Moon crash site found! NASA orbiter spots grave of private Japanese lander (photos)

[Admin]

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has spotted the final resting place of a private Japanese moon lander that failed in its touchdown attempt last month.

Moon crash site found! NASA orbiter spots grave of private Japanese lander (photos) : Read more

 

[Sparky64]

Not great pictures to compare from in the gif. One is a sharp image and the other is a heavily blurred image. And where the arrows are pointing looks like there might be something there in the heavily blurred image just a lot harder to see because it is so heavily blurred. At least they could have used two sharper images for the comparison. But they used a blurred picture for "Before" and a sharp image for "After". Come on NASA you have to do better than that, it is not like they sent a technician out to the LRO to change out the cameras. Same cameras two way different quality images.

 

[billslugg]

Same orbiter, different cameras. "Before" picture was archival LROC wide angle and "after" is Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs).

"LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) that are designed to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, and a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) that provides images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath. "

About | Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera

lroc.sese.asu.edu

 

[bolide]

How could you ever expect to confirm the presence (or absence) of the remains of a small spacecraft, with a resolution of 100 meters/pixel?

 

[Sparky64]

Same orbiter, different cameras. "Before" picture was archival LROC wide angle and "after" is Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs).

"LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) that are designed to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, and a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) that provides images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath. "

About | Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera

lroc.sese.asu.edu

That has got to be the worst copout excuse anyone has ever given. This is deliberate. You go into the archives and you will find crystal clear images but somehow they pulled a low quality image for this example? Well isn't that just convenient. Why do people want to create more conspiracies? I do not doubt the site, just the intentions.

 

[billslugg]

How could you ever expect to confirm the presence (or absence) of the remains of a small spacecraft, with a resolution of 100 meters/pixel?

The impacting spacecraft disturbs teh regolith over areas large enough to be resolved by a 100 meters resolution camera.

 

[billslugg]

That has got to be the worst copout excuse anyone has ever given. This is deliberate. You go into the archives and you will find crystal clear images but somehow they pulled a low quality image for this example? Well isn't that just convenient. Why do people want to create more conspiracies? I do not doubt the site, just the intentions.

NASA has not imaged the entire Moon with the narrow angle cameras. There is no high resolution "before" picture.
If you think I am wrong, then why don't you "go into the archives" and show us the narrow angle image of the same spot?

 

[Sparky64]

The only one you are trying hard to convince is yourself, because no else is buying this BS. If you look hard enough in the before picture you can see something at the very same place they are pointing the arrows at, but because it is so conveniently blurry it is extremely hard to make out, but there is something, there unless your vision is far worse than a bats. That is by design.

 

[billslugg]

I don't want to look at a blurry picture.

I want you to "go into the archives and ... find crystal clear images" and show me these "crystal clear images" you claim exist.

 

[bolide]

The impacting spacecraft disturbs teh regolith over areas large enough to be resolved by a 100 meters resolution camera.

I can't see "disturbance of the regolith" either, in those images, while the article all but claims that they got pictures of pieces of the lander.

 

[billslugg]

Narrow angle camera can resolve to 0.5 meters, small enough to see pieces as well as disturbed regolith.

 

[Phillip Huggan]

I see the individual pixels. Nothing at contrast sharp image a minimum of two pixels by two pixels disappears completely, maybe shrinks to one pixel by two pixels a rectangle. Exhibit A is a bullseye feature 6 pixels by 7 pixels. It is 15x too big to disappear.

 

[bolide]

Narrow angle camera can resolve to 0.5 meters, small enough to see pieces as well as disturbed regolith.

How do you know the regolith was "disturbed" when you don't have an adequate "before" picture for comparison? How do you know the "pieces" aren't something that was there before?

 

[billslugg]

The before picture, although 100 m resulution, is sufficient to see the disturbance. It would only show up in one pixel though, unable to be resolved into separate items. Resolution and sensitivity are different things.

 

[Phillip Huggan]

Our tax dollars won't answer this though they could. License plates from space are only a few pixels in area. I assume B&W. They are squares of different grey shades from orbit. But given the font they can know the plate everytime. Even without the font the can probably get the digits most times. Maybe a dozen actors can fake a photo pixel-wise, and one or two can tell its been faked. It would take a week to fake and they would miss killers and attackers while faking the photo. I often wonder if hexagons will be the pixel future. It is bad for bit math but good for visuals. You miss wind up with gradients in the background mesh between the hexagons that are hard to fake.

 

[billslugg]

How small is best resolution from space?
- Lowest possible orbit without continuous boosting is about 200 km.
- Biggest mirror blanks are Hubble size 92".
- Shortest usable wavelength in the violet at around 400 nm.

Resolution in radians = wavelength / mirror diameter = 1.7e-7
At 200 km, this would imply a resolution of 0.034 meter or 3.4 cm or 1.3".

Not quite able to read a license plate on a car.

 

[Phillip Huggan]

• "50 cm resolution: This is the most common resolution used in Google Maps. The image is pixelated.
• 25 cm resolution: This is the best publicly available resolution for satellites. The image slightly less pixelated, but the details are still indiscernible.
• 5 cm resolution: This is the resolution known within the limits of spy satellites, according to tech expert Nooria Khan. The image comes into focus. You can make out two men sitting at a bus stop, wet spots from melted snow, a trash can and defined shadows on the sidewalk.
• 1 cm resolution: Experts believe that this resolution is used by advanced government spy satellites. You can see clothing details, cracks in the sidewalk and small bits of trash on the ground."

This is from CNET in 2019. I know how much faster Canada coast guards vessel are than their public list thx to an old Halifax friend. But IDK anyone in the satellite community, just guess what I would do in their shoes. 1cm would be enough, 5cm not enough without more help.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, 1 cm is achievable:
- If mirrors larger than 92" have been put up there
- If the satellite was temporarily lowered.
Could be, we just don't know.

 

[Phillip Huggan]

Agreed, dancing on pin without satellite design expert knowledge. The definition of resolution is important. The satellite sees shades of squares. Some colours better than others. If it can resolve 4cm a side of a square, and it is centred along the middle of the right vertical edge of a zero on white background, it will be grey. If the next frames move the plate left, it is maybe lighter a shade. The same procedure for an "8" would result in the next frame definitely being darker. It is the width of the font it needs to resolve, and whether fewer phtons lead to a consistently darker pixel square. And there is motion blurring to consider as well so it is difficult definitions even if unclassified. I'm guessing they can guess what face of the spacecraft is pointed up by this procedure if it isn't too smushed.