are clearly depressions and not raised hills/rocks.
The there is Myth Busters.
- by Mac User Too July 18, 2009 9:01 AM PDT
- All of the undereducated blathering aside, with these (and future) images we can finally put to rest the whole moon landing 'conspiracy' crap.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by knowles2 July 20, 2009 7:37 AM PDT
- Do not think so somehow, the conspirators next solution was the lander and the flag was planted robtically, or they get even more desperate and say they fake he images and that every respected photographic in the world is going along with it, or some other crazy idea to make the conspiracy work.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (78 Comments)Conspiracy is like religion even when you prove it wrong people still want to believe in it and will reinterpret/ make stuff up to prove there view is right.