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.

 

Telescopic Images

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I have a question pertaining to telescopic images from earth or satallite.

2 questions are: 1. The face on Mars and 2. The lunar landings.

Why isn't it possible to take a detailed picture from a telescope here on earth of either of those? Why can't we aim the Hubble telescope at Mars or something of that nature. Why do we have to rely on NASA images?




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I recall reading something a long time ago about this. The hubble is designed to look at distant areas. The moon and Mars are too close. Sort of like a camera that isn't designed to take close up pics of bugs and flowers. Would need a different lens. Anybody got any more information about this?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I agree with kyred. It's because the Hubble telescope is so powerful.
It's like me aiming my binoculars at something 1ft away....simply can't see anything, it's all blurry.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Its a pretty simple concept. But a good question none-the-less.

Go buy yourself a telescope my friend



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
From what I understand, the HST cannot photograph the moon with direct sunlight on the lunar surface. It can however take pictures of a new moon with just earth reflection hitting it.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
What about observatories on earth? Can they take decent pictures of the lunar landing site or even more intriguing the face on mars? and why not? What other satellites are there orbiting Mars? Isnt' there a european sat taking pictures as well?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure it is impossible to resolve that level of detail from Earth (to the moon) because of the properties of light. Do you know that reflector experiment on the Lunar surface? Well they fire a very precise laser at it and look at the light reflected back (to measure the distance).

Now if I remember correctly the beam leaves the Earth very narrow - but by the time it hits the moon it covers something like 5oo square meters... That's because the light spreads out. So there will be a limit to the size of features on the moon you can view even if you had the most powerful scope in the world, from here you could only ever resolve features something like 4-500 meters across and larger.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
here bro, I will never deny that this is all real, cause I belive in God and Coincedences but I never seen either

FACE ON MARS


WARNING MIND EXPANSION IS IMMINENT



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jb0311NY
 


Sweet! Thank you!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I learn something new every day.
Hubble has looked at the moon

www.nasa.gov...

The Hubble telescope is known for its views of faraway galaxies, distant planets, dying stars, and black holes. Hubble's snapshots of the moon, however, represent the first time that scientists have used the telescope to support human space exploration. Scientists enlisted Hubble's help because they needed to use ultraviolet light to help find signatures of lunar materials enriched in oxygen. Since ultraviolet light is blocked by gases in the Earth's atmosphere, ground-based telescopes can't use it to observe the lunar surface. But Hubble, orbiting above Earth's atmosphere, can see in ultraviolet light> The telescope mapped variations in reflections of ultraviolet light off the lunar surface to search for specific mineral fingerprints........

.......The Apollo descent stages left on the lunar surface are too small to be seen by Hubble, which can see objects as small as 60-75 yards, about three-quarters the length of a soccer field. The left-behind descent stages are only about the size of a small truck.

These observations weren't easy. The moon is a difficult target for Hubble because it moves across the sky faster than Hubble can track it and is very dim in ultraviolet light. The observations required steady, precise, as well as long exposures to search for the resources. In spite of these challenges, Hubble was able to image all of its targets, and early results show that Hubble can detect ilmenite at the Apollo 17 site from 248,000 miles (400,000 km) away.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


So tell me what you think about this stuff man?

Did you see the vatican look like the key to the stars? Or how all the star maps are all to the same point? The mars point was the capper for me becuase I always thought Life was on mars.. and nowthe Methane and microbes cant be covered up!!!!

So what do you think?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jb0311NY
 


I don't know. I need to do some further readings on that. I've been mainly looking at the face on mars and the arguments that its artificial or natural. Also freaked out by the youtube video. Trying to debunk that right now by finding out who she is. Does anyone know? Next i'm on to the symbols of the helocopter and spacecaft. Is there a good thread here on that? I must admit i'm a skeptic but my mind is open.


edited to add that I was looking at the truthism.com as well. I confuse myself sometimes! lol

[edit on 16-3-2009 by amazing]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Shouldn't this thread be in the Space Exploration forum.. it's a good thread, but I fail to see what it has to with Aliens & UFOs.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Check out that web address I posted above, i belive that we are from other worlds now as the star maps all coincide with this.

Perhaps no cigar shapes or greys here, but I belive that I found this and the Terra papers on the same day and I never saw a coincedence.. kawinkydinky I dont thinky

Semper Fi... Just dont ask me to explain why



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
Check out that web address I posted above

Thanks, I will check out this website for sure.. I'm deeply interesting in stuff like this.

You should check out this one also; marsanomalyresearch.com...

Peace


[edit on 17/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
Check out that web address I posted above

Thanks, I will check out this website for sure.. I'm deeply interesting in stuff like this.

You should check out this one also; marsanomalyresearch.com...

Peace


[edit on 17/3/09 by Majorion]



WHOA great page and I've only seen it for a few mikes.

I love the picto-rocks... Wait its a bird... no wait a reptile, its a raptor... no wait a gorrilla... PLANET OF THE APES!!! I didnt know apes existed in this galaxy... I have to make some phone calls.....



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
There is quite a number of things i want to have a look at for myself...
You can get the equipment albeit it will cost you in the order of 7000$. which poses a problem. At least for me its hard to just go out and buy such a telescope just now...
Even if there is nothing weird to see the skys are still beautifull.
However i guess there is a good chance you saw something out of the ordinary with such a strong eye!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The ability of a telescope to 'see' fine detail on a distant object is determined by several factors: The quality of the optical system (mirrors, lenses) and how close to perfection they are. No man made system is 'perfect' but they are near enough on today's instruments. The second factor is the limit imposed by the wave nature of light. A point of light from one side of the object's detail will be focussed as a small disc by the telescope. It cannot form a single point image. This is caused by diffraction and creates the well known Airy Disc image. So a point of light received from the other side of the detail also creates a disc. Visually, the detail is blurred and nothing can prevent this limitation. So a star many light years distance can only be seen as an Airy Ring when focussed through any telescope. In theory, the star should be a single point of light.

A mathematical explanation of optical resolution and the Airy Disc can be found HERE

If you can reduce the size of the Airy Disc, the telescope will see smaller details. To do this, you increase the diameter of the light gathering system, usually a parabolic mirror of one type or another. This allows the angle subtended by light rays from the detail to be increased. Think of it as an isosceles triangle with its apex at the point of detailon the distant object and the base being the optical mirror. In large telescopes this allows angles of resolution to be reduced to fractions of a second of arc. (A second of arc is on sixtieth of a minute of arc. A minute of arc is one sixtieth of one degree).

Of course you can't see details which subtend angles smaller than the angle or resolution of the telescope. I think this is really the crux to answering the question about seeing the Moon landings or the 'face' on Mars. The object details are simply too far away for Earth based telescopes to resolve them. The Mars face for example probably subtends an angle of a few millionths of a second of arc. It will never be seen by an Earth based telescope because we cannot build optical 'scopes big enough.

WG3



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 



Nice stuff on there! Hours of research! lol Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join