Images of the Lunar Landing Sites

Eurekalert.org

This has been posted over the the Astronomy and Space Forum, but I'll post it here incase many of you don't visit that forum frequently.

NASA's latest mission to the Moon, LRO/LCROSS, has, in the last few days, taken photographs of 5 of the 6 lunar landing sites. The images show the remains of the remains of the lunar modules, scientific experiments and even trails left by astronauts. Once the satellite reaches its final orbit, it'll be able to retake the photos at a resolution that is 2 to 3 times better than the resolution of these photos.

Here are some details from Eurekalert (link):

Eurekalert.org wrote:

The imaging system on board NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) recently had its first of many opportunities to photograph the Apollo landing sites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) imaged five of the six Apollo sites with the narrow angle cameras (NACs) between July 11 and 15, within days of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission.

The early images obtained by LROC, operated by Arizona State University Professor Mark Robinson, show the lunar module descent stages left behind by the departing astronauts. Their locations are made evident by their long shadows, which result from a low sun angle at the time of collection.

"In a three-day period we were able to image five of the six Apollo sites – the LROC team anxiously awaited each image," says LROC Principal Investigator Mark Robinson, professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration in ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "Of course we were very interested to get our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill – and to see how well the cameras had come into focus."

For additional information about the LROC instrument and to view the first Apollo landing site images, visit: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu.

The orbiter's current elliptical orbit resulted in image resolutions from the NACs that were slightly different for each site but were all about four feet per pixel. Since the deck of the descent stage is about 14 feet in diameter, the Apollo relics themselves fill about four pixels. However, because the Sun was low to the horizon when the images were acquired, even subtle variations in topography create long shadows. Standing just over ten feet above the surface, each Apollo descent stage creates a distinct shadow that fills roughly 20 pixels.

"For the five landing site images photographed by LROC, the biggest variables are spacecraft altitude (ground scale) and time of day, which translates into signal strength," explains Robinson. "In the current collection of images the best discrimination of features is in the Apollo 14 scene even though the highest resolution picture covers the Apollo 16 site."

Compared to the other landing site images, the image of the Apollo 14 site revealed additional details. The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP), a set of scientific instruments placed by the astronauts at the landing site, is discernable, as are the faint trails between the descent stage and ALSEP left by the astronauts' footprints.

Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo missions, these first images came prior to the spacecraft reaching its final mapping orbit. As the orbit of LRO is lowered, LROC will receive many more opportunities to image the landing sites in the weeks to come. The resolution of future LROC images of these sites will improve by two to three times.

The timing of these images being captured is notable as it occurred only days before the 40-year anniversary of NASA's Apollo 11 mission that first put humans on the moon. Though these pictures provide a reminder of one of humankind's greatest technological achievements, LRO's primary focus is paving the way for future exploration. By returning detailed lunar data the LRO mission will help NASA identify safe and compelling landing sites for future explorers, locate potential resources, describe the moon's radiation environment and demonstrate new technologies.

Some images for convenience's sake:







Here's a link to see all of the images in greater detail.

I can't wait until the higher resolution photographs are taken; it's great to be able to see the location of one of the greatest events in modern history.

mike65

As a side note, the level of definiton of lunar surface pix is so dissapointing. You'd think 40 years after landing there we'd have high def coverage of the whole light side by now.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

As a side note, the level of definiton of lunar surface pix is so dissapointing. You'd think 40 years after landing there we'd have high def coverage of the whole light side by now.

I completely agree. It's a shame that this mission is only happening now, it should really have happened 20 years ago. When it reaches its final orbit, it'll have a resolution of ~1.5-2 feet though, won't it? That'll map the Moon in extraordinary detail.

AlmightyCushion

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I completely agree. It's a shame that this mission is only happening now, it should really have happened 20 years ago. When it reaches its final orbit, it'll have a resolution of ~1.5-2 feet though, won't it? That'll map the Moon in extraordinary detail.

I can't wait to see these pictures. Being able to see the moon in such detail will be absolutely amazing.

dvpower

Predictably, Google have this (http://www.google.com/moon/).

(I don't know if they're planning a street view)

johnnyskeleton

mike65 wrote: »

As a side note, the level of definiton of lunar surface pix is so dissapointing. You'd think 40 years after landing there we'd have high def coverage of the whole light side by now.

Considering that Google Earth can show trees, bollards and people walking down a street, there's no reason why they can't take similar resolution pictures of the moon, unless....


....where's that conspiracy theory forum gone to?

johnnyskeleton

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I can't wait to see these pictures. Being able to see the moon in such detail will be absolutely amazing.

