It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: NASA to Take Photos of Abandoned Equipment on Moon

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Ever consider that a satelite is only a couple hundred miles from earth? Ever consider how far the moon is?

I found this explanation on several sites.

The moon is visually, roughly .5 degrees or 1800 arcseconds. Its
diameter is 3474km so 1 arcsecond is about 2km on the moon. The
Hubble can see about .1 arcseconds or 200m. You would need a
resolving power of .0015 arcseconds to have the 3m rover appear (as a
pixel or two). Even a proposed 30m space telescope would only get you
to .01 arcseconds.




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Yeah but if you've ever played around with the likes of keyhole you'll know that you can see things that are smaller. You just can't make out clearly what it is. Like you may see the outline of a license plate on a vehicle you just can't read what it says. Just like stuff on the moon. You should be able to see the dark blobs that are the space junk left behind. You may not get a clear picture of them but you should be able to see them especially against that very nice white background.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
It's just too far away. It would great if that were possible, I would love to see the stuff myself, but it just isn't gonna happen anytime soon. Not from Earth anyway. Go to space.com or the Hubble site and look at the pictures the Hubble took of the moon. It lets you zoom way in, but not nearly enough to see things that small.

We'll just have to wait I suppose.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Your wrong again where are the pics taken by hubble of the moon?????, Can't hubble see a Saturn, jupiter, well if it can zoom in to about 100,000 miles or less to Jupiter (which is millions of miles away) then it can easily zoom into 250,000 miles to the moon, what about those thermal images they show about the sun, when the sun has a solar flare, what ever is looking at the sun is got to be zooming in at about 60 Million miles from the sun, if it can do that (which it HAS, we all see it on the nightly news when the show the sun) then the Gov/NASA surely has a satelite/telescope that can zoom in to 250,000 miles (the moon) from earth and show us the so called Flag/ space junk, how come they've never did this? ANSWER= because the Apoolo missions were F-A-K-E.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 14-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Why Is NASA waiting 24 years to do this? Answer. Cus they have been DE-bunked and 98% of thier funding comes from you American's TAX $$$ ,so they have REAL reasons for LYING baout a supposed moon landings, just like all the mars missions are FAKE, USA/RUSSIA/Europe have Tesla's tech and they have been to the moon and they have Collonies on Venis and Mars, but the Appolo missions were faked, the tech they REALY use to go to other planets is GREATER than the shuttle and Our Russian Proton lifters.


Ummm... is it just me or did this make no sense at all? So NASA is going to take high resolution maps of the Moon (and of the Apollo landing sites) because they have been "DE-bunked"? Huh?


I have yet to see any evidence that shows the Moon landings to be fake. I'm glad NASA is doing this. Although i'm sure it won't convince people like SiberianTiger, but who cares. I just want to see these for myself. And speaking of photographing the Moon. Has there been any pics from the ESA probe that's orbiting the Moon at all? I haven't seen anything yet from that.


NASA and ESA are just show ponies for the public so that the MIC's (Military Industrial Complexes) can pump trillions into blackbudget ops. Can you say "Stay on vector."??



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Humanity is unable to resolve things as small as the Apollo debris left on the moon. Even our biggest & best telescopes are limited to about a 200 meter resolution on the moon. Even using telescopic interferometry (a technique which permits several telescopes to view the same object simultaneously from different sites and mathmatically combine the images to achieve higher resolution) objects smaller than around 100 meters on a side can't be resolved at this time. (I say at this time because we are getting better at using this technique and better resolutions will become available in the future, but not to the degree required to see the old Apollo stuff.) If we had two HST's in orbit though we could see the stuff because the separation between the two scopes would be sufficient. By the way, magnification has absolutely nothing to do with resolution. As the optics on a telescope become larger the resolution improves. Magnification is dependent upon the amount of light that can be collected by a telescope as well as the precision of the optical assembly. When you magnify an object by a factor of two you need four times as much light to keep the image at the same brightness. When you magnify by four times, you need sixteen times as much light. The amount of light needed goes up by the square of the magnification. So, when looking at a very bright object like the sun high magnifications can be used, but when looking at a dim object the amount of magnification is reduced drastically because even the largest telescopes can't collect enough light. Again though, magnification and resolution are two different things. Resolution is the fineness of the image you can see and magnification determines the size of the image you see.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer

Originally posted by Magickesists
....
Ummmmm no its not the same principle bernulis law of airflow and lift is far from rocket science.


You would think so.

I was thinking more about Newtons laws of motion. Factor that in with the acceleration required to escape Earth's potential gravitational well, and you have a rocket in space. The left and right tanks then detach and fall back to earth leaving a spacecraft that obeys the lift and drag principle brought upon by Bernoulis principle. Bernoulis equation doesn't change, it just simplifies because of the absence of drag in space.



Well I believe that newtons law is more based on gravity not airflow and air pressure there is a lack of airpressure in space as there is a lack of gravity to hold any considerable air mass together. I don't believe bernulis principle of lift can be used in space unless your on the surface of a planet. Otherwise the would probably make space stations with wings. I think you both need to read up on basic high school science again.

But enough of my trolling whats the coordinates in the sky for this thing. I'd be interested in getting a view for myself from a telescope at a local observatory.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
sorry about asking for coordinates i was thinking about another thread dealing with a triple star system. sorry again




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join