 |
|
Topic started on 9-11-2002 @ 11:44 AM by stewards
|
I was earlier browsing on the website, WWW. the konformist. com.
they said in one of their links that NASA refuse to point the Hubble space telescope at the Moon.
Is this true? if so then why do they refuse?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 01:26 PM by William
|
Because it's too bright for Hubble's internal components... would cause damange.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 06:28 PM by FreeMason
|
Don't forget, it is also like trying to read with binoculars.
Hubble has enough hard time viewing our own planets, let alone something as close to the moon....such incredible focusing power limits its ability to
see near objects.
Sincerely,
no signature
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 10:31 PM by MidnightDStroyer
|
...Sorta like not being able to see the trees because of the forest...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 10:36 PM by The General
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 10:38 PM by Inspectah
|
Once again, because its too close, and secondly, because we can use other, less powerful telescopes to look at it, instead of wasting the hubbles
time, which is supposed to be spent looking at distant galaxies and crap like that
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 11:14 PM by FreeMason
|
Which by the way, those images are incredible!!!!
oposite.stsci.edu...
Sincerely,
no signature
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-11-2002 @ 11:26 PM by William One Sac
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-11-2002 @ 04:47 AM by FreeMason
|
Not once does this butter ball think to say that naturally a meteorite impact creates an up lift in the center of the crater...and besides, that
phrase...a picture is worth a thousand words...it should be modified to...
THE ORIGINAL PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!
Because the original picture clearly shows this...and yet he twists and manipulates the pictures into his own fancy.
Another thing, that crater is at least 300 miles wide, making the city VERY BIG!
Woah man...domes can't get that big, too much risk.
Sincerely,
no signature
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-11-2002 @ 05:31 AM by All Seeing Eye
|
Originally posted by William
Because it's too bright for Hubble's internal components... would cause damange. 
You mean to tell me Nasa cant afford filters?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-11-2002 @ 05:40 AM by FreeMason
|
Actually they can't....look at how long it took for them to put the inhancing lenses into the hubble.
Remember...NASA's manned space budget is about 8 billion dollars....each shuttle launch is about a billion and a half, and then there is ground
maitenence, that money gets spent fast.
Right now the ISS is the priority
Sincerely,
no signature
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-11-2002 @ 08:23 PM by MidnightDStroyer
|
Let me get this straight, FM...You think that he should've said:  THE ORIGINAL PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!  ...And then shut the
#3ll up, right?
Very much agreed...His story could've been much more believable if he'd merely taken a more closeup shot of that part of the moon & not mucked
around with the photo. It seems that he hasn't figured out that by monkeying around with Photoshop that much, he simply *makes* his story more
unbelievable.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-11-2002 @ 09:07 PM by William One Sac
|
You should really check out the rest of "her" site (Its a young woman who does that) Its really quite entertaining!  The funny thing is I am not
quite sure if she is serious or not. Check out the robotization and lobotomy jobs that were done to the snipers!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-11-2002 @ 01:26 PM by Monty342
|
is anyone else seeing those 'images' she claims are in the pictures, or am i the only one who thinks she's slightly crazy?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-11-2002 @ 01:29 PM by William One Sac
|
Slightly? You sir are the master of understatement!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |