I've read an article at http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/e...stine-moon.htm

The subject is NOT to discuss the actual content from that link, but to ask for the reasons between two different images of the moon (from Clandestine and Apollo).

Is there a reason why the Clementine images (and not just the one shown below) do seem to be excesivly smoothend as opposed to the apollo images?

Or as quoted from the link provided:
Assuming the Clementine's objective was to capture accurate topography details of the Moon, why does it look indeed more fussy than the Apollo images?

The real question you want to ask is "Why does the far side look different from the near side?"

The differences between the two images have nothing to do with Clementine (not Clandestine) vs. Apollo. They are entirely about the fact that the far side does indeed look quite different from the near side.

--earendur

Earendur,

Actually I think the question is a good one, but the picture in the OP was the wrong one. At the link provided, the Clementine "far side" picture is much different than the Apollo "far side" picture.

I think I know why, but this is speculation based on limited knowledge and the following facts / assumptions

1) The Clementine photo is a mosaic of 50,000 images.
2) I assume that each Clementine image was taken in full sunlight (that is, with the Sun nearly behind Clementine, relative to the moon. Thus sunlight is nearly perpendicular to portion of moon being imaged)
3) Images taken in full sunlight show less detail than images near terminator (where sunlight is near parallel with portion of moon being imaged. This can be seen in the Apollo photo, where there is much less contrast to left than there is to the right.

Thus the composite would have less contrast than the single Apollo photo.

Assuming that would mean the Moon has a different topography on the other site, which in itself is hard to accept, thus raising the question why one half of the Moon has a signnificant different topography.

Therefor I believe it has to do with the proccess of imaging, which leads me back to the initial question.

There's no "hard to accept" about it; it's a well-documented fact that the far side is much rougher and lacks the maria that the visible side has.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Has the presence of marinas (as they exist today) on Moon been ever explained? Were there liquid water bodies ages ago?

One half the noon looks different because it got plastered with meteors. The Earth also looks different between hemispheres. One side is mostly water, the other mostly land if yoou center it right. (sorry if that example was completely wrong, I don't have a globe handy)

__________________
"Doesn’t everybody know rhetorical questions are dismissive and obnoxious?" <http://www.mcla.edu/Academics/Majors...phy/style.php>

The "far side" of the moon does indeed have different topography than the near side. Conspiracists may find this "hard to accept," but it's been a fact to everyone else for over 40 years. The maria, which are such conspicuous features of the near side, never held water. The maria are deposits of lava from massive outpourings from the moon's interior following hits from giant meteors. Now -- and this is the silliest part of this discussion -- the difference in the two photos is a natural result of different lighting. Step outside and look at a full moon and compare it to a view of the moon at other phases, when the sun is hitting parts of it at a grazing angle. Don't take your information from websites put together by conspiracy buffs who've never looked through a telescope and who know zip about astronomy (most, perhaps all of them). Get out with a telescope or binoculars and look at the moon for yourself. The Apollo 16 photo shows a side of the moon that we can't see from earth. Sure, the particular craters and mountains are different than the side we see, but the principle is the same. In fact, you can see the moon at roughly same phase tonight (Apr 29). Compare it with full moon on May 4. Different relief caused by different angles of lighting on the moon has been known and expected since Galileo first looked at the moon in 1610. Don't try to cite this as an "anomaly" or evidence of some conspiracy. Look for yourself!

I have more. The use of "Clandestine" for "Clementine' (the correct name of the project) appears to be intentional, not a typo, since it appears several times in the original post. Clementine was not some sort of secret project. Clementine was performed on a shoestring budget, but it was a spectacular success, and the results are easily obtainable. Clementine took 1.8 million images of the moon. They don't all look like the one posted here. This particular image (a mosaic, as pointed out in another post) was part of a series to examine albedo differences on the moon. It wasn't intended to show crater detail. The intent of this and the Apollo 16 image (probably shot simply because it looked interesting) are completely different.

Let me see if I got this right. The leading planetary scientists around the world have seen the Clementine pictures for a decade and have seen the Apollo, Lunar Orbiter, Cassini, and Galileo photographs and don't have a problem with this. Yet some guy on a conspiracy sight has got it all figured out.

Do you see the problem with that?

How's this, why don't you show us a planetary body's surface that is uniform.

Here is the official objective of the Clementine mission:

Clementine was a joint project between the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and NASA. The objective of the mission was to test sensors and spacecraft components under extended exposure to the space environment and to make scientific observations of the Moon and the near-Earth asteroid 1620 Geographos. The observations included imaging at various wavelengths including ultraviolet and infrared, laser ranging altimetry, and charged particle measurements. These observations were originally for the purposes of assessing the surface mineralogy of the Moon and Geographos, obtaining lunar altimetry from 60N to 60S latitude, and determining the size, shape, rotational characteristics, surface properties, and cratering statistics of Geographos.

(source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clementine.html)

This was easily found in after a 10 second search. The Geographos part of the mission failed because a computer glitch. I suppose "lunar altimetry" might be construed as being "accurate topography," but there was much more to the Clementine mission than that. I know for a fact that the late Gene Shoemaker (planetary geologist) was very excited about the information he was getting about lunar minerology, and most of what he was looking at was not conventional snapshots of the moon's surface.

Don't you know that all planetary astronomers are either paid disinfo agents or mindless sheep who believe everything NASA tells them? The conspiracists are all geniuses who easily see through gubmint lies.

The initial post makes about as much sense as demanding to know why Death Valley doesn't look like the Great Smoky Mountains.

[CTB] Why is this so? Because it's a government conspiracy between NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and those eggheaded college geologists to deceive people in Illinois into thinking that most of the rest of the country doesn't look like Illinois.[/CTB]

:roll:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I don't see how this topic gets mingled with conspiracy or hoax believers.

It was just interested in an explaination for the differences between the images.

Here is a Clementine link showing the 'Far side' since, as said by others, differs a lot.

http://www.geocities.com/cuboctahedron2004/moon.jpg

Compare this image than with the initial question. It can't be an issue of debate that the apollo image still seems much sharper, this time comparing equal sites of the moon.

Could it be that the Clementine image is a 50K image global mosaic?

YEp, that's the reason, along with it being a JPEG.

If you look at the tiff, you can actually still see quite a bit of detail despite the mosaic banding.

As best as I can tell, the last image that is referenced is a version of this one. According to this page this image represents a composite (mosaic) that was produced in a much different manner than an Apollo photograph.


Some important difference include

1. Light wavelength
Apollo photo was taken on film that roughly correpsonds to the visible spectrum

Clemenine image was taken at 750nm - the near infrared, just beyond the visible red.

2. Sun angle
Apollo image was taken with the sun at an oblique angle, causing dramatic shading of the topography, making the image seem more "edgy"

Clemenine image mosaic swaths were taken with the sun at a high angle, muting topographic differences and making the image seem "smoother"

3. Resampling and manipulation
Apollo image is a scan of a print of a photograph with an unknown type and amount of resampling to get the view we are looking at. It is possible that the manipulation of the digital image introduced some "edginess" or "sharpness." The image may have been contrast-enhanced to show detail.

Clemintine image is also a resampled version of the original data. The first resampling, noted in the page linked above, is that the data was resampled from 100 meters per pixel to 1 km (1000m) per pixel. The method by which the image was resampled may have introduced a smoothing effect. How many times after that the image referred to was resampled, we have no way of knowing. The image was produced to show the Moons natural albedo, without shading, so topographic effects were deliberately compensated for (i.e. removed).

4. Image projection
The Apollo image is a photograph of the Moon's sphere and would most closely resemble what is known as an orthographic projection.

The Clementine mosaic has been projected as an equal area projection, which distorts shapes in order to give all features their true area. This distortion can create a stretching and blurring of pixels.

The short of it is, they are two completely different images taken different ways for different purposes. Of course they look different.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

TIFF available here.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00302