PDA

View Full Version : LRO sees lunar landing sites



ToSeek
2009-Jul-17, 05:08 PM
LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)


NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

Glom
2009-Jul-17, 05:13 PM
Those filthy astronauts churning up all that regolith. I hate it when people marr the beauty of a white vista too, especially those ambulances.

peteshimmon
2009-Jul-17, 05:38 PM
About time too! And why could not those two or
three previous probes do this at low Sun
angles? I am sure they had the resolution.

Forty two years ago the Lunar Orbiter saw
Surveyor one with its long shadow and the
lunar module descent stages are much bigger.

Gemini
2009-Jul-17, 05:45 PM
These photos are many levels of awesomeness.

matthewota
2009-Jul-17, 05:52 PM
It will be interesting to see the astronaut-disturbed regolith near Cone Crater at the Apollo 14 site. We will be able to see how close they got to the crater.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-17, 06:14 PM
About time too! And why could not those two or
three previous probes do this at low Sun
angles? I am sure they had the resolution.
Are you sure? Because, I'm not, and that's because I have no clue as to what previous probes you are talking about, and have no way to know what technology you are talking about. Nor, do you give any indication that you know what that resolution is.


Forty two years ago the Lunar Orbiter saw
Surveyor one with its long shadow and the
lunar module descent stages are much bigger.
Exactly; they saw the long shadow, but not the surveyor.

Somewhere on this site is an earlier picture of one of the Apollo sites, and you can see it from it's shadow, so I'm sure someone can chime in with the details on that. It's not much different than the Lunar Orbiter probe picture.
Besides, Lunar Orbiter was only capable of 2 meter resolution. LRO is much better than that.

Peter B
2009-Jul-17, 06:16 PM
As mentioned on the Conspiracy Thread discussing this news:

I think I can see two lunar rovers:

Apollo 16: near the top of the image, about 12 o'clock from the LM, just to the right of the sharply defined crater.

Apollo 17: near the left of the image, about 8 o'clock from the LM.

Would that be a reasonable interpretation of what I can see?

CJSF
2009-Jul-17, 06:24 PM
Did they move the news conference time? NASA TV had nothing at 2pm EDT, besides the normal ISS/Shuttle coverage (docking was at 1:50ish)...

CJSF

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-17, 06:27 PM
I think I can see two lunar rovers:

Apollo 16: near the top of the image, about 12 o'clock from the LM, just to the right of the sharply defined crater.

Apollo 17: near the left of the image, about 8 o'clock from the LM.

Would that be a reasonable interpretation of what I can see?
I could go along with that. In fact that gives me confidence in saying that I think the A-15 rover is at 3 o'clock.
Although; I see either a rover without a shadow (possibly on a hill), or a shadow without a rover about 2 1/2 times further away. :think:

And; from that white speck, I make out some slightly darker lines going off at about an 8 o'clock direction from it. Although; that could be my mind playing tricks on me.

Argos
2009-Jul-17, 06:36 PM
I see the astronauts used two craters as reference points to get to the sci instruments. Am I right?

Glom
2009-Jul-17, 06:40 PM
The slosh from Antares to the ALSEP site can clearly be seen. Why can't such slosh be seen elsewhere? Is it to do with the lighting?

ToSeek
2009-Jul-17, 06:47 PM
As mentioned on the Conspiracy Thread discussing this news:

I think I can see two lunar rovers:

Apollo 16: near the top of the image, about 12 o'clock from the LM, just to the right of the sharply defined crater.

Apollo 17: near the left of the image, about 8 o'clock from the LM.

Would that be a reasonable interpretation of what I can see?

There's definitely something sticking up there - impressive you spotted them - but I think they are too far away to be the rovers. According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.trvlm3.html) (scroll to the bottom), the Apollo 16 rover was parked about 70 meters away from the LM and to the WSW of it.

EDIT: Actually, I see something sticking up just a little bit in the right direction: look for the two craters in the 8 o'clock direction that form a sort of figure eight. Just to the east of the northern one; there's something almost on the rim.

EDIT AGAIN: My bad, that wasn't the final parking spot (though there is a mention of a large rock in the area, so that may be what I'm seeing).

List of final parking spots is here. (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LRVFinalParking.html)

Apollo 17: 158 meters away, azimuth 94 degrees.
Apollo 16: 81 meters away, azimuth 88 degrees.
Apollo 15: 165 meters, azimuth 102 degrees.

So all three rovers should be almost due east, but I can't see anything casting a shadow in those locations.

ngc3314
2009-Jul-17, 06:53 PM
One of the posters at unmannedspaceflight.com has posted his IDs of the LRVs (http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6111&pid=143444&st=30&#entry143444), at least one of which exactly matches known landmarks.

