2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

Originally posted by resistance
JRA -- Here's another interesting link. Some more lies. These people all work together.

usafflyingsaucers.com...

[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]

Which people all work together? And yeah that's an interesting link of CG models superimposed over photos.

definately CG


as is this


and this


this one is pretty bad and obvious as well


Here's that same jet with no background at all.


this one is the best!



I've seen this page posted here a few years ago. It was debunked. I believe who ever made it, did it for fun. Not sure. Either way. It's all fake, sorry.

EDIT:

It also says right on the main page.

Note: The aircraft depicted on this website are computer generated forensic composite illustrations based on the specific details provided by military personnel who are familiar with this historically significant aircraft.

So they are just 3d models made based on descriptions of other people. So it's hardly proof of anything.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by jra]

JRA -- You win on this one. I'm embarassed. I need to be more careful. You got me good. Why would anybody want to do that (make these phony pics)? Got an answer to that one?

Originally posted by resistance

If that's true, I wonder why they haven't done it already. Could you explain a bit more the basis for your claims about needing two Hubbels to get a clear pic of the moon?

Kind of answering by way of several unasked questions plus a little history--sorry if I'm going overboard here.

Back when they launched the HST optical interferometry was not developed enough to be used and it wasn't needed because only one scope was being launched. The necessary techniques, etc. wern't developed until the 90's. The HST cost over three billion dollars when it was built and the space budget simply didn't have enough money in it to build more than one telescope.

Resolution in an optical system is the capability of the system to see fine details. As you can imagine, the closer an object being viewed is to the optical system the more detail that can be seen--up to a point. From using your own eyes you know that if you bring things closer to them you can see more detail right up until everything starts to go out of focus. That point, generally pretty close to the optical system is the near focus point and inside that distance everything will be out of focus. Well a telescope works exactly the same way.

Again, going back to your eyes, if you were trying to read, for example, the inscription on someone's ring, or whatever, using a magnifying glass to magnify the size of the object you are trying to see doesn't do anything to make the inscription easier to read, it just makes the whole ring bigger without anything getting clearer and it will not get clearer until the magnifying glass is either moved closer to the object or the size of the magnifying glass is increased a whole bunch (which amounts to the same thing).

The capability of an optical system, like the HST, or a camera, etc. to resolve objects (i.e., see fine detail) is determined by a fairly simple formula: Divide 4.56 by the diameter of the objective lens (in inches)--the actual formula is a lot more involved than that, but the above is what most amateur astronomers use to determine resolution. (IMAGE RESOLUTION = (FOCAL LENGTH divided by DIAMETER) times WAVELENGTH (use dimensions of the objective lens or primary mirror)). In the case of the HST: In the technical description you'll find the Hubble's primary mirror to be 2.4 meters (94.5 inches) in diameter and the focal length to be 24 meters (79 ft.). Using equation 1 we get a limit of resolution = 10 wavelengths. The measured angular resolution published on the web pages is very close to the theoretical limit given by equation 2. This resolution is far better than old style earth bound telescopes. Using the simple formula I first mentioned, the resolution of HST comes out to 0.0482539 seconds of arc.

Now what does that number tell us? Knowing the distance to the moon to be aprx. 240,000 miles, using an old shooters formula (i.e., 1 minute of angle equals 1 inch at 100 yards) you can calculate what that number translates to on the surface of the moon. First lets calculate what 1 minute of angle is at 1 mile. 1 mile is 1760 yards, so 1 MOA (minute of angle) would be 17.6 inches, or aprx. 1.5 feet. Now multiply 1.5 feet by the number of miles to the moon (240,000) and you get 360,000 feet, or roughly 68 miles.

Now I can almost answer your last question. First, let me say that optical interferometry allows one to treat two physically separated telescopes as if they were just one big one with an objective lens equal to the distance between the scopes. Therefore, if you had two HST's separated by about 9450 inches its fairly easy to see that the resolution would be 100 times better than a single HST--or about .68 miles on the surface of the moon. Increase the separation distance to 945000 inches and the resolution would be 100 times greater again (or about 36 feet). Why two scopes? Well two is the minimum number needed (unless you want to built one gigantic telescope--which we couldn't build, or get into orbit).

I hope this answers your questions. Since that paragraph with the formula isn't very clear, I'll tell you to visit the following link for more clarity & detail:
www.madsci.org...

[edit on 9-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Resistance, realize that the above posting is just for illustrative purposes and is not the actual resolution of the HST on the moon. The HST can resolve details on the moon down to about 300 feet. In 1999 the HST was pointed at the moon and took some photos. Here is where one of those photos can be viewed: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Why the difference? Well, the simple formula I used is for calculating the Dawes limit of an Earth based telescope and the HST doesn't have to look through the Earth's atmosphere at all, so everything is going to be about 7 times clearer just on that basis alone. FYI, the Dawes limit is the closest two double stars can be to one another and still be seen as two separate images in a telescope. For another thing, I forgot to convert to Arc Seconds, so that divides everything by 60 since 60 arc secs equals 1 arc minute. Anyway, the above posting does get to the question about optical interferometry and the data I showed illustrates how that works.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 9-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Astronomer -- Thanks for going to so much trouble. I'm still looking to find out what the deal is, the actual true deal, on why the Hubbel can't see the moon's surface and what would actually be needed to rectify that. Got any answers on that one? (since all the figures you gave you say are hypothetical). Seems like a relatively simple solution to just improve the telescope so we can see the moon buggies and junk that got supposedly left behind by the astroNOTs.

The Moon is also moving as well as Hubble as it orbits the Earth, so it can't focus at one point at and take a pic at all really. It's just easier to have a satillite orbit the Moon and photograph the surface that way. Which NASA will be doing in 2006 I think?

Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Thanks for going to so much trouble. I'm still looking to find out what the deal is, the actual true deal, on why the Hubbel can't see the moon's surface and what would actually be needed to rectify that. Got any answers on that one? (since all the figures you gave you say are hypothetical). Seems like a relatively simple solution to just improve the telescope so we can see the moon buggies and junk that got supposedly left behind by the astroNOTs.

Resistance, if you look at the link just above the post I'm quoting, you can see a picture of the moon taken by the HST back in 1999. I think that link will also let you go to other pics as well.

As far as improving the HST so it can see the old landing sites, no can do. They would literally have to make the HST about 12 times larger than it is before those sites could be resolved by the optics. That would mean the HST would end up as a 30 meter telescope (by far the largest ever made). There simply isn't any way to loft something like that into orbit with our current technology. That's why I said to just put a 2nd one up there and link them.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Yeah, things have changed. We want to go back.

1. Water is at the poles.
2. Life doesn't exist without water.
3. Fuel for the rocket engine doesn't exist without water either.
4. Temperatures are more moderate (or controllable) at the poles.
5. Areas of perpetual shade exist at the poles. Great place to habitate.
6. Also good place for communications antenna arrays.
7. The moon has tremendous mineral resources, and plenty of it has been spotted on or close to the surface. Titanium, aluminum, and iron.
8. Helium-3 is right on the surface. Value is estimated at $5.7 million per kilogram. 15 billion per metric ton. (!!!!!)
9. Cargo ships could be rail-launched from the moon's surface cheaply.
Or with chemical rockets. Either way, it would be profitable.
10. Science in the moon's vaccuum is very very valuable.
11. I'd like to see a wide-array telescope for checking out planets around other star systems, built on the moon.
12. I'd also like to see a nuclear tunnel boring machine up there, to dig away and build under ground habitats.
13. Our technology has advanced to where we can minaturize equipment. (low weight). As well as the new ability to manufacture parts on demand without a lot of trouble. New advances in materials. Protection from vaccuum, heat, cold, and the occasional strike of a chunk of space junk.

It's doable, and we're going. Basically it's now seen as a profitable thing to do. The Chinese seem to think so. The Chinese have announced two (or three) different dates for their arrival on the Moon. The earliest of the arrival dates is basically one that beats us back. Not likely for an outfit that has barely got a few orbits under it's belt, and is roughly at the level of the Gemini program. The Russians will probably go with us.

