26-11-2010, 01:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2010, 02:04 AM by Peter Dawson.)
Hoaxers wonder, if the Apollo landings were real, why can't they get any high quality images of artifacts left behind from the missions. I don't know exactly why, but at a guess, it must be easy to get funding for a high quality satellite to orbit the earth, for decades, returning very high quality images to the owners of the satellite, but in the case of the moon, it would only be a one off project, with no real market for it except to allay the doubts of the doubters.
That is, the high quality satellite they send to the moon is necessarily a disposable item, after it has done its initial survey, but a satellite orbiting the earth can be used much more readily for generating profits, and due to the changing nature of the earth compared to the moon, its cost can be defrayed over a much longer period of time.
But anyway, someone has recently made a compilation of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images showing the Apollo 11 landing site, which I thought might be of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
Note the footprint trails from the LM to the large crater.
From the youtube notes:
See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail. The large crater to the right of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage is Little West Crater. Lunar north is up in all photos. Distance scales are accurate to approximately 2 percent or better.
It is funny that there are those who believe that the moon landings were a hoax. The plethora of archived data and Apollo era documents, video footage, photographs, and moon rocks which have been thoroughly examined by scientists around the world, makes it absolutely impossible that the moon landings could have been hoaxed. And now, 40 years later, the LRO photographs of the Apollo landing sites prove that the moon landings were in fact real.
Notes about how the photos were aligned relative to one another:
All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.
A note about the resolutions described in my video:
Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.
That is, the high quality satellite they send to the moon is necessarily a disposable item, after it has done its initial survey, but a satellite orbiting the earth can be used much more readily for generating profits, and due to the changing nature of the earth compared to the moon, its cost can be defrayed over a much longer period of time.
But anyway, someone has recently made a compilation of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images showing the Apollo 11 landing site, which I thought might be of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
Note the footprint trails from the LM to the large crater.
From the youtube notes:
See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail. The large crater to the right of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage is Little West Crater. Lunar north is up in all photos. Distance scales are accurate to approximately 2 percent or better.
It is funny that there are those who believe that the moon landings were a hoax. The plethora of archived data and Apollo era documents, video footage, photographs, and moon rocks which have been thoroughly examined by scientists around the world, makes it absolutely impossible that the moon landings could have been hoaxed. And now, 40 years later, the LRO photographs of the Apollo landing sites prove that the moon landings were in fact real.
Notes about how the photos were aligned relative to one another:
All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.
A note about the resolutions described in my video:
Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.