I'm pretty sure I see LRV tracks from Apollo 17, headed initially east then north around a shallow crater.

matthewota
2009-Jul-17, 07:25 PM
What is the LRO orbital altitude now versus it's final mission orbital altitude?

djellison
2009-Jul-17, 10:33 PM
IT's in a 30x200km orbit right now - and will be in a 50x50km orbit when it's doing science.

These images are all on the order of 1 - 1.5m/pixel

When it's in its final orbit - they'll be 50cm/pixel

matthewota
2009-Jul-17, 11:04 PM
That is good enough to see the rovers and the PLSS backpacks.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-17, 11:06 PM
Be still, my heart...

I cannot believe what I'm seeing. I use words like "awesome" so much that they seem insufficient to describe this.

01101001
2009-Jul-18, 05:25 AM
We've waited so long, it's worth the trouble of putting some small ones in-line.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369234main_lroc_apollo11labeled_256x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html) http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369238main_lroc_apollo15labeled_256x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369240main_lroc_apollo16labeled_256x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html) http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369242main_lroc_apollo17labeled_256x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369236main_lroc_apollo14labeled_522x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)

Hail, Apollo Project.

Hail, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

BetaDust
2009-Jul-18, 09:49 AM
Awesome indeed!

What a wonderful thing to see.

Thank You, LRO!



--Dennis

telly2
2009-Jul-18, 10:02 AM
You know, Weltraum ( my friend here in this forum) and I posted these photos at the Pravda forum to silence the hoax supporters only to be bagged and told that these photos are also fakes!!! What does it take???!!! Will there be no end to the fruitloops who just fail to believe in this glorious achievement???

Buttercup
2009-Jul-18, 12:00 PM
Yep, they're FAKES! NASA continues lying! The camera DOES lie! :p

Fruit Loops indeed. These folks could be taken there, see and touch...they'd still go on with "hoax! hoax!"

Too bad they skip their meds so frequently. :rolleyes:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jul_lroc.htm

sohh_fly
2009-Jul-18, 01:13 PM
It's actually quite sad,that the hoaxer's continue this way.
They need to be strapped to an acme rocket and sent on their way and get stuck in lu(oo)nar orbit and stay there.

Argos
2009-Jul-18, 01:28 PM
I see the astronauts used two craters as reference points to get to the sci instruments. Am I right?

No, Argos. They just thought it would be cool to take a peek inside the only accidents in the vicinity, as youd probably do.

Graham2001
2009-Jul-18, 01:29 PM
Thank you NASA, for those magnificent images of what you achieved, now redeem the promise you left on the Moon the year before I was born and go back!

ginnie
2009-Jul-18, 06:08 PM
Let's face it - those photos are of little interest to HBs. They just confirm that NASA still continues to spread the lie...

I can't wait for more close up shots.

peteshimmon
2009-Jul-18, 06:27 PM
Naturally I was thinking of the recent Indian
and Japanese probes. But their scientific
aims would not have included confiming the
Apollo missions I suppose.

Anyway some good science to come comparing
the images with Lunar Orbiter ones from
42 years ago. New small craters will be
expected but Hey..new big rocks would be
neat.

redshifter
2009-Jul-18, 06:42 PM
You know, Weltraum ( my friend here in this forum) and I posted these photos at the Pravda forum to silence the hoax supporters only to be bagged and told that these photos are also fakes!!! What does it take???!!! Will there be no end to the fruitloops who just fail to believe in this glorious achievement???

What's truly amazing is how HB's use grainy, blown up photos not nearly as clear as these to 'prove' the landings were a hoax. My guess is that until every HB actually goes to the moon and sees the landers and tracks there, they'll still instist the landings were a hoax. Heck, even if that were to happen, they'd STILL believe the landings were a hoax.

novaderrik
2009-Jul-18, 07:30 PM
are any of the hoax people claiming that the new photos have to be fake because you can see the "footpath" in the A14 pic? you know, because they surely would have been weathered away after 4 decades...

GG300
2009-Jul-18, 07:39 PM
We've waited so long, it's worth the trouble of putting some small ones in-line.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369240main_lroc_apollo16labeled_256x256.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)

Hail, Apollo Project.

Hail, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

I am sorry, to me it looks like this !

http://i30.tinypic.com/2zea5w7.jpg

H4wkeye
2009-Jul-18, 07:47 PM
Ok so now,can all the Moon landing conspiracy theorists please shut up :D.You just got a proof we landed on the Moon.

mugaliens
2009-Jul-19, 06:19 AM
Footprints!