Note: From what I've looked at for the Lunar north pole, the prime areas to habitate are really rather small. A small hill or ridge near the water, near the permanent shade, that is perpetually in the sunlight. This is where the solar arrays are set up for continuous power. There are also communications benefits from such a location. This is where we're going.

www.direct.ca...
www.spacelaw.com.au...

I'm assuming the US Air Force isn't already there. Just kidding...

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Thanks for going to so much trouble. I'm still looking to find out what the deal is, the actual true deal, on why the Hubbel can't see the moon's surface and what would actually be needed to rectify that. Got any answers on that one? (since all the figures you gave you say are hypothetical). Seems like a relatively simple solution to just improve the telescope so we can see the moon buggies and junk that got supposedly left behind by the astroNOTs.

Resistance, if you look at the link just above the post I'm quoting, you can see a picture of the moon taken by the HST back in 1999. I think that link will also let you go to other pics as well.

As far as improving the HST so it can see the old landing sites, no can do. They would literally have to make the HST about 12 times larger than it is before those sites could be resolved by the optics. That would mean the HST would end up as a 30 meter telescope (by far the largest ever made). There simply isn't any way to loft something like that into orbit with our current technology. That's why I said to just put a 2nd one up there and link them.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?

Star Pilot -- Stanley Kubrick could probably accomplish your goals -- in a make-believe Hollywood movie. As for NASA? They can't even send a shuttle up 200 miles into space without the tiles falling off, let alone send a spaceship to the moon and put men on it. In 2008 they say they're going to go scope out the landscape and try to figure out the radiation on the moon. Kinda late for that, don't you think? Since they already put men on the moon during a time of intense solar storms, you'd think they'd already have lots of information on that score already, not to mention information on good landing spots. Oh, well. They say they lost all their blueprints and information on the great technology they had 40 years ago. Too bad it was lost. What a shame.

Here is another thread that discusses the 2018 moon landing:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dear Don't Tread -- I'd post on it but I don't like the title of the thread. It is in violation of the Third Commandment. No one should mock Jesus or his name or people who believe in him, especially in the title of a thread. I don't think it's funny and I wouldn't dignify the thread with my presence.

I never said it's impossible to get to the moon, land some men there. I just said it didn't happen 40 years ago, and is not likely to happen for the next 100. I believe our government and military has technology to control the weather, and everybody thinks I'm crazy for believing that. So who's the one who has no belief in what technology can and can't do?

I'm just being a realist, and looking at the facts. Common sense would tell you that if we can't send a shuttle up 200 miles and bring it back safely that we sure as heck aren't ready to to go the moon. And the government does lie, in case people never noticed that fact. And the astroNOTs were all freemasons, 33 degree level, and anybody want to go check on that secret society they'll find they are devil worshippers.

So I think people who try to label Christians as ignorant, dull-witted robts who believe whatever their pastor tells them need to get off their bigoted high horses. Columbus was a Christian, and most all the valuable scientific discoveries were made by Christians. Not Buddhists, not crystal-gazers, not Mormons, not Muslims and not atheists. But Christians.

Solar radiation on the Moon will kill you. They had best dig in, or at least stay out of the direct line of sight to the Sun.
During the Apollo trips to the moon and back, if a solar flare had ever occured, they would have died or been seriously injured.
20cm of water or equivalent, is sufficent to shield you in space (or vacuum of the Moon). About 30 inches of water will shield you from a nuclear blast on the next block over. (ok, maybe a bit farther than that)

Damaging radiation is expressed as equivalent dose in units of sievert (Sv)
1 Sv = 100 rem
Dose in rem = Dose in rad x QF (qualifying factor of type of radiation effect)
Actuall absorbed dose is expressed in units of gray (Gy)
1 Gy = 100 rem
The dangerous radiation is called ionizing radiation.

Forms of ionizing radiation include:
* Gamma rays
* X rays
* Alpha particles
* Beta particles
* Neutrons.

Note: the Moon has "cold spots" that have low amounts of radiation. Guess where they are, they are at the north and south poles of the moon.

hps.org...
www.space.com...
science.nasa.gov...
lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu...
www.ccohs.ca...

