Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/21/2002 11:57:49 AM EDT
the Hubble telescope to focus on and take pictures of our Apollo landing craft? I think these would make pretty cool shots. Or maybe we really don't have anything there to take pictures of. It seems to me that NASA would like to see some pics like that.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:09:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:20:03 PM EDT
Nah.. a little adjustment here and there. you can see the moon pretty well. I bet CIA or NSA have a few of those hubble like scope looking the Earth now.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:20:39 PM EDT
Hubble can't see the landing craft because their too small, I know that doesn't sound right but Hubble is designed to see objects that measure light years and at vast distances. Hubble couldn't see them if it tried, it simply doesn't have the neccessary resolution. It has something to do with it's light collecting mirror.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:24:05 PM EDT
What you need is the new Leupold 6-10000x800 sniper scope. [:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:28:11 PM EDT
LMAO!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:28:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: What you need is the new Leupold 6-10000x800 sniper scope. [:D]
View Quote
Would a 69gr make it there? or would we need to use an 80gr?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:38:46 PM EDT
See the Hubble FAQ: [url]http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html[/url]. To summarize, there are three problems with viewing objects left on the moon with the Hubble Space Telescope: 1. It doesn't have enough resolution. The Faint Object Camera is the Hubble's highest resolution instrument, and it has a resolution of 0.014 arcseconds. It would need a resolution of 0.002 arcseconds to see the Apollo landing craft on the moon. 2. The moon is moving. The shortest exposure of anything on the Hubble is one-tenth of second, in which time the moon moves 0.05 arcseconds. A point object on the moon would appear as a streak on a Hubble image. The tracking system on Hubble is designed for much slower moving distant objects. 3. The Hubble has a fixed focus which is set for viewing very distant objects. Anything as close as the moon or earth would be out of focus and therefore blurry.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:48:57 PM EDT
There always seems to be a great deal of disinformation regarding Hubble and what it can and can't do... NASA says it can't image the moon due to tracking, brightness, etc. then suddenly appear images... This is a big .jpg... [url]oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/14/content/9914z.jpg[/url] Interesting take on the whole Hubble saga: [url]www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 3:06:25 PM EDT
Rainman asked about the Apollo landing craft, not the moon itself. As you might imagine there is a bit of a size difference between the two--the moon is something like a million times wider.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 3:08:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkStar: Interesting take on the whole Hubble saga: [url]www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm[/url]
View Quote
I guess you could call it interesting. The guy thinks there is a city on the moon and the Hubble images of the moon are being withheld to cover up this fact. Need I say more.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 3:32:45 PM EDT
What makes you guys think we have only one Hubble? The Atlantis Space Shuttle was built just to launch military birds. As we know a space telescope will fit in the payload bay. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are Earth imaging "Hubbles" in orbit now. The moon would be no problem for one of them. Brightness, movement, focal distance, just a matter of aim.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:07:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:07:57 PM EDT
Spy birds do not have the imaging capability to see the Apollo equipment, remember they're takin photos from orbit not 250,000 miles away and to prove the Hubble point someone point out the lander carriage and buggy in that moon photo posted previously.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:18:21 PM EDT
First of all there were no moon landings, its all a conspiracy! Its was a hollywood sound stage! Didn't you see the photo anomalies on the Discovery channel? What they shold really look at is that face on Mars.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:24:37 PM EDT
What photo anomalies? Fire away I wrote a research paper on this subject.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:37:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkStar: Interesting take on the whole Hubble saga: [url]www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm[/url]
View Quote
I guess you could call it interesting. The guy thinks there is a city on the moon and the Hubble images of the moon are being withheld to cover up this fact. Need I say more.
View Quote
When trekkies go bad...
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:03:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Astrogoth: What makes you guys think we have only one Hubble? The Atlantis Space Shuttle was built just to launch military birds. As we know a space telescope will fit in the payload bay. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are Earth imaging "Hubbles" in orbit now. The moon would be no problem for one of them. Brightness, movement, focal distance, just a matter of aim.
View Quote
The military imaging satellites are about 2000 times closer to the earth than they are to the moon. They supposedly have a ground resolution of about 15cm. That would give them a resolution of 300 meters on the moon, way too big to see a 4-meter-wide object. Even if the satellites have a ground resolution ten times better than publicly known, that would be a 30-meter resolution on the moon, still far too large to see the Apollo lander.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:21:24 PM EDT
There are several anomalies in the stills that are in wide circulation. In a lot of the pictures various object shave multiple shadows, meaning there are multiple sources for the lighting, stage lights. There should only be one, the sun. Second the reflections off the visors dont deplict the correct picture. If you correlate the where the sun is supposed to be in relation to the moon and the earth, there would be no way the earth shold be reflected on the visor. This was the story for the movie Capricorn One. I think our buddy OJ was in it.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:37:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:49:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:58:14 PM EDT
Ok, are you sure your remembering the argument correctly? I think it's various objects with a single shadow but their all at multiple angles. The moons' mainly one color and equally reflective surface geology will effect this somewhat, kind of hard to see small mounds, slopes and depressions. Now take a couple of rifle cartridges and set them on a flat surface a foot or so apart with one light source to cast a long shadow, the cartridges will cast shadows at different angles. This happens on earth but is more pronounced on the smaller diameter of the moon. I haven't seen pics with multiple shadows. Post a link if you have one for the visible earth pic cause without one this is a little harder to discuss than i'd imagined.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:05:11 PM EDT
There are spy satellites that probably could see the landers and rover tracks. But being that these are "spy" satellites, we'll never see them until a civilian version, probably from another country, is launched. I have webshots of my apartment, the resolution sucks, only about a couple of meters per pixel, but I am sure that they are holding back quite a bit. These satallites are supposed to have the resolution down to a pack of cigarettes or less. As for the moon photos, there are no photos with multiple shadows. Some claim that there are multiple light sources due to the shadows converging to different vanishing points but all the moon photos have one single shadow cast. One shadow = one primary light source. Light beam radiosity is responsible for secondary source lighting. The surface of the moon and the metalic lunar landers are both extremely reflective. Try pointing a spot light at a white surface in a dark room and watch it light up.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:24:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sodie: There are spy satellites that probably could see the landers and rover tracks. But being that these are "spy" satellites, we'll never see them until a civilian version, probably from another country, is launched. I have webshots of my apartment, the resolution sucks, only about a couple of meters per pixel, but I am sure that they are holding back quite a bit. These satallites are supposed to have the resolution down to a pack of cigarettes or less.
View Quote
I don't think you understand how far away the moon is. The spy satellites orbit roughly 200km above the earth. The moon is roughly 400,000km away from the earth. So the moon is about 2000 times farther from the spy satellites than the earth. That means they have 2000 times worse resolution of the moon than of the earth were they to image the moon. If they have a resolution of a pack of cigarettes (a few centimeters, presumably, let's say 3cm just for yuk-yuks) on earth, they would have 2000 x 3cm = 60 meters resolution on the moon. That's 200 feet. I daresay the lunar lander and rover tracks are [b]much smaller[/b] than that.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:27:06 PM EDT
For get about the shadows. What about the feet of the landing craft? There is no dust on them. If the moon has a fine powder surface, one would think that the thruster from the lander would kick up some dust. Yet there is no dust on the landing craft. While the suits of the astronauts are cover with it from (supposedly) just walking around in it. On the topic of spy sats, I am sure they could see you. Yes personally you if they wanted. But they would need to now your every move. A satellite has to be maneuvered into position to photograph a certain area. especially the high res ones. By the way if you want to spy on anyone from space you can. There are a few companies that take high res photos from space. They cost about $25.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:27:11 PM EDT
Sodie a microscope will give you tremendous magnification and resolution but pick it up and attempt to look at a distant object with it. My point being that unless you design a system to specifically look for the landing equipment your not gonna see it. Any spy sat designed to look at earth will not focus properly on the moon.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:38:32 PM EDT
Without an atmosphere dust on the moon settles just as fast as the lander itself, i'm sure theres a fine film but not ground in like it would be on the rover tires and astronaut suits. If you look at pics of the rover you'll only see dust on the back 3 or 4 inches of the rear fenders due to the roostertail effect where on earth with an atmosphere, at least the whole fender would eventually end up covered in dust.
Top Top