Why are the details of a barren moon more interesting than, for example, the details of a barren desert here on Earth? Besides, we all know the moon is made of cheese, who cares what kind of cheese its made of?

jumpguy

It's also abit disappointing we have no automated lunar rovers (correct me if I'm wrong) on the moon after so many years. There is loads on Mars, and I know Mars is far more interesting, but what about our old neighbour that people have been looking been looking at for millenia?

I think it'd defo be worth putting a rover there and not only doing scientific research, but exploring one Apollo site.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Considering that Google Earth can show trees, bollards and people walking down a street, there's no reason why they can't take similar resolution pictures of the moon, unless....


....where's that conspiracy theory forum gone to?

If you look at a city on Google Earth, you're not only seeing satellite imagery, you're seeing aerial photography too. Images slowly fade from satellite photos to aerial photos. No camera has a good enough resolution to make out the details that are available on Google Earth.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why are the details of a barren moon more interesting than, for example, the details of a barren desert here on Earth? Besides, we all know the moon is made of cheese, who cares what kind of cheese its made of?

Please stay on topic and don't turn this thread into a joke.

Flying Abruptly

Why did they set up the experiments about 200m away from the LM for the Apollo 14 mission? Wikipedia tells me nothing other than they used a Mobile Equipment Transporter and hold the record for the longest distance transversed on the lunar surface...

jumpguy

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

Why did they set up the experiments about 200m away from the LM for the Apollo 14 mission? Wikipedia tells me nothing other than they used a Mobile Equipment Transporter and hold the record for the longest distance transversed on the lunar surface...

Just a guess but perhaps it was to stop the ascent engine blowing them over/damaging them when it fired?

Flying Abruptly

jumpguy wrote: »

Just a guess but perhaps it was to stop the ascent engine blowing them over/damaging them when it fired?

Yeah i thought that aswell but i didnt think these pieces of equipment were transmitting data back to Earth so would it really matter if they got damaged when they took off.
Another thing I just thought of - is there a possiblity the US flags could have been blown over at take off becasue they were usually planted close to the LM?

Khannie

jumpguy wrote: »

It's also abit disappointing we have no automated lunar rovers (correct me if I'm wrong) on the moon after so many years. There is loads on Mars, and I know Mars is far more interesting, but what about our old neighbour that people have been looking been looking at for millenia?

The moon is scientifically boring tbh. I agree that it's disappointing, but if I were emperor of the earth I'd have a hard time giving cash to moon exploration instead of building projects in the 3rd world. Just for example.

jumpguy wrote: »

I think it'd defo be worth putting a rover there and not only doing scientific research, but exploring one Apollo site.

With a limited scientific budget I think that would be a giant waste. The apollo sites have already been explored....by humans!

jumpguy

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

Yeah i thought that aswell but i didnt think these pieces of equipment were transmitting data back to Earth so would it really matter if they got damaged when they took off.
Another thing I just thought of - is there a possiblity the US flags could have been blown over at take off becasue they were usually planted close to the LM?

Not sure...it'd be strange if they weren't transmitting to Earth because you'd only get information from a very limited time frame (like having a seismometer (sp) for only 2 hours isn't worth it tbh).

The US flag being blown over is subject to debate. The US flags may very well have been blown over, especially in the case of the first Apollo mission to land on the moon. If you watch the video when the ascent engine was fired, the flag was blown extremely violently and looked like it was keeling over before it went out of view. In my opinion, I'd say it's very likely it was blown over by the ascent engine. I remember watching a documentary on the debate a year or so ago.

Khannie wrote: »

The moon is scientifically boring tbh. I agree that it's disappointing, but if I were emperor of the earth I'd have a hard time giving cash to moon exploration instead of building projects in the 3rd world. Just for example.

With a limited scientific budget I think that would be a giant waste. The apollo sites have already been explored....by humans!

I understand the moon is no means scientifically spectacular, but images from the moon and of earth from such a distant would be very pleasing. Also, images of the Apollo sites in high-res 40/50/60/70, even 100 years on would be very historically pleasing. Not to mention it'd kill all the nay-sayers (oh wait...it won't).

pablomakaveli

Khannie wrote: »

The moon is scientifically boring tbh. I agree that it's disappointing, but if I were emperor of the earth I'd have a hard time giving cash to moon exploration instead of building projects in the 3rd world. Just for example.

Theres a lot to learn from the moon. For example it'll help us learn more about the formation of the planet as it is believed the moon was created after another planet collided with Earth a few billion years ago.

Khannie

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Theres a lot to learn from the moon. For example it'll help us learn more about the formation of the planet as it is believed the moon was created after another planet collided with Earth a few billion years ago.

I think the money could probably be more interestingly spent elsewhere. I'd much rather see humans on mars sooner, for example, than unlock all of the moons secrets.