Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Moon landing anniversary

Jump to new
must be true
 

Attachments

  • elvis.jpg
    elvis.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 33
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Hubble photos of the landing sites showing flags, rovers, and craters under the landing gear.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a Hubble telescope photo? It is impossible for the Hubble telescope to get an image of high enough resolution. It would require an optical telescope with an "effective" diameter of 90m to get the resolution needed.

(I say "effective" because its possible to have two telescopes of smaller diameter parallel to each other, achieving a higher power then if they were just combined into one large telescope)

As I said before, once you take a course in optics and get into the math of it, you begin to understand why the Hubble telescope cant take a high enough resolution photo.





So besides getting a telescope to do something that it impossible, what else do you need to be satisfied that the moon landing happened?
 
Naked shorts
Why does it have to be a Hubble telescope photo? It is impossible for the Hubble telescope to get an image of high enough resolution. It would require an optical telescope with an "effective" diameter of 90m to get the resolution needed.

(I say "effective" because its possible to have two telescopes of smaller diameter parallel to each other, achieving a higher power then if they were just combined into one large telescope)

As I said before, once you take a course in optics and get into the math of it, you begin to understand why the Hubble telescope cant take a high enough resolution photo.
Click to expand...
Please excuse my ignorance of optics and the mathematics of optics etc.

Would a very good telescope mounted onto an orbiting module provide enough quality conditions to see the landing spots?
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Naked shorts

Please excuse my ignorance of optics and the mathematics of optics etc.

Would a very good telescope mounted onto an orbiting module provide enough quality conditions to see the landing spots?
Click to expand...

A optical telescope with an of diameter of 90m attached to an orbiting module would provide a high enough resolution to make out the foot prints left by the astronauts.

So its quite clear that such a telescope wont be created anytime soon, so what do you need to be convinced?
 
In the 1970's it was boasted that orbiting satelites were capable of taking photographs with sufficient resolution to identify a 20c coin lying on the ground. Galileo was able to invent a telescope centuries ago using optics (specifically callibrated ground lenses and mirrors by local glass workers) and prove from astral observations that the moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the sun.
The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.
Given the advances in technology since Galileo, it should be possible for an Earth based telescope to built to identify these alledged sites. The Hubble is only refered to in discussions as "Why can't the Hubble telescope pick up the sites" as the spin doctors would have us believe that this is the most powerful telescope arround in the best environment.
 
Here is a google link for those interested in reading the hoax theories and the NASA spin in response. Both arguments are flawed.
Make up your own mind. For me the jury is still out.
 
nulla nulla said:
Unless of course the whole thing was an American scam to prove they had superior technology to the Russians in which case it is the anniversary of the landing that nevertook place.
Which could explain why the Hubble Telescope capable of taking photo's of deep space can't take photo's of the alleged landing sight. Regan ultimately admitted that the lazer star wars technology was bull****. Nixon couldn't lie straight in bed.
Click to expand...

The Hubble telescope would burn out its lens if it open its shutters to take a picture of the moon.
There are images available of the landing site but they are not of a good enough quality for the skeptics.

More proof needed.
Click to expand...

Moon rocks?
 
nulla nulla said:
The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.
Click to expand...
I can see a Jumbo jet flying 30,000ft over head, yet struggle to see a snail at the end of my garden.
Spin indeed :rolleyes:
 
The word "hero" is used pretty lightly these days, but Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and all the other people who went into space in those days were true heroes.

I was very impressed with Buzz Aldrin's interview with Kerry O'Brien the other night. He had serious problems adjusting to life after leaving the space program.


KERRY O'BRIEN: You've talked subsequently about what you referred to as the trauma of being put on a pedestal. You'd think some people might lap up the glory, but you found it tough.

BUZZ ALDRIN: Yeah, I didn't look forward to a celebrity status. We certainly didn't have the accoutrements that went along with celebrity status. I didn't have a bodyguard, I didn't have a Cadillac, I didn't have a scad of people around supporting what I was doing. I went back to the service I came from as an individual, 11 years away from the Air Force, challenged to do something that I didn't understand very much about. The test pilot school was not the avenue that I'd participated, and I began to feel a little bit unchallenged in a way that I felt comfortable in coping with. So I retired from the service, and that led to even more of a sense of, "Where am I? What am I doing? What should I be doing? Have I sorta come up short? Have I failed to choose - make the right choices?"
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2618443.htm
 
The smallest object that Hubble can resolve at the distance of the Moon is approximately 60 metres. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is currently in low Moon orbit and its camera can resolve objects as small as half a metre so will be able to photograph the lander & moon buggy. Sceptics will still claim the photos are faked; evidence means little to people with closed minds.

To all the sceptics answer me this, why did the Soviets cancel their manned moon landing programme? Or were they in on the conspiracy too? Which leads to the conclusion that the whole of the Cold War was a hoax too. Yeah, sure.
 
nulla nulla said:
In the 1970's it was boasted that orbiting satelites were capable of taking photographs with sufficient resolution to identify a 20c coin lying on the ground. Galileo was able to invent a telescope centuries ago using optics (specifically callibrated ground lenses and mirrors by local glass workers) and prove from astral observations that the moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the sun.
The allegation that a 90metre diameter lense would be needed to provide sufficient resolution to see the alledged landing site(s) and the items alledged as left behind (launch pads, moon buggy, flags flapping in nonexistant wind etc) is simply spin put out by NASA.
Given the advances in technology since Galileo, it should be possible for an Earth based telescope to built to identify these alledged sites. The Hubble is only refered to in discussions as "Why can't the Hubble telescope pick up the sites" as the spin doctors would have us believe that this is the most powerful telescope arround in the best environment.
Click to expand...

Nulla, why do you insist on beating a dead horse. It is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the Hubble telescope to get the required resolution. Satellites can see high resolution of the earth because the earth is only 300km away. The moon is 380,000km (which they can measure using the mirrors the Apollo teams left there).

So besides getting a telescope to do the impossible, what do you need to be satisfied???!?!?!
 
spooly74 said:
The Hubble telescope would burn out its lens if it open its shutters to take a picture of the moon.
Click to expand...
Oops, this is not correct.
Hubble has taken plenty of images of the moon, but it must not be in direct sunlight. Earthshine only.
Anyhooo, seeing as this is not what it was built for, it's a waste of resources.

Introducing LRO & LCROSS.


Looks like you won't have long to wait for your proof, Nulla. It launched last month.

"We will look to photograph [one or more of] the Apollo landing sites with 0.5 meter resolution", said Tooley. The high resolution camera will also be targeted to find other US and Russian unmanned robotic landers and rovers. "Initial images may be available during the first month. The lower half of the Lunar Module (LM) should be easily visible as well as the lunar rover tracks and perhaps the science instruments"
Click to expand...
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001947/
 
Top