4 ms·

How come there's not more sattelites around the moon taking high resolution, high zoom photos to for example find this object? We can see beachball-sized object

How come there's not more sattelites around the moon taking high resolution, high zoom photos to for example find this object? We can see beachball-sized objects on consumer-available photos (e.g. google maps/earth), and that's from over 100 km up through an atmosphere. I guess the answer is "nobody paid for it" but still. There's google maps for the moon (https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon) but I'm not sure what resolution that is.

eps 9mo ago
> that's from over 100 km up through an atmosphere Could be from atmospheric fly-overs.
thinkingemote 9mo ago
Most high resolution "satellite" imagery on Google Maps etc is actually stitched from photographs taken from cameras attached to small aeroplanes which fly at a low altitude even compared to commercial flights let alone 100km. There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?) So while these images of the landers are from a satellite orbiting the moon, the satellite is orbiting with an eccentric polar orbit, and the images it takes may be perfect for it's mission but might not be good enough to identify small 1960's landers.
- zokier 9mo ago
  > There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?) Pleiades Neo advertises 30cm resolution with possibility for twice a day visits for a location. They are operating on sun-synchronous orbits with afaik global coverage. They also advertise that they can capture up to 2 million km² daily. So Earth imaging satellites are pretty good these days. That being said, it is true that Google Maps etc heavily rely on aerial imagery instead of satellites. Airbus does have some sample images available on their website if you want to see what actual satellite imagery looks like: https://space-solutions.airbus.com/resources/satellite-image-gallery/?title=hd15 https://space-solutions.airbus.com/resources/satellite-image...
m4rtink 9mo ago
While the ore other factors that make Lunar observation satellites harder to do and more expensive (harder to communicate with due to distance, different thermal environment, no protection from radiation by the Van Allen belts, etc.) one big issue is that low Lunar orbit is by default unstable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effects_and_low_orbits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effec... Basically the gravitational field of the Moon is "lumpy", resulting in deceleration of low orbiting bodies as they are pulled around in orbit, until they crash into the surface. There might still be dead probes from the 1960s/1970s orbiting Mars, but there are no inactive spacecraft orbiting around the Moon. There are now some specific orbits known that you can place a spacecraft in to reduce the effects but I don't think even that works to 100% percent efficiency & thing will still go down quite quickly of you loose control and can't do course corrections.

eps 9mo ago

> that's from over 100 km up through an atmosphere Could be from atmospheric fly-overs.

thinkingemote 9mo ago

Most high resolution "satellite" imagery on Google Maps etc is actually stitched from photographs taken from cameras attached to small aeroplanes which fly at a low altitude even compared to commercial flights let alone 100km. There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?) So while these images of the landers are from a satellite orbiting the moon, the satellite is orbiting with an eccentric polar orbit, and the images it takes may be perfect for it's mission but might not be good enough to identify small 1960's landers.

zokier 9mo ago
> There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?) Pleiades Neo advertises 30cm resolution with possibility for twice a day visits for a location. They are operating on sun-synchronous orbits with afaik global coverage. They also advertise that they can capture up to 2 million km² daily. So Earth imaging satellites are pretty good these days. That being said, it is true that Google Maps etc heavily rely on aerial imagery instead of satellites. Airbus does have some sample images available on their website if you want to see what actual satellite imagery looks like: https://space-solutions.airbus.com/resources/satellite-image-gallery/?title=hd15 https://space-solutions.airbus.com/resources/satellite-image...

m4rtink 9mo ago

While the ore other factors that make Lunar observation satellites harder to do and more expensive (harder to communicate with due to distance, different thermal environment, no protection from radiation by the Van Allen belts, etc.) one big issue is that low Lunar orbit is by default unstable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effects_and_low_orbits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effec... Basically the gravitational field of the Moon is "lumpy", resulting in deceleration of low orbiting bodies as they are pulled around in orbit, until they crash into the surface. There might still be dead probes from the 1960s/1970s orbiting Mars, but there are no inactive spacecraft orbiting around the Moon. There are now some specific orbits known that you can place a spacecraft in to reduce the effects but I don't think even that works to 100% percent efficiency & thing will still go down quite quickly of you loose control and can't do course corrections.