Wow.

djellison
2009-Jul-19, 10:29 AM
Ok so now,can all the Moon landing conspiracy theorists please shut up :D.You just got a proof we landed on the Moon.

This has been said several times in several threads. What makes you think these images will change any HB's opinion?

Bozola
2009-Jul-19, 04:52 PM
It's obvious; NASA faked the Moon landings on the Moon.

peteshimmon
2009-Jul-19, 07:08 PM
oh dear!..

AGN Fuel
2009-Jul-20, 02:47 AM
It's obvious; NASA faked the Moon landings on the Moon.

That's why we could never find the studio here on Earth. Those cunning fiends!

Can I just add my agreement that these images are magnificent - and I confess that I am a little emotional at seeing them. :o

Count Zero
2009-Jul-20, 06:33 AM
I would imagine that the footprints will be easier to see from orbit than rover tracks. With each hop & landing, the astronauts tended to kick out a fan of dust. The disturbed area was often a few feet across. By comparison, the LRV tires only pressed down onto the soil they rolled onto. They did throw some dust behind them, but judging from the photos taken on the surface, the signature was not that great.

djellison
2009-Jul-20, 09:41 AM
When we have the final orbit 50cm/pixel imagery - we'll be able to see both quite clearly.

telly2
2009-Jul-20, 12:25 PM
Can anyone tell me when the next closer-pass photos of the landing sites will be released? :)

djellison
2009-Jul-20, 04:29 PM
A month or two yet - they're still in this commissioning orbit.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-26, 02:53 PM
Yes, I am emotional, I don't care about the HBs right now, I want them to shut up.

ginnie
2009-Jul-26, 08:43 PM
I would imagine that the footprints will be easier to see from orbit that rover tracks. With each hop & landing, the astronauts tended to kick out a fan of dust. The disturbed area was often a few feet across. By comparison, the LRV tires only pressed down onto the soil they rolled onto. They did throw some dust behind them, but judging from the photos taken on the surface, the signature was not that great.

...and on Apollo 14 the astronauts were often trying to walk in areas that had lots of dust - sometimes six inches of it. So they created quite the mess...

Gruesome
2009-Jul-27, 02:16 AM
To be honest, the first time I saw these photographs, I asked myself, "We waited 40 years for this!? Did the Hubble mirror dude make these lenses?"

The resolution blows. All the photos seem out of focus.

I bet the Apollo 10 astros took better pics than these. I would rate the quality of these new pics about even with the "Armstrong steppin' off the LEM" TV footage, ie. cr*ppy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the Apollo missions.

I'm just kind of upset we had to wait 40 years for pictures with resolutions similar to those of my house on MapQuest.

"Where's Al's divot!?!? Foci Four!!!!"

novaderrik
2009-Jul-27, 02:30 AM
To be honest, the first time I saw these photographs, I asked myself, "We waited 40 years for this!? Did the Hubble mirror dude make these lenses?"

The resolution blows. All the photos seem out of focus.

I bet the Apollo 10 astros took better pics than these. I would rate the quality of these new pics about even with the "Armstrong steppin' off the LEM" TV footage, ie. cr*ppy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the Apollo missions.

I'm just kind of upset we had to wait 40 years for pictures with resolutions similar to those of my house on MapQuest.

"Where's Al's divot!?!? Foci Four!!!!"
have you looked into why the pics look like they do- the reason that the resolution isn't as good as when they "enhance" grainy surveillance camera footage on any typical tv crime drama?

Gruesome
2009-Jul-27, 02:57 AM
have you looked into why the pics look like they do- the reason that the resolution isn't as good as when they "enhance" grainy surveillance camera footage on any typical tv crime drama?

I have.

And that's my point. Shouldn't these pictures have better resolution than some "enhanced" image taken at your corner 7-11?

We're talking NASA here. Surely they've been thinking about this for awhile now.

I'm disappointed.

JonClarke
2009-Jul-27, 11:10 AM
To be honest, the first time I saw these photographs, I asked myself, "We waited 40 years for this!? Did the Hubble mirror dude make these lenses?"

Gratuitous insult to the LRO missions. The images are in focus.


The resolution blows.

It what way do the highest resolution images ever taken from lunar orbit "blow"? Metre resolution isn't good enough for you? Then wait abit. Final images will have two to three times the resolution


All the photos seem out of focus.

Not to me. They look as crisp as I expected.


I bet the Apollo 10 astros took better pics than these.

Any evidence the justifies your bet?


