Resolution of google moon and worldwind moon

[kelvinzero]

Hi, has anyone else used Google moon or worldwind moon?

They are pretty good, but do not seem to have very good UV mapping or resolution around the poles, for example. Im guessing this isnt near the limit of the data that exists.

Does anyone know if something better is exists or is coming along.. or if other people are not having this problem?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I guess the resolution for the lunar poles isn't good because we haven't surveyed those areas in photographic detail, maybe? I don't know. But while I like playing around with GoogleEarth, I'm still dissatisfied with the detail most of the time.

I have a nice Sony monitor, but it's not an HD. Is the detail on GE better with a high def monitor? I've heard that it isn't. I can understand that they won't allow detail of certain things, but forests and oceans and such? Why not?

 

[kg]

I think the poles coodinates get a bit tricky for the computer deal with.
The real fun thing about Google Moon and Mars is that you can still enter the flight simulator feature! I had to slew up to the top of Olypus Mons because the plane didn't handle too well up there. The altimeter read something like 180 thousand feet!

 

[kelvinzero]

Im assuming we have pretty good resolution at the poles because I think we have put up satellites on polar orbits. These are good orbits for surveying the entire moon over the period of the month, but they cover the poles most frequently of all. Also we must have had good images to plan where to target LCross.

The problem of UV coordinates are solvable, for example you can map a small disk around each pole to a totally different texture. I guess they might just not have bothered.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I don't have either program installed locally, atm. (Although, I can see the online version of google moon.)

What appears to be the issue? Are these images on a 3D sphere or something? If so, there shouldn't be any issue with texture resolution - It should be the same. If it's in some sort of dynamic display, there could be clipping pane or texture filtering issues based on depth.

From what I can see, Google Moon looks like a 2D app. What am I missing?

 

[kelvinzero]

Hi ALP

Google earth and nasa world wind both let you navigate around the moon in 3d. I think they also both have mars in 3d. They both present you with globes that you can fly in towards.

http://earth.google.com/moon/index.html

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/download.html

They are really quite nice.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Yeah, I just don't have room on my hard drive for them atm. I'm always fighting for space.

I found some youtube clips of people doing Lunar flybys and such using google moon. But, I didn't see where there could be a problem with resolution.

Any chance you could post a pic that demonstrates what you're talking about?

 

[kelvinzero]

Lazy ******...

Actually, how do you post images to space.com? It looks like I can only reference images already on the net?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Lazy ******...

And proud of it! Just so long as that pride doesn't take too much energy....

Actually, how do you post images to space.com? It looks like I can only reference images already on the net?

That's true. You have to have a third-party host for the picture. Then, you can embed/hotlink it.

I normally use http://www.tinypic.com to host posted images. It's easy to use, it's free, there's no sign-up and tinypic does not put any additional images or display codes on your posted pics. Basically, go to the site, choose Upload Image, Choose to put any tags you want on it for tinypic's own search engine (That is optional, btw) then choose the size you want. "Default" will leave it at the original size. After doing the "recaptcha" gizmo to ensure you're not a 'bot, you'll get a set of links. Use the "direct link to image."

Then, create a post on SDC. Copy and paste the "direct link" to the image in your post. Then, highlight it and click the "Img" button which will put BBCode Image Tags on either side. Alternatively, you can simply write them in yourself.

If your image was this: http://i43.tinypic.com/25r0z84.jpg

Then, the resulting code would look like this: (I used the "Code" function to display the code without executing it.)

[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/25r0z84.jpg[/img]

And the final result when the forum executed it after you hit the Submit button and it was read by a browser would be this:

So, there ya go. Not a lot to do even for a lazy guy.

 

[kelvinzero]

Cool! thanks for that. It does just look like a simple mapping problem to be visible at the far level. There definitely are easy ways to fix that!

Does anyone know what sort of resolution we do have the moon surface captured at?

problem in google moon (and experimenting with posting images)

Up closer. see the scale on the left? probably something like 100m/pixel or less?

 

[garacorleone]

is that available a kind of software for mobile phone like stellarium?? or somthing to see stars? i really need it hehe thanks

 

[aphh]

Up closer. see the scale on the left? probably something like 100m/pixel or less?

It's just a scale. Not an indicator of resolution.

The orbiters have orbited the moon at about 60 nautical miles, even closer for a while (before impact when the orbit gradually decays). Hence the best resolution that we should have from the moon should be down to a few meters per pixel, atleast on selected regions.

 

[kelvinzero]

Up closer. see the scale on the left? probably something like 100m/pixel or less?

It's just a scale. Not an indicator of resolution.

The orbiters have orbited the moon at about 60 nautical miles, even closer for a while (before impact when the orbit gradually decays). Hence the best resolution that we should have from the moon should be down to a few meters per pixel, atleast on selected regions.

Yes I know it is just a scale

But see where that scale says about 2000m? There is very roughly 20 pixels (I didnt count exactly, maybe more like ten) and 2000m/20pixels gives 100 meters per pixel.

And yes, I would expect better resolution than 100m/pixel.