Originally posted by resistance
Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?

Because there huge, all the galaxies and nebuas and whatnot that the Hubble has took dont need a mega telescope to see. Of course it can take pictures of a Galaxy...But it cant take pictures of planets inside that galaxy.

StarPilot -- You point out that radiation is very dangerous. Yet we supposedly sent astroNOTs to the moon five or six times 40 years ago, sent them in a lightweight spaceship with thin skin of aluminum during a time there was supposed to be lots of solar flares going on.

All trips were supposedly a piece of cake -- with the astroNOTs playing golf, bouncing around on a low tech moon buggy that was repaired with cardboard and duct tape supposedly -- on and on. They were able to take a bazillion pics, one every 50 seconds on average and all perfectly focused. They collected almost half a ton of moon rocks and did lots of other things besides, blasted off to meet the mother ship and came home. And all this was on TV for the world to watch while it was happening. And this was 40 years ago, but now supposedly we can't go back because we lost the blueprints.

You believe that?

Murcielago -- But their moon pics aren't that much better than what somebody can get in their back yard with a telescope.

Originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- But their moon pics aren't that much better than what somebody can get in their back yard with a telescope.

exactly...So why would you think that you could see the moon buggy and other things left behind.

BTW...I'm not sure if its annoying anyone else...But enough with the "NOT" thing...allright. Its spelled astronauts. and yes..., I got the pun you were going for.

Originally posted by Murcielago
BTW...I'm not sure if its annoying anyone else...But enough with the "NOT" thing...allright. Its spelled astronauts. and yes...

, I got the pun you were going for.

Thank you! Yes that's been bugging the hell out of me too. I just didn't want to be the one to say it. Maybe if the "NOT" wasn't in caps it wouldn't be so bad.

Yet we supposedly sent astroNOTs to the moon five or six times 40 years ago, sent them in a lightweight spaceship with thin skin of aluminum during a time there was supposed to be lots of solar flares going on.

Actually no. They were sent in a time of low solar activity.

Ok... I doubt you could find a bigger space buff than me. But, since the mid 70's NASA has been way off course. After the moon landings and the political climate changed space exploration was put on the back burner. Nixon basically killed the program due to the war in Vietnam and mounting political pressure.

The shuttle's promise of a cheap, reusable space craft was a lie from the start. Original estimates of cost per launch was below $25 million per launch . Actual cost since concept is over $1 billion per launch. As another blow, the cheaper and more efficient Staurn 5's were dismantled and scrapped. These behemoths had a larger lift capacity than that of the shuttle and were already fully tested.

As for the ground crew, well it still takes over 5 thousand people to get one off the ground.

For the future... NASA's a dead duck. Future explorations will be managed and controlled by corporations with the government taking a back seat. As of right now Burt Rutan has optioned the rights of his Spaceship 1 to Virgin . Why, could it be that it only took 20 people at a cost of 12 million to launch a private venture into space? Possible.

Now, trip to the moon and mars. Well, as I said the political climate changed in the mid 70's... at which time we could have gone to Mars with existant technologies. It wouldn't have been easy but could have been done. The moon on the otherhand should never have been left....

In my personal opinion, we have entered a conservative era with a "keep it close to home" attitude... in other words... Welcome to the New Dark Ages...

Originally posted by resistance

Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?

Resistance, on a clear night you can see the Andromeda Galaxy with your naked eyes and it is about 2.9 million light years away. Large telescopes can see fainter objects than you can with your eyes because as the diameter of the objective lens goes up the amount of light that can be gathered goes up by the same amount squared. Bear in mind though that at the tremendous distances to other stars and galaxies, the ability to see any great detail will become less and less as the distance to the object being viewed increases. Yes, we can gather enough light to see the things as much as a million or so times dimmer than your eyes can see, but what I said about resolution still holds true, so we can't make out much of the detail.

BTW, You're goint to have to define just what you mean by a "clear picture of the Moon." As I've already told you, and provided a link so you can go the site to see for yourself, the HST can see objects as small as about 300 feet across on the surface of the Moon--that is amazingly clear when you consider just how far away the dang thing is.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by Astronomer68]