Good pictures of the moon?
Ross
quality of the pictures of mars I've frequently seen taken by various
landers. Whenever I see pictures of the moon, they always seem to be
from the manned missions, and not that clear. Surely there are better
pictures from modern unmanned expeditions.
Mike Dworetsky
Maybe my memory isn't perfect on this, but except for a Soviet lander around
the time of Apollo I don't recall there have been any landers since then.
There have been several orbiters taking high quality images. A Google
search on "lunar orbiter photos" turns up quite a few sources, including the
Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter.
All are pictures from lunar orbit, however.
I'm surprised you can't find any really clear Apollo pictures, however, as
they were taken with excellent Hasselblad cameras. It may be that the ones
you found are much reduced and compressed images. There have been
"coffeetable" books of Apollo images and the quality was very high.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Androcles
"Ross" <rossc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:410be13e-def6-4014...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Sjouke Burry
Virtual Moon Atlas Pro (version 4.0B ??)
It has most of the available info for each interesting
spot on the moon, and a nice interface.
dlzc
On Nov 21, 2:18 am, Ross <rossclem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all. Where can I find high quality pictures of the moon?
> Of the quality of the pictures of mars I've frequently seen
> taken by various landers. Whenever I see pictures of the
> moon, they always seem to be from the manned missions,
> and not that clear.
The TV stills would not be, but they had hand-held still cameras with
them, and those photos were gorgeous (if grey) and detailed.
> Surely there are better
> pictures from modern unmanned expeditions.
No, they'd be "TV" quality pictures also.
Here are a buttload of stills from the command module, in high
resolution:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/index.html
There are a few of the classics on the surface here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/shinyobjects/2009/07/big_shiny_picture_40_years_later_apollo_11_moon_landing_is_still_cool_if_it_really_happened.html
David A. Smith
Ross
photos I haven't seen before. The stills, particularly the colour
stills, are high resolution. But for some reason, they don't match up
to the pictures from Mars etc. Perhaps because there's so little
colour on the moon, and without an atmosphere, it just looks very
different. I'm surprised there have been so few landers, but with all
the moon landings completed, there's probably more to learn from less
visited bodies.
Oh, and should I start threads like this in sci.astro.amateur in
future? Is that a more appropriate newsgroup for less serious
questions?
dlzc
On Nov 22, 4:52 am, Ross <rossclem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the pointers. I've followed the links
> and seen some photos I haven't seen before. The
> stills, particularly the colour stills, are high
> resolution. But for some reason, they don't match up
> to the pictures from Mars etc.
Well, the albedo of the surface is vastly different, and the scarcity
of photos probably still lies in the fact that they are available for
sale...
> Perhaps because there's so little colour on the
> moon, and without an atmosphere, it just looks very
> different.
You can say it... boring.
> I'm surprised there have been so few landers, but with
> all the moon landings completed, there's probably
> more to learn from less visited bodies.
There are lifetimes of study awaiting us at the bottom of our own
ocean. They recently discovered an unknown jungle in Africa, due to
Google Earth.
> Oh, and should I start threads like this in
> sci.astro.amateur in future? Is that a more appropriate
> newsgroup for less serious questions?
I enjoy something remotely on topic here, for a change. Between the
people that swear 911 was in inside job, that evolution should be
discussed here, or clearly can't stand relativity... it is nice to get
something even this close to astronomy.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2f336138-e27c-44b5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Dear Ross:
David A. Smith
========================================
Idiotic relativity is very much a topic for astronomy, bigot Smiffy.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm