No Earth bound telescope, and that includes the Hubble, has anywhere near enough resolution to pick out the lunar landing sites. But the latest NASA lunar orbiter shows some amazing detail. Though it still wasn't very big in the last shot I have seen but you can see objects casting strand shadows on the Moon's surface. The fact that they are exactly where NASA said we landed seems to indicate pretty strongly they are the bases from the lunar landers. Plus at some of the sites you can see foot trails from the astronauts. Now I suppose some CT nuts could argue that they are something else, or that NASA faked these photographs too, but then how do they explain some of the recent shots from Japanese explorers and most recently Indian explorers? I guess they must be in on it too Pretty soon dfez should find this thread and provide some excellent links to these latest photos.
Hubble should have much more than sufficient resolution. It already took a picture of very distant images in our galaxy - I think it was called the "deep field" photo. I mean, the Moon is just our next door neighbor.
I wouldn't be surprised if current earth-based telescopes also has enough resolution as well.
First of all, The Hubble Space Telescope cannot see any of the landing sites on the Moon for a very basic reason; It's too far away. In order to light up 1 pixel on the Hubble's imager, the lander would have to be the size of a football stadium. This is precisely why the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was sent to photograph the Moon in much closer detail. The LRO has returned clear and unambiguous photographs of 5 of the Apollo landers exactly where they are supposed to be with detail down to the Astronaut's footprints.
These photographs are just the first because the sites will be imaged from different angles at much lower altitudes. The reason HST sees things so far away as the Deep Field is that the objects that appear tiny are galaxies that are 100's of thousands of light-years across at billions of light years distance. You have to understand the principle of angular resolution. Distant galaxies are still larger on the imager of the telescope, than small objects 250,000 miles away.
Another thing you need to understand is that high resolution cameras such as these NEVER use zoom lenses. Zoom lenses are much too optically slow and have far too many optical elements in them to provide the quality of sharpness and contrast possible with mirror optics as used on Hubble and Earth based telescopes. The Hubble Telescope is equipped with the highest resolution optical system that has ever been built with accuracy greater than 1/96th wavelength of visible light. You have never seen anything on Earth remotely close to it's resolution.
if the apollo landing craft did land on the moon and theres less gravity and all that moon dust how long did they wait before the moon dust settled they show them getting out straight away dont they and who had the camara if neil armstrong was fisrt on the moon and is it possible they had a light air in those back packs to keep them light to simulate light gravity or did they do the whole thing in a large vacuum chamber as seen in armagedon
who had the camara if neil armstrong was fisrt on the moon
The camera was mounted to the lander... it was deployed by Armstrong before he descended.
quote:
is it possible they had a light air in those back packs to keep them light to simulate light gravity
No. Three cubic feet of helium would offer a buoyancy of about 0.19 pounds, which doesn't even begin to offset the weight of the suit, let alone the astronaut.
I'm just watching a re-run of the moon landing episode. The conspiracy theorists say that light came from two sources. Have they ever been to a floodlit stadium? If the light came from two sources, the shadows would have been multiple ones. Myth Busted!
Originally posted by doc-140: if the apollo landing craft did land on the moon and theres less gravity and all that moon dust how long did they wait before the moon dust settled they show them getting out straight away dont they and who had the camara if neil armstrong was fisrt on the moon and is it possible they had a light air in those back packs to keep them light to simulate light gravity or did they do the whole thing in a large vacuum chamber as seen in armagedon
The Moon "dust" settled within seconds after engine shut down. The particles of Regolith (the correct term) fell to the ground like rocks because there is no AIR there to swirl around and suspend dust as on Earth. If you are talking about the picture of the Astronaut climbing down the ladder that all the dimwitted CTs claim as Neil is actually Buzz climbing down the ladder and the shot was taken by Neil who was already on the surface and had the Hasselblad still camera. The video camera was mounted on a panel on the descent stage of the LEM that folded down after Neil pulled on a lanyard when he backed out of the hatch.
There is an interesting event early this Friday morning. The LCross satellite will be crashed into the Moon to observe the composition. You'll be able to watch on NASA TV with live video from the trailing probe as if flies through the ejecta plume. Here's the details:
I have a 16" Meade, but I'll be watching the NASA Channel. The live feed will be a lot more interesting. The most you'll see from Earth is a small wisp of Ejecta near the limb of the Moon. It should be pretty neat from the trailing Spacecraft.
Jeeeez guys, get over it the chances that the moon landing was faked is the same as all of WW2 was faked. There will be some idiot that will say that is true too.
I have a 16" Meade, but I'll be watching the NASA Channel. The live feed will be a lot more interesting. The most you'll see from Earth is a small wisp of Ejecta near the limb of the Moon. It should be pretty neat from the trailing Spacecraft.
So . . . if you're watching the moon on TV, at what heavenly body is your telescope pointed?
I have a 16" Meade, but I'll be watching the NASA Channel. The live feed will be a lot more interesting. The most you'll see from Earth is a small wisp of Ejecta near the limb of the Moon. It should be pretty neat from the trailing Spacecraft.
So . . . if you're watching the moon on TV, at what heavenly body is your telescope pointed?
Tsk, tsk.
Unfortunately, it will be pointed at the ceiling of my garage. It requires the proverbial 2 men and a small boy plus a pickup truck to move it to another site. Since they tore down and destroyed the site of our U's Observatory where I used to take it and I had to get rid of my pickup, it doesn't get used much anymore. All the trees around my house have grown so tall, that there isn't much of the sky I can see from home anymore. The event will have the Moon positioned precisely behind a neighbor's tree at the moment. Plus, it's predicted 50% chance of rain. The NASA feed won't be clouded out.
Sounds like a very bad idea to crash something into the moon to me. This is going to eject a debris field that may stay in orbit for years. This could take out the next spacecraft we send there including manned space flight.
They've crashed objects into the moon several times.
The later Apollo mission(s) had the third stage crash into the moon, instead of continuing off into space, in order to view the event on the seismometers left by previous missions.
Pretty soon dfez should find this thread and provide some excellent links to these latest photos.
