IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Hires oblique views of Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit, Technically possible?
Paolo Amoroso
post Jul 30 2008, 07:45 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 20-January 07
From: Milano, ITALY
Member No.: 1633



Given the emotional interest in closeup views of Apollo landing sites, and the debate on the preservation of historical lunar sites, I was wondering whether technological advances may reduce the need for rovers or other vehicles coming too close to the sites to get such views.

Given the resolving power of LRO's LROC camera, I expect technology to improve and provide even better resolution in a relatively short time. With such powerful cameras, would it be possible to get oblique views of Apollo sites from lunar orbit approximating the ones from a rover or a vehicle close to the sites? What are the major challenges? Spacecraft attitude control and camera pointing? Horizon curvature? Mountains, local relief and other obstacles along the line of sight?

This would not address, however, the need to come close for engineering studies or other purposes.


Paolo Amoroso


--------------------
Avventure Planetarie - Blog sulla comunicazione e divulgazione scientifica
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ilbasso
post Jul 31 2008, 12:51 AM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: 23-October 04
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Paolo Amoroso @ Jul 30 2008, 03:45 PM) *
...

Given the resolving power of LRO's LROC camera, I expect technology to improve and provide even better resolution in a relatively short time. With such powerful cameras, would it be possible to get oblique views of Apollo sites from lunar orbit approximating the ones from a rover or a vehicle close to the sites? What are the major challenges? Spacecraft attitude control and camera pointing? Horizon curvature? Mountains, local relief and other obstacles along the line of sight?


I may have missed it in scanning the LRO thread, but has anyone done a simulated view of what an Apollo landing site would theoretically look like with LRO's highest-resolution camera, like Doug did for the Mars landers as potentially seen from MRO and MGS?


--------------------
Jonathan Ward
Manning the LCC at http://www.apollolaunchcontrol.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jul 31 2008, 01:02 AM
Post #3


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (ilbasso @ Jul 31 2008, 01:51 AM) *
I may have missed it in scanning the LRO thread, but has anyone done a simulated view of what an Apollo landing site would theoretically look like with LRO's highest-resolution camera, like Doug did for the Mars landers as potentially seen from MRO and MGS?


I would think we probably already have really good views from the Lunar Orbiters and the Apollo missions, sans the landers, so this should make for some great before/after.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jul 31 2008, 01:28 AM
Post #4


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



QUOTE (Paolo Amoroso @ Jul 30 2008, 12:45 PM) *
What are the major challenges? Spacecraft attitude control and camera pointing? Horizon curvature? Mountains, local relief and other obstacles along the line of sight?


Don't forget relative velocity to the lunar surface. With no effective atmosphere, you can go pretty low. That just might be the prime constraint/tradeoff on surface resolution: the higher you are, the slower you go, but you need bigger optics. If you go low, you need either a REALLY fast imaging system or an equally fast scan platform of some sort (brr...moving parts!), or fast-response attitude control & lots of fuel.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jul 31 2008, 10:18 AM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



If LRO can get really good matched image pairs of landing sites at different view angles and with matching illuminations (eg almost exactly one month apart...), the stereo data can be reprojected for any view angle, like Selene data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jul 31 2008, 10:25 AM
Post #6


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



To get an oblique angle, you end up much further away than your normal orbital altitude. 90k instead of 30k for example. So LRO's res of 50cm/pixel would drop to 1.5m/pixel.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jul 31 2008, 10:29 AM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



Either that, or you drop periapsis to shorten the slant-range for a given look angle...
"oops. I thought we'd miss that mountain".
Also, image smear gets to be a problem, and it gets really weird for non-framing cameras.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kwan3217
post Jul 31 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #8


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 27-August 05
From: Eccentric Mars orbit
Member No.: 477



QUOTE (nprev @ Jul 30 2008, 06:28 PM) *
Don't forget relative velocity to the lunar surface. With no effective atmosphere, you can go pretty low. That just might be the prime constraint/tradeoff on surface resolution: the higher you are, the slower you go, but you need bigger optics. If you go low, you need either a REALLY fast imaging system or an equally fast scan platform of some sort (brr...moving parts!), or fast-response attitude control & lots of fuel.



Got those moving parts blues? Try new Time Domain IntegrationTM! That's right, with TDITM, for the cost of just a bit of extra logic on the clock lines, you can move images anywhere on your CCD electronically, while you continue to expose! Watch in amazement as blurry pixels disappear!. Motion compensation is a snap with new TDITM.

Side effects include extra electronics, slight extra operations complication, calibration difficulties, and dry mouth.

Ask your system engineer if TDITM is right for you. TDITM: All the cool kids are doing it. From the makers of the PushbroomTM CCD.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dilo
post Jul 31 2008, 09:43 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 15-January 05
From: center Italy
Member No.: 150



lol laugh.gif


--------------------
I always think before posting! - Marco -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jul 31 2008, 09:54 PM
Post #10


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (kwan3217 @ Jul 31 2008, 10:13 PM) *
Ask your system engineer if TDITM is right for you.


It works for Audi at Le Mans smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 05:59 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.