Modest New Moon Images Leave NASA Elated... really?

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Not into space exploration but will work on earth form more than potatoes.

Was that sentence written by an AI program?

Because it sure doesn't make a lick of sense...guess it fails the Turing test**

**

The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by weedwhacker


He is from a nation where English is not commonly spoken and is also not his primary language.

I doubt he is an artificial Intelligence - maybe he is a space alien

In any case, I would also like teslaandlyne to