Smart-1 Images of the Moon

The European-built Smart-1 spacecraft has sent back its first close-up
images of the Moon, showing the cratered landscape in glorious detail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0...ch/4209995.stm

Gareth

--
Help the Tsunami Victims
http://www.justgiving.com/tsunami

"Gareth Slee" wrote in message
news
The European-built Smart-1 spacecraft has sent back its first close-up
images of the Moon, showing the cratered landscape in glorious detail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0...ch/4209995.stm

Gareth

What can we expect to be the highest resolution of Smart-1's images? Will
there be any chance of seeing artifacts from the lunar landing missions?
Might shut the conspiracists up.

- MJP

MJP wrote:


What can we expect to be the highest resolution of Smart-1's images? Will
there be any chance of seeing artifacts from the lunar landing missions?
Might shut the conspiracists up.


No way ... any photos showing Apollo artifacts are _obviously_ faked!

;-)

Andreas

Andreas Parsch wrote:
MJP wrote:


What can we expect to be the highest resolution of Smart-1's
images? Will
there be any chance of seeing artifacts from the lunar landing
missions?
Might shut the conspiracists up.


No way ... any photos showing Apollo artifacts are _obviously_ faked!

;-)

Andreas

As someone once stated, even if we did get photos of Apollo artifacts
the conspiracy nuts would likely say "they've have all this time to get
that stuff up there!"

-A.L.

"MJP" writes:

What can we expect to be the highest resolution of Smart-1's images? Will
there be any chance of seeing artifacts from the lunar landing missions?
Might shut the conspiracists up.

No, at best this might show that we landed *something* on the moon - it does
not prove there were people in it. And that's assuming these images are not
faked as well.

Lou Scheffer

On 27 Jan 2005 08:04:05 -0800, "Skylon" wrote:

As someone once stated, even if we did get photos of Apollo artifacts
the conspiracy nuts would likely say "they've have all this time to get
that stuff up there!"

"But you can see the footprints, you idiot!"

"Yeah, but in the past 30+ years they've had time to send secret teams
up there to set up all those fake props and make it look like we went
there back in 1969!"


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Andreas Parsch wrote:
MJP wrote:


What can we expect to be the highest resolution of Smart-1's images? Will
there be any chance of seeing artifacts from the lunar landing missions?
Might shut the conspiracists up.



No way ... any photos showing Apollo artifacts are _obviously_ faked!

;-)

Andreas


I believe maximum resolution of SMART-1's AMIE camera will be about 30
meters/pixel. I don't think that's high enough to show Apollo artifacts.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...odylongid=1266

This page also mentions that SMART-1 will map potential sites of eternal
light & eternal shadow. (I assume these are polar sites).

This is very exciting. Two huge problems are lack of volatile in situ
resources and 14 day nights. Polar sites may enjoy perpetual solar power
_and_ water. Hopefully SMART-1 will give us more info.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

30 m/pixel after a good dose of PhotoShop should enable each lander and
other related impact zone to being depicted for exactly what they are,
the vaporised remains of whatever impacted.

There's already far better than 30 m/pixel resolution images of what's
been officially stamped as Apollo sites, and those sites seemingly look
exactly like any other meteor impact zone, as in generally exposing the
raw basalt at less than 5% reflectance, down to as little as 3% (that's
nearly coal like), as for exposing a good 50+meter radius about each
and every supposed Apollo site.

Oddly, those Kodak moments that were extremely UV spectrum sensitive
though never the slightest bit color/spectrum skewed by the 256 fold
increase in near-UV and UV/a energy (350~400 nm), as those efforts
never once recorded any darkness of rocket blasted exposures of raw
basalt, not below, around or even of depicting any controlled
down-range track from the continual rocket exhaust until final
touchdown. In fact, several if not most of the landing sites were
offering the Kodak eye primarily a lunar terrain of 55+% reflective
index (and even that result was obtained with the advantage of a
polarised filter cutting those surface reflective factors), all in
direct calibrated reference to those nifty 85+% reflective moonsuits.
Go figure.

Not to mention countless other contributing factors that simply don't
add up, unless you're another certified village idiot moron, in which
case those WMD actually existed.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"Skylon" wrote in message
ups.com


As someone once stated, even if we did get photos of Apollo artifacts
the conspiracy nuts would likely say "they've have all this time to get
that stuff up there!"

-A.L.

That's not so.

Even 1m/pixel will do just fine and dandy.

BTW; What's wrong with the absolutely terrific accomplishments of manned
orbiting missions that obtained by far the most science and photographic
resolution of that basalt dark surface ever recorded. I believe even as
of today, KECK is pushing their pixels to obtain 4 meters (that's 10
fold better off than anything officially from SMART-1), and supposedly
this SMART-1 being a decade newer than any other lunar orbiting mission
and as such should have had at least the same optical performance as of
the much older TRACE satellite, and certainly better than of our
previous lunar imaging mission, yet they've got essentially a RadioShack
CCD and a fairly **** poor SAR imaging capability, or at least the NASA
filtered image data is going to remain as limited as possible.

Did ESA have to pull this miniature borg cube off for under a million
euros?

Oddly the much artificially delayed by NASA/JAXA LUNAR-A mission remains
stuck in the mud.

In spite of all the orchestrated flak, I have managed to create a few
other related topics, several of which are not specifically about our
moon, though in more than a few ways offering everything about future
space exploration and just plain old space travel itself that's at least
indirectly related to utilizing our moon as a rather necessary
gravitational booster shot, of such missions passing as close to the
moon as possible hasn't even been such a new idea, it just so happens to
coincide with the even better logic and values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is
good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly much easier said than done, but
at least it's something that's been doable.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG