Moon Walkers.

[tinman]

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/379

The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.

Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.


Brad

[scratchrobot]

Together we could build a rover with pulse motors powered by radiant energy   

[MileHigh]

The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.

Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.


Brad

This is just a classic example of failed logic and failure to think past one step.  TK already responded to this elsewhere.

"A satellite in orbit around the moon must have equal imaging resolution to a satellite in orbit around Earth."

Says who?

Duh!  Doh!

Who said that was in the "rule book?"   You, Brad?  You just invented that rule out of thin air because you don't want to think?

There are thousands of satellites in orbit around Earth with all sorts of different optical systems, imagers, design goals, budgets, weight restrictions, amounts of expendable fuel, and so on and so on.

So who the hell are you to "force your expectations of a certain optical and imaging performance" on a satellite in orbit around the moon that you probably know next to nothing about?

It's just beyond ridiculous.  It's like you want to force your "vision" of what the satellite *should* be like so that "your declarative statement makes sense."   You want that satellite to have a large 5-kilogram very powerful telescopic lens mounted on it and for all you know the optical team was given design constraints of 75 grams total for the mass of the lens and it had to fit into a very small space.

Yes, I pushed this one to show you how absolutely ridiculous your statement was to compare two completely different satellites orbiting around two different heavenly bodies with two different budgets and two different sets of design goals and two different sets of constraints.  And like a bull in a China ship you just blast through all of that and make a "declarative statement."  And you think that you can design a moon rover on the cheap like it would be a piece of cake when you think like that?

Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore, Joe dissolves in water.

[tinman]

This is just a classic example of failed logic and failure to think past one step.  TK already responded to this elsewhere.

"

Says who?

Duh!  Doh!

Who said that was in the "rule book?"   You, Brad?  You just invented that rule out of thin air because you don't want to think?

There are thousands of satellites in orbit around Earth with all sorts of different optical systems, imagers, design goals, budgets, weight restrictions, amounts of expendable fuel, and so on and so on.

So the hell are you to "force your expectations of a certain optical and imaging performance" on a satellite in orbit around the moon that you probably know next to nothing about?

It's just beyond ridiculous.  It's like you want to force your "vision" of what the satellite *should* be like so that "your declarative statement makes sense."   You want that satellite to have a large 5-kilogram very powerful telescopic lens mounted on it and for all you know the optical team was given design constraints of 75 grams total for the mass of the lens and it had to fit into a very small space.

And like a bull in a China ship you just blast through all of that and make a "declarative statement."  And you think that you can design a moon rover on the cheap like it would be a piece of cake when you think like that?

Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore, Joe dissolves in water.

A satellite in orbit around the moon must have equal imaging resolution to a satellite in orbit around Earth."

Once again MH,it is you that fails to see the big picture here. Now what brainless bunch of idiot's would send an imagery satellite to the moon that was not capable of taking clear high res picture's?. Some times you just do not think first,as your need to believe in something out weighs your own common sense.

Yes, I pushed this one to show you how absolutely ridiculous your statement was to compare two completely different satellites orbiting around two different heavenly bodies with two different budgets and two different sets of design goals and two different sets of constraints.

Perhaps you had better go read up a little on both satellites,and see which had the larger budget,and what was the goal for both satellites. Then i would like you to post 1 (just 1) nice clear picture of any equipment left behind on the moon by the moon walkers-->lets see you do that.

You are way to bias MH to even be commenting on this thread,as if it was any one else making a huge claim like this,and presented the evidence like NASA have,you would laugh in there face.

Show us some third party proof MH,that man went to the moon-->and not just word's MH,as we all know they mean nothing when it comes to scientific evidence.


Brad

[picowatt]

The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.

Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.


Brad

Tinman,

The LRO can do 50cm/pixel as opposed to the 30cm/pixel image you post here.  Keep in mind that when looking at the LEM in the LROC images, you are looking at an object only slightly larger than the baggage carts seen in the airport photo you posted. 

The LRO has been another notable accomplishment, with more data returned than all other planetary missions combined.  Having both continued to perform beyond their original mission lifetimes, the LRO and Mars Opportunity Rover have received continued funding thru 2016.   

What is the resolution of the images being returned from the Australian lunar orbiter?

PW