|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 18, 2010 6:29:35 GMT -4
Hi everyone, Here is my proof that the moon landings were real. It is best to watch the video on YouTube in HD so that you can see all of the details. I hope you enjoy my video.  |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 18, 2010 9:46:28 GMT -4
Hi everyone, Here is my proof that the moon landings were real. It is best to watch the video on YouTube in HD so that you can see all of the details. I hope you enjoy my video. It is really beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 18, 2010 17:06:54 GMT -4
Wow.
Thats all I can say...
|
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Nov 20, 2010 16:42:42 GMT -4
Splendid.
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Dec 18, 2010 8:17:24 GMT -4
Very nice work, gtp!
|
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Dec 18, 2010 15:13:36 GMT -4
That was just excellent!
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 19, 2010 2:03:37 GMT -4
How did I miss this when it was posted back in November? Great video!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehislop on Dec 20, 2010 13:07:30 GMT -4
I know that the landings were real-no doubt-so dont get me wrong, but why are the pictures from Google Earth better that the ones here?
Google pics are shot from 200 miles through an Atmosphere and these are from 50 mls and no Atmosphere...
Has anybody a clue?
|
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Dec 20, 2010 13:21:11 GMT -4
I know that the landings were real-no doubt-so dont get me wrong, but why are the pictures from Google Earth better that the ones here? Google pics are shot from 200 miles through an Atmosphere and these are from 50 mls and no Atmosphere... Has anybody a clue? A lot of Google Earth imagery is taken from aircraft, not from orbit, ie only 5 or 6 miles up. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 20, 2010 13:22:42 GMT -4
Those great Google Earth images are taken from airplanes. Only the lowest resolution pictures come from satellites, despite what the button says.
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 20, 2010 13:24:53 GMT -4
I know that the landings were real-no doubt-so dont get me wrong, but why are the pictures from Google Earth better that the ones here? Google pics are shot from 200 miles through an Atmosphere and these are from 50 mls and no Atmosphere... Has anybody a clue? Because Google Maps' images aren't shot from 200mi up. At least, most of them aren't.There are actual satellite images in there, particularly the ones where you can see jumbo jets at altitude, but most of the detailed views are taken from aerial survey aircraft. Of course the street view stuff is done with a fleet of cars with cameras on the roof. Plus, if you think about it, the limit of resolution in the Google maps images is about the same as these images of the moon; none of the aerial view zooms I've seen get anywhere near close enough to decipher, say, a license plate, though you can tell there's one there in some cases. The lunar photographs we're seeing here have enough resolution to discern the tracks of the astronauts, if not their individual boot prints, and would certainly show recognisable people if there were any there to see. In fact that may be the problem; we're used to seeing all these visual scale cues around us so when we see a person from the top in an aerial photo, we know how big things are; on the Mon there are no such cues; it's an entirely alien environment that so far only a couple of handfuls of individuals have ever seen up close and personal. I wonder how the Apollo Astronauts feel about these images? given an overhead view of their own landing site, would they recognise things? Has anyone asked them? |
|
|
|
Post by stevehislop on Dec 21, 2010 11:59:35 GMT -4
Thank you very much for these competent answers!
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 30, 2010 10:41:01 GMT -4
The best possible resolution of any optical system is set by a fundamental law of physics known as the "diffraction limit". The bigger the diameter d of the objective lens or mirror, and the shorter the wavelength lambda of light, the smaller the angle that can be resolved. That limit is approximately equal to asin(1.22*lambda/d). This is a fundamental physical limit that applies even when the optics are completely perfect.
The Narrow Angle Camera on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera has a diameter of 195 mm. Green light (the middle of the visible spectrum) has a wavelength of about 550 nm. That corresponds to a minimum resolvable angle of about 3.44 microradians or .0002 degrees.
LRO orbits the moon at an altitude of 50 km so the corresponding size of the surface feature is 3.44e-6 radians * 50e3m = 17.2 cm. That's for green light; the limit for red light is about 25% bigger.
The actual operating resolution of the LRO camera is established by the pixel pitch (spacing) on the camera and the focal length of the lens to 50 cm (half a meter), so we're already close to a factor of 2 of the theoretical limit. Gonetoplaid has shown you can do a little better with some heavy post-processing but even he can't work miracles.
Better resolution requires getting closer to the surface and/or using a bigger objective mirror. 50 km is about as low as you can safely get with a long-lived lunar orbit so that means a bigger telescope. And as any amateur astronomer knows, telescopes rapidly get heavier as they get bigger. Putting 1 kg of mass in low lunar orbit is a lot more expensive than putting 1 kg in low earth orbit and there isn't nearly the budget for lunar photo reconnaissance as there is for spy and earth resources satellites so LRO is probably the best we can hope to have for a while.
|
|
