Actually, the picture was taken by a camera placed there by Neil before he "first set foot on the surface". I can't remember right off hand which
documentary I heard that from, but in most cases, such as this, they put the camera out there to get the film, and then go about doing the "first
cut". The TV series "Survivorman" is a perfect example of this very thing. He has to record everything twice, just to get what he needs to into the
film.
Now onto something a bit closer to my heart...
To the poster that so vehemently disagrees with me about my comment about Hubble's ability to see:
Yes, you are indeed right about Hubble's resolution. According to
Nasa themselves:
For a telescope with a circular collecting area of diameter D (2.4 m for
Hubble), the smallest feature that one can resolve at wavelength L
(550 x 10^-9 m for visible light) is given roughly by:
resolution = 1.4 L/D = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians
This estimate gives the "diffraction limited" resolution, or the resolution
based on light's wave-like characteristics. It is difficult to improve
upon this limit.
The distance to the Moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Hubble's resolution
corresponds to a physical dimension of
size = x = 0.08 miles = 405 feet = 124 meters
at the Moon's surface ... roughly the size of a football field.
So, having seen and ingested all of that, you sir, are correct in that statement. I stand corrected.
However, how that applies to anything but that ONE post of mine is as yet undetermined. I am glad that you pointed that out though. I look forward to
debating with you when you come back, should the mods be so gracious as to allow you to return.
I did learn something though, and for that I can thank you..
Thanks man. I learned something.
For Democracy,
TheBorg
