|
Post by hamster on Jun 3, 2008 16:55:34 GMT -4
Why haven't we been able to get a high def picture of the apollo landings from a lunar orbiter over the last 40 years? We can get an image like this one of Phoenix within days from Mars phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=650&cID=13It can't be too beyond our tech to get really high def pictures of the moon's surface..?
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jun 3, 2008 16:57:10 GMT -4
It's more of a money issue, than a technology issue.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 3, 2008 17:02:11 GMT -4
Because there isn't an orbiter in orbit around the Moon with a camera having the resolution of the one that took that picture from Mars. However, there is one scheduled for launch later this year. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 3, 2008 18:12:15 GMT -4
Halleijuehah. I can't wait!
(I know I've made a spelling mistake, but Spell Check isn't working)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 3, 2008 21:46:49 GMT -4
"Hallelujah."
There--spell check worked for you!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 3, 2008 21:52:05 GMT -4
Hi, hamster. Welcome to the board. Why haven't we been able to get a high def picture of the apollo landings from a lunar orbiter over the last 40 years?The Moon was pretty intensively studied during the build-up for Apollo, as well as during the Apollo missions. The U.S. and USSR both sent orbiters and landers (e.g., Surveyor, Lunokhod), as well as straight-in reconnaissance vehicles (Ranger). The Soviets managed to obtain about a pound of lunar material via unmanned sample return craft. The U.S. explored the Moon with six manned missions, and brought back a variety of samples totaling about eight hundred pounds. The Apollo explorers also left five nuclear-powered science laboratories (ALSEPs) which monitored the lunar environment for years longer. All of which is to say that the Moon got a lot of attention, but there also came a sense of "been there, done that". With manned spaceflight focusing on Earth-orbit, space station operations, the focus of exploration activities shifted outward, with Mars and the outer planets getting their turns (Viking 1 & 2, Pioner 10 & 11, Voyager 1 & 2, later Galileo and Cassini, etc.) As interest grew in the possibility of life elsewhere, Mars became the chief interest of exploration focusing on life (or at least environments somewhat conducive to it). Quite a few probes (orbiting and surface) have been sent there over the last decade-plus. With plans to land more varied (Phoenix) and capable (Mars Science Lab '09) vehicles, the remote sensing capabilities have been, well, focused there, and have been enhanced to support the more intensive investigations. We can get an image like this one of Phoenix within days from Mars phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=650&cID=13You asked why we haven't gotten high-resolution images from a lunar orbiter, but Phoenix is a lander. No one has sent a lander to the Moon in 36 years. But you might also ask why it took over two decades to get such close-up images of Mars as we got from Viking, until Sojourner finally landed there. The answer is, again, that interest and funding had been spread across the entire solar system. But it has been concentrated on Mars, so now we have two active rovers, an active lander, and multiple very capable orbiters around the Red Planet. It can't be too beyond our tech to get really high def pictures of the moon's surface..?No, and now that manned exploration (as opposed to Earth-orbit operations) is resuming, there is great international interest in the Moon again. India, Japan, China, Russia, and the U.S. are all operating or working on sending probes to the Moon. And, just as Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was sent to (among other things) select targets for landers, LRO (as mentioned) will soon be sent to investigate targets of interest for upcoming lunar landings. Edit: Fixed markup tags.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 3, 2008 22:17:31 GMT -4
We can get an image like this one of Phoenix within days from Mars phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=650&cID=13You asked why we haven't gotten high-resolution images from a lunar orbiter, but Phoenix is a lander. No one has sent a lander to the Moon in 36 years. In all fairness, that image is one of Phoenix taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, not one taken from the ground by Phoenix itself. Hamster's question relates to why we don't have a similar camera in lunar orbit. Thankfully we soon will, of course.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 3, 2008 22:29:14 GMT -4
The pictures are cool but the images of the lander is hardly recognizable the actual lander. It is just a colored blob with a more or less recognizable shape. That is the exact complaint that HPs will point out when closer pictures of the lunar landing sites get taken.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 4, 2008 0:35:41 GMT -4
Also note that the images of Phoenix are documenting a current, ongoing mission, as opposed to simply photographing sites which were visited nearly 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jun 4, 2008 3:12:45 GMT -4
Thanks for the welcome and the replies guys.
I'm not a HP (hoax peddler? is that the term..?) but this question of orbiter photgraphs is a wee niggle that has always itched me a bit. It'll be great when the LRO goes up later on this year and see more of our neighbour, and that it's all part of a longer plan for human exploration. At long last.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 4, 2008 3:54:32 GMT -4
The Google Lunar X-Prize may lead to closeup shots of an Apollo site, though I wouldn't hold my breath. www.googlelunarxprize.org/To win the prize a registered team has to soft land on the Moon, broadcast a certain amount of high definition video and move a specified distance. There is a bonus prize purse for achieving additional goals, one of which is to image some of the previous hardware on the surface. While there is no obligation for this to be Apollo hardware, several of the teams have announced they will target Apollo 11 to try for the bonus prize. The question of whether any of the teams will actually get there, let alone get video of the descent stages, is a very open one. Red Whittaker's team from Carnegie Mellon would seem to be considered the front runners, but we'll have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 4, 2008 4:41:13 GMT -4
Why haven't we been able to get a high def picture of the apollo landings from a lunar orbiter over the last 40 years? There are already hi-def images of all the Apollo landing sites taken from lunar orbit, all linked from this page. For the last three missions, they were taken after the LM had landed.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 4, 2008 9:01:55 GMT -4
In all fairness, that image is one of Phoenix taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, not one taken from the ground by Phoenix itself. Hamster's question relates to why we don't have a similar camera in lunar orbit. Thankfully we soon will, of course.Indeed. Too much typin', not enough readin', on my part. LRO mission home page: lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 4, 2008 9:18:24 GMT -4
I'm not a HP (hoax peddler? is that the term..?) Sorry if there was some confusion, it was not my intention to imply that you were. I mentioned hoax proponents because this is the forum for such discussions.
We usually use HP to mean hoax proponent but "peddler" fits the attitude better in the since that peddler can carry a mildly derogatory attitude toward those that push useless merchandise. A HP is somewhat different than a HB. The latter is a person that believes in a moon hoax but is not publicly involved in promoting it. For example, Bart Sibrel is a HP. HBs are the people that have bought his lies and show up here parroting his arguments.
this question of orbiter photgraphs is a wee niggle that has always itched me a bit.
Great, you've come to the right place. There is no better place that I know of to get your questions answered. I am usually in the peanut gallery here because of a lack of expertise in relevant fields. I always learn something interesting from the answers to questions such as yours.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 4, 2008 10:30:18 GMT -4
We usually use HP to mean hoax proponent but "peddler" fits the attitude better in the since that peddler can carry a mildly derogatory attitude toward those that push useless merchandise. I usually call them hoax "promoters".
|
|