Moon Walkers.

[picowatt]

Check out these additional recent missions by NASA.

Also consider that the scientific data collected by these missions is available to scientists and researchers all over the world.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Network

Space exploration is expensive and complicated. 

Imagine the cascade of design and cost issues that arise just from doubling the visible camera resolution.  Doubling the resolution would quadruple the number of pixels.  Given the same frame rate, that results in having to increase the data transmission rate by a factor of four.  The end result will likely more than quadruple the power requirement for the camera and the transmitter power required for the additional bandwidth.  This necessitates an increase of the size of the solar arrays which will add more weight to the orbiter.

In order to not sacrifice image quality and the S/N ratio, were gong to want to maintain the same pixel size as used at the lower resolution which means the sensor will be physically larger.  As well, to maintain the same S/N we will need to maintain the same lens speed (ratio of aperture to focal length).  Because the field of view requirements are likely dictated by orbital mechanics and the desired per pass coverage, it will also be necessary to maintain the same FOV.  In order to maintain the same lens speed and FOV using the larger and higher resolution sensor, the size of the lenses used in the optics will need to be made larger.  This will also add additional weight to the orbiter.

Because of the additional weight, orbital insertion and station keeping will require more fuel.  This means that unless one is willing to shorten the mission lifetime, extra fuel must be carried which will again add additional weight. 

Having to carry the weight of the additional fuel will also require having to burn even more fuel for at least the orbital insertion phase of the mission, so again, even a bit more fuel will have to be carried. 

Now we have to increase the size of the fuel tanks, which adds more weight and again requires more fuel.

Eventually we arrive at a compromise and now have a larger and heavier orbiter.

So, now we need to look at the launch platform and see what that additional size and weight is going to cost.  From there its about the same, more weight, more fuel, etc. 

Also consider that there are additional sensors on the orbiter.  Every group related to a given sensor wants theirs to receive a degree of priority, more bandwidth, more power, etc.  Imagine a meeting where engineers or department heads are begging for a few additional milliwatts or kilobytes of bandwidth.

Making anything but minor changes requires a complete review of how those modifications will affect everything from the orbiter's weight, power, fuel requirements, launch costs and mission life. 

In the end there are often compromises, but NASA does what it can with the budget it has.

PW

         

[picowatt]

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/LRO_AAS_Paper_07-057.pdf

Doesn't look all that easy...

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I will tell you up front that I never looked up the capabilities of the imaging systems on either satellite.  I was just reacting to what you stated.

I will pose the question to you:  Before you made your statement did you look up the capabilities of the imaging systems on the two satellites?

Beyond that, PW like usual made astute comments about the meters per pixel for the two imaging systems.  I also read his link about how the LRO dipped quite unusually low before they did the orbital correction and that gave them an opportunity to try to image one of the landing sites with better resolution.  I also skimmed through his earlier link with a 10-page scientific explanation and investigation into the Van Allen radiation belts.

PW also correctly pointed out how your image of the airport tarmac with the airplanes was of an outrageously larger object as compared to the LEM on the moon and the image comparison for all practical intents and purposes wasn't even valid.  I suppose that didn't occur to you.

My gut feel is telling me you did no research and just made a ridiculous inappropriate comparison to make a point.  In your mind you thought that was valid.  Let's see if you will answer the question.

My gut feel is also telling me that the imaging system on the LRO is a relatively wide-field camera system for scanning the entire moon's surface and just for fun the team tried to image the Apollo landing site even though the system was not designed to do that.

MileHigh

[picowatt]

MH,

The LRO has two 50cm/pixel at 50km narrow field cameras and a separate "pushbroom" wide field sensor/camera (as well as several other sensors).

It might be interesting to see what the LRO team is willing to do later on regarding the orbital height as the LRO nears its end of life (fuel exhaustion).  Maybe they will try a closer pass of an Apollo site...

If you read the LADEE link in my earlier post, you will see that they intentionally impacted that orbiter onto the far side of the moon at the end of its life so as to prevent any possible damage to historical landing sites such as Apollo, Luna, etc.

The LRO and other missions I linked to openly provide data to researchers around the world.

I never complain about any of my tax dollars going to NASA.

PW

Added:  Read the links reposted below when you get the time, they are missions that most people probably never heard of that did a lot of interesting science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer

[TinselKoala]

Fake, of course. Right, TinMan?