"Jim Newman" wrote in message...
...
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:17 pm, Jim Newman wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, Jim Newman wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:44 am, "harmony" wrote:

http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/photos/...n/Moon_Enh.jpg

Interesting. Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image?
(it worked perfectly while imaging Earth, even with narrow bandpass
filtering)
Was there too much Van Allan or Magnetosphere radiation, too much of
those UV secondary/recoil photons or perhaps too much of the sodium
saturated atmosphere to deal with?

What 'sodium saturated atmosphere' are you talking about?

Search for the words sodium and moon.
That Selene sodium, which isn't of much density at 9r, or even the
average of 50/cm3 out to a million km as within a comet like trail of
sodium still isn't all that bad, but otherwise it gets a bit more
populated or saturated at 1.1r or less. At 100 km they should be
right in the thick of it, especially near the surface of the solar
illuminated side should offer more abundance than above the cold
nighttime surface.

100km ? I think you're about 311,100km out - but that's still closer
than the rest of the rubbish you spout!

ISRO claims their planned orbit will be near 100 km. Now if you don't
agree with that, take it up with ISRO.

And your original post was questioning the resolution quality of the
photograph "Why exactly did they intentionally degrade their image"

You then squeaked "perhaps too much of the sodium saturated atmosphere to
deal with"

You don't do yourself any favours do you!
:-)

At great risk of falling into a weird pigeon hole, i must
ask you, Jim, wouldn't the presence of any resolution
degrading substance that is thickest up to 100km still
have an effect no matter if you're 100km, 200km, or
300,000km away from the surface?

Sorry, but i see Brad get picked on a lot. And frankly,
he does bring much of it on himself. But in this case,
it appears to me that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Rather than question the resolution degradation issue
from the angle of distance from the surface, maybe a
concentration upon the question as to whether such a
tenuous amount of sodium (even within the 100km
limit) would have much of an effect on resolution in
the first place?

After all, we can get a good bit of detail of the Moon's
surface from Earth with a fair telescope. Does the
atmospheric sodium content have a significant effect
on image resolution? at *any* distance?

I doubt it.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Personally I'm always ready to learn,
although I do not always like being taught."
Winston Churchill

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net