I would rate the quality of these new pics about even with the "Armstrong steppin' off the LEM" TV footage, ie. cr*ppy.

In your opinion. The rest of us think they are pretty good.


I'm just kind of upset we had to wait 40 years for pictures with resolutions similar to those of my house on MapQuest.

I can't even begin to understand why you are upset. These images are amazing, much better than anything peviously, and we can see Apollo hardware. And the main imaging hasn't even begun.

Maybe your expectations are a tad unrealistic?

Jon

samkent
2009-Jul-27, 12:33 PM
Seeing a coffee table at 100 miles isn’t good enough?? It sounds like someone has been watching too many SIFI episodes.

Hint: Those CSI shows exaggerate the ability to read license plates by many orders of magnitude.

I don’t know the formula, but goes something like this…

Mirror diameter ‘X’ at distance ‘Y’ can show (resolve) objects the size of ‘Z’ and larger. It doesn’t matter what software or government agency you put behind it. It’s cold hard physics.

If you want to see smaller objects you either have to get closer or get a larger mirror. No way around it.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-27, 01:26 PM
...I'm just kind of upset we had to wait 40 years for pictures with resolutions similar to those of my house on MapQuest.
Do you even know the source of those pictures from MapQuest?

The majority of them are from aerial surveys, not from satellites. They only call them "satellite" to be inclusive, and the term can apply to the angle of the picture, not just the source.
Have you ever got into an area where you get "cannot display at this zoom level"? Take a look at a car in those. You get a couple of pixels only.

The satellite sourced pictures are generally in the neighborhood of 3 meter resolution. Much lower resolution than MapQuest.

Scamp
2009-Jul-27, 02:01 PM
Geesze! When you all you people wake up. NASA did not FAKE the moon landings. No it's much, much larger than that. They faked the Moon itself as a way to justify their own existence.

Sure it was tough sneaking faked documents about the "moon" into historical records around the world, Yes it was difficult to create the global network of holo-laser projectors that give the illusion of a moon, and the deep ocean tide generators have had their problems (ie 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) but thanks to the advanced chemical industry in the US they were able to spread their mind altering toxins around the globe (via the worlds airlines of course) making everyone "remember" the moon as having always been there.

peteshimmon
2009-Jul-27, 05:44 PM
Oh dear oh dear...



:)

Grashtel
2009-Jul-27, 06:59 PM
Geesze! When you all you people wake up. NASA did not FAKE the moon landings. No it's much, much larger than that. They faked the Moon itself as a way to justify their own existence.

Sure it was tough sneaking faked documents about the "moon" into historical records around the world, Yes it was difficult to create the global network of holo-laser projectors that give the illusion of a moon, and the deep ocean tide generators have had their problems (ie 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) but thanks to the advanced chemical industry in the US they were able to spread their mind altering toxins around the globe (via the worlds airlines of course) making everyone "remember" the moon as having always been there.
And you just know that someone somewhere is actually promoting this as a serious conspiracy...

Antice
2009-Jul-27, 07:17 PM
I think those some ones promoting those conspiracies are more concerned with parting fools from their money than uncovering any truths....

Ilya
2009-Jul-27, 07:21 PM
You know, Weltraum ( my friend here in this forum) and I posted these photos at the Pravda forum to silence the hoax supporters only to be bagged and told that these photos are also fakes!!! What does it take???!!! Will there be no end to the fruitloops who just fail to believe in this glorious achievement???
On Pravda forum?? As in, http://pravda.ru/ ?

Somehow I find it very amusing. In part because of what the word "pravda" actually means in Russian.

kleindoofy
2009-Jul-27, 07:25 PM
... Those CSI shows exaggerate the ability to read license plates by many orders of magnitude. ...
What the CSI shows do is not exaggerated, it's totally impossible.

No matter what you do, you cannot take a digital image with 16x16 pxl and interpolate it to an image with 1024x 1024 pxl with clear and exact detail, down to the single pixel level. Absolute nonsense.

When the FBI enhances surveillance camera images, it takes months, lots of money and the results are sometimes hardly noticable.

CSI shows = pure fantasy

The moon shots are great!

Antice
2009-Jul-27, 07:34 PM
enhancing images cannot provide information that is simply not there. it's as simple as that.
that is the primary fallacy hoagland et al is committing when they run images trough contrast enhancement and patternfinding algorithms. the software itself ends up taking something that approximates a shape and converts it into a shape that is really not there

ToSeek
2009-Aug-21, 09:46 PM
New Apollo 14 landing site image:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/91-Trail-of-Discovery-at-Fra-Mauro.html

Before and after:

http://www.moonviews.com/archives/2009/08/loirp_and_lro_confirm_that_hum.html

Rhaedas
2009-Aug-21, 10:56 PM
Just curious, on the before/after link, I'm assuming that the reason the lander isn't as visible on the 1967 photo is that maybe the angle of lighting, but largely that there's no blast area to provide more contrast as there is now, because this was taken before they left.

PetersCreek
2009-Aug-21, 10:59 PM
The lander isn't visible in the 1967 photo because the lander had not landed yet. It landed 4 years later.

kleindoofy
2009-Aug-21, 11:02 PM
The lander isn't visible in the 1967 photo because the lander had not landed yet.
Yup! That's the whole point of "before" and "after."

Fake as a one dollar bill!

Rhaedas
2009-Aug-21, 11:05 PM
Yup! That's the whole point of "before" and "after."

Fake as a one dollar bill!

LOL, and I even typed the year...blah.

PetersCreek
2009-Aug-21, 11:06 PM
No worries. We've all had those moments...and they're coming along much more often for me these days.

Warren Platts
2009-Aug-22, 06:54 PM
It will be interesting to see the astronaut-disturbed regolith near Cone Crater at the Apollo 14 site. We will be able to see how close they got to the crater.

They were there, just like Alan Shepard said they were:

Scientists versus The Icy Commander, by Paul Spudis (http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/08/21/scientists-vs-the-icy-commander/)


Now, thirty-eight years later, we’ve just received a magnificent picture of the Apollo 14 landing site from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC). Its quality is so good we can see the path of the astronauts footprints and MET tracks on the Moon. It is even possible to follow their tracks all the way up to Cone crater—to the point where Al Shepard declared victory.

Oops. Al Shepard was right. He was at the rim of Cone crater. Terrain around the rim is so hilly that he and Ed Mitchell didn’t know they had reached the rim; the deep crater interior is just over a slight rise, a few tens of meters north of where they were. The samples that Shepard and Mitchell collected do represent the deepest ejecta from Cone crater, thereby fulfilling that goal geologists set many moons ago. For almost 40 years, the “Icy Commander” was right. Yet his name lived in infamy in lunar geologic circles.

Comment by Edgar Mitchell: "We never doubted we were at the top. Photos proved it"!
________________________
If there is a moral to this story, it could be that scientists should never state something is absolutely known and settled. It’s likely they’ll be proven wrong.
--Paul Spudis

ToSeek
2009-Sep-03, 08:54 PM
Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3 (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/98-First-Look-Apollo-12-and-Surveyor-3-.html)

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M104662862R_a12.serendipityThumb.png

KaiYeves
2009-Sep-04, 01:07 AM
Oooh, you can even see footprints between the LEM and the ALSEP. (For the longest time, I was pronouncing ALSEP like 'asleep'.)

AGN Fuel
2009-Sep-04, 04:50 AM
Yup - looks like a long step for Pete!

Jason Thompson
2009-Sep-04, 01:16 PM
My new favourite LRO image (until the next one!). Is that small white spot right next to the descent stage the S-band antenna? If so that's pretty cool.

ToSeek
2009-Sep-04, 03:52 PM
My new favourite LRO image (until the next one!). Is that small white spot right next to the descent stage the S-band antenna? If so that's pretty cool.

If you're talking about the little dot at about the 11 o'clock position, I don't think that's where it was. The dot is almost directly between the ALSEP and the LM, while this image (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6806.jpg) indicates that the antenna was well off to the side of that.

Jason Thompson
2009-Sep-04, 04:17 PM
Ah yes. Well spotted. Looks like the S-band antenna is probably in the shadow of the descent stage on that image then, would you agree? Wonder what the white speck is then.

Superluminal
2009-Sep-04, 07:09 PM
Al Shephards golf ball, after all it went, "miles and miles and miles."

Superluminal
2009-Sep-04, 07:20 PM
I hope they image the Surveyor 4 landing/crash sight. I've always wondered what happened to it.

ravens_cry
2009-Sep-04, 07:51 PM
I hope the spot Lunakhod 1,I would like to know why it can't be used for lunar ranging any more, and if knowing it's location more precisely would aid in that use once again.

ToSeek
2009-Sep-30, 09:03 PM
Another look at the Apollo 11 landing site. (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/101-Apollo-11-Second-look.html) Still not from the operational orbit.

Zvezdichko
2009-Sep-30, 09:08 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/09/why_bother_tell.html

And Keith Cowing is asking a very valid question - why bother telling people about cool stuff?

It's a shame that the LRO team is sitting on these images for so long.

Oh, and by the way:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/categories/2-Featured-Image

Surveyor 1 found.

Fri Jul 17 04:25:28 UTC 2009

Sitting... sitting... sitting... sitting...

R.A.F.
2009-Sep-30, 09:56 PM
Another look at the Apollo 11 landing site. (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/101-Apollo-11-Second-look.html) Still not from the operational orbit.

Either my imagination is playing tricks on me, or I "think" I see the path that Armstrong took to "little west" crater...amazing.

PetersCreek
2009-Sep-30, 10:07 PM
No, your imagination isn't playing tricks on you. They even point the tracks out (with an unlabeled arrow) in the enlargement and remark on them in the caption. Still amazing.

R.A.F.
2009-Sep-30, 10:12 PM
They even point the tracks out (with an unlabeled arrow) in the enlargement.

DOH!

That's what I get for not scrolling down...I didn't even see the enlargement...thanks.

PetersCreek
2009-Sep-30, 10:13 PM
That's what I'm here for. ;)

Orion's Fan
2009-Sep-30, 10:18 PM
I'm not old enough to have had the pleasure of seeing the landing live. Yet, these photos make me feel as though I'm the one moving along the footpaths from one place to another!

Glom
2009-Sep-30, 10:23 PM
Wow that shot is awesome. The annoying thing about the Moon is you don't intuitively have a sense of scale.

Nowhere Man
2009-Sep-30, 10:52 PM
I'm just waiting for some yahoo to shout that it's bogus because whoever 'shopped this picture forgot to put in the flag.

... Yeah, I know it's too small to show up.

Fred

KaiYeves
2009-Sep-30, 11:31 PM
Wonderful! I feel like I'm coming in to land right next to the LEM.

01101001
2009-Oct-01, 12:36 AM
It's a shame that the LRO team is sitting on these images for so long.

I expect the team is shamelessly doing what was agreed to in the contract(s), doing their best to utilize their resources to accomplish the greatest good.

Their priorities could well be different from those of the armchair planetary scientists.

Maybe they could use some free volunteer help.

Hungry4info
2009-Oct-01, 04:26 AM
I'm just waiting for some yahoo to shout that it's bogus because whoever 'shopped this picture forgot to put in the flag.

... Yeah, I know it's too small to show up.

That's what I thought too, but on Universe Today, the image there has the TV camera labeled. I figured the TV camera was smaller than the flag, and since the flag didn't show up, that the material was destroyed due to 40 years of exposure (I read somewhere the flag was nylon?).

The flag really wouldn't show up if it was still there? I recall the flag was knocked over during the lift-off of the ascent module, so I would assume it would at least give maybe one pixel of evidence of its presence? (again, assuming it wasn't destroyed in the 40 years since).

Edit: not advocating anything ATM

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 06:33 AM
I expect the team is shamelessly doing what was agreed to in the contract(s), doing their best to utilize their resources to accomplish the greatest good.

Their priorities could well be different from those of the armchair planetary scientists.

Maybe they could use some free volunteer help.

I'm not advocating a conspiracy theory, but I do claim that they are bad at PR.

Well - their priorities probably are different, but they should do it better when it comes to public outreach. What I say is that they probably don't have the will Steve Squyres, for example, has. He insisted all images to be released in real time for MERs. Well, I don't mind a month of embargo period, but this picture could had been released during the Apollo press conference in July.

djellison
2009-Oct-01, 07:17 AM
Squires.

It's Squyres.

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 07:29 AM
Thanks. Corrected. And this guy is great. Anyway - that's why love the MERs - because of the constant flow of images.

We need more people like him leading interplanetary projects. So far I'm disappointed of the LRO image policy.

djellison
2009-Oct-01, 08:08 AM
Are you disappointed by the HiRISE image policy?

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 08:19 AM
Yes, but not that much. They were quick in acquiring and releasing images of Phoenix on the ground. The pic of the deployed parachute was released on the next day.

djellison
2009-Oct-01, 11:49 AM
LRO images of hardware on the ground were also released quickly. Their image release policies (in comparable mission phases) are very comparable.

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 11:53 AM
Yet the big question remains: The image was taken in July, two days before the big press conference. Looks like they tried to photograph not only Apollo, but also the Surveyors. Yet a day before the anniversary only the images of the Apollo sites were made public.

slang
2009-Oct-01, 12:07 PM
You don't seem to appreciate that images taken by an instrument like HiRISE or LROC are not quite the same as images taken by the cameras onboard the MERs. There's quite a bit more processing (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/faq/) involved, and that takes time. Clearly priority was given to the Apollo sites, thus other batches of image data must be processed, checked, and released later.

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 12:13 PM
Not convincing at all:



After an image is acquired by the HiRISE camera, it takes about 15 minutes to transmit it from the spacecraft to Earth, via the Deep Space Network (DSN). It can take a few hours for the data to be transmitted from the DSN to JPL, and JPL then sends the data to HiROC within an hour. Once an image is received by HiROC computers, it takes about two hours for our pipelines to process it. We then have to wait a week for the ephemerides (position of spacecraft relative to Mars) data to be constructed. After that, it takes about two hours to complete the remainder of the image processing.

ToSeek
2009-Oct-01, 03:26 PM
That's what I thought too, but on Universe Today, the image there has the TV camera labeled. I figured the TV camera was smaller than the flag, and since the flag didn't show up, that the material was destroyed due to 40 years of exposure (I read somewhere the flag was nylon?).

The flag really wouldn't show up if it was still there? I recall the flag was knocked over during the lift-off of the ascent module, so I would assume it would at least give maybe one pixel of evidence of its presence? (again, assuming it wasn't destroyed in the 40 years since).

Edit: not advocating anything ATM

The flag was nylon and has undoubtedly evaporated under the influence of UV radiation over the last 40 years.

ToSeek
2009-Oct-01, 03:28 PM
Yet the big question remains: The image was taken in July, two days before the big press conference. Looks like they tried to photograph not only Apollo, but also the Surveyors. Yet a day before the anniversary only the images of the Apollo sites were made public.

Releasing an image of a Surveyor on the ground would have been rather an anticlimax after all the Apollo images, I should think. And I wonder how long it took to confirm that they had captured the Surveyor - they might have had other priorities in the meantime and only recently verified that they had a Surveyor image.

R.A.F.
2009-Oct-01, 04:08 PM
Actually, I feel just the opposite of Zvezdichko...I'm suprised at how quickly the landing site images were released.

Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-01, 04:23 PM
:D This is probably because you're not striving to see it as fast as possible. ;)

slang
2009-Oct-01, 05:01 PM
Not convincing at all:

Don't forget that those times are from the HiRISE FAQ, an instrument that has been in use several years now, with lots of experienced operators knowing every little quirck and all the unexpected external factors that influence image quality.

LROC had only been in orbit a few weeks, and LRO was still in it's commissioning phase. I imagine the team had other activities to worry about, including the Apollo imaging. So I'm really not suprised that this data was shelved for a while, maybe even until the commissioning phase was over and the science phase would begin. Who knows how much data they took during commissioning, and how large an eventual backlog in processing there is at any given time?

Anyway, an email to someone in the LROC team might clear things up, but whatever the reason was for the delay, it seems quite unfair to me to blame a PI for not being as insisting as Squyers was (and could be, considering the difference in instrument types).

Hungry4info
2009-Oct-06, 01:34 AM
The flag was nylon and has undoubtedly evaporated under the influence of UV radiation over the last 40 years.

Alright, that's pretty much what I assumed would happen.
Thanks =)

01101001
2009-Oct-29, 01:04 AM
Apollo 17 flag:

LROC: Exploring the Apollo 17 Site (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/137-Exploring-the-Apollo-17-Site.html)

From the 50-km mapping orbit.


The descent stage of the lunar module Challenger is now clearly visible, at 50-cm per pixel (angular resolution) the descent stage deck is eight pixels across (four meters), and the legs are also now distinguishable.

Glom
2009-Nov-02, 11:07 PM
I see no star and stripes.

01101001
2009-Nov-03, 12:06 AM
I see no star and stripes.

Get up close. Bang your head on your monitor.

At least you'll see stars.

Jason Thompson
2009-Nov-03, 01:26 PM
Can anyone summarise where to look on the original long strip images to zoom in to find the closeup views of the landing sites thus far imaged?

Also, have they found any of the LM ascent stage impact sites yet?

PetersCreek
2009-Nov-03, 04:38 PM
The flag was nylon and has undoubtedly evaporated under the influence of UV radiation over the last 40 years.
I've long subscribed to this idea as well but going by the latest LRO images, the flag seems to be at least somewhat intact based on the shadow it appears to be casting. Now, I'm imagining a fragile, wispy thing just barely holding itself together, waiting to be blown away by a breeze that will never come.

EricFD
2009-Nov-03, 04:52 PM
Pretty cool images!

01101001
2009-Nov-10, 04:38 AM
BA Blog: One Giant Leap seen again (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/09/one-giant-leap/)


See the red arrow, and where its pointing? That arrow is pointing to a place that changed humanity forever. You can divide all of history between the time before and the time after what happened where that arrow points.
You see, that arrow is pointing to the spot, the very spot, where Neil Armstrong became the first human to step on another world.
Yeah.
This image is from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and it shows the Apollo 11 landing site. Weve seen it before, but this time LRO is in its 50 km mapping orbit, so the resolution on this image is far higher about 50 or centimeters (20 inches). In this image, the tracks made by Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they scampered on the Moon for 2 hours and 31 minutes are obvious. You can even see the lander footpads, each just less than a meter (a bit over a yard) across.

NASA Image Feature: LRO Gets Additional View of Apollo 11 Landing Site (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/400199main_lroc_apollo11_20091109_100.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html)


This is LROC's first picture of Apollo 11 after LRO dropped into its 50 km mapping orbit. At this altitude, very small details of Tranquility Base can be discerned. The footpads of the LM are clearly discernible. Components of the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP) are easily seen, as well.

Glom
2009-Nov-10, 08:30 AM
Good time of day to take the shot it seems. All the equipment is reflecting a lot of light.

What was the little traverse that they did to the East?

Jason Thompson
2009-Nov-10, 01:00 PM
You mean the tracks leading off at the 3 o'clock position? That was Armstrong's unscheduled jaunt over to Little West Crater, which he thought looked interesting as he flew over it during the descent and happened to notice was within walking distance.

kleindoofy
2009-Nov-10, 08:58 PM
... http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/400199main_lroc_apollo11_20091109_100.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html)
On that photo, in the enlarged version I noticed that a circular area around the landing stage with a diameter about the width of the caption "Apollo 11 site" is slightly brighter than the surroundings.

I'm guessing this is caused by either:

1. a little photochop to lighten up the landing site, or

2. extra sunlight being reflected off the shiny bits of the landing stage, or

3. a cover of dust that was stirred up during the landing and the take off, which now lies slightly looser on the surface than the surrounding dust and thus reflects more sunlight, or

4. pure coincidence.

Am I close?

The area around the "West Crater" on the right of the image also shows brighter areas, much brighter, which seem to follow impact sediment lines.

So maybe the only slightly bright and more symmetrical circle around the landing stage really is from stirred up (and now loose) dust.

KaiYeves
2009-Nov-10, 09:18 PM
It really helps you realize how they didn't go very far at all on the lunar surface on that first mission.

Trebuchet
2009-Nov-10, 09:20 PM
I'm guessing #3, dust stirred up by the landing stage rocket. In other words, the "missing crater" commonly referred to by hoax believers. It's there, it just isn't much of a crater.

mugaliens
2009-Nov-13, 02:39 AM
Get up close. Bang your head on your monitor.

At least you'll see stars.

He'll see stars if he wiggles his head back and forth, violently.

bebe7
2009-Nov-14, 06:47 PM
LRO video of Apollo 11 LS...

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/13/just-released-video-of-tranquility-base-via-lro/

enjoy

Trebuchet
2010-Jan-12, 08:25 PM
Just a quick bump because The Big Picture (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/images_from_the_lunar_reconnai.html) has a set of LRO images, including Apollo landing sites, interspersed with some Apollo photos of the same locations.

Argos
2010-Jan-12, 08:53 PM
Great. Thanks!

Glom
2010-Jan-12, 09:17 PM
Some amazing photos. I especially like the one of Mare Humbaldtianum.

Shame those pesky astronauts had to make a mess of the dust.

ToSeek
2011-Jul-25, 08:44 PM
Impressive animations and detail of Apollo 11 landing site:

http://forum.moonzoo.org/index.php?topic=652.0

(Be warned that looking at it for too long may make your stomach queasy - at least it has that effect on me.)

CJSF
2011-Jul-25, 08:49 PM
These are LRO images? Fantastic!

CJSF

Swift
2011-Jul-25, 08:56 PM
Wow, the detail there is incredible.

Garrison
2011-Jul-25, 08:56 PM
Dizzying but cool. :)

bunker9603
2011-Jul-25, 09:05 PM
Wow, that is very cool!

Glom
2011-Jul-26, 06:09 AM
There looks like there's something sitting on top of the descent stage. Some displaced foil maybe?

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-26, 06:36 AM
There looks like there's something sitting on top of the descent stage. Some displaced foil maybe?

There is some upper frame above the main body of the descent module. Here's the Apollo 16 descent module (from the video after the ascent module had lifted off):

http://cumbriansky.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/a16-a11.jpg

I linked to that image from this article, which has a good discussion of how the shadow can look in an LRO image:

http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/apollo-revisited/

Glom
2011-Jul-26, 08:18 AM
:doh:

Yes. Me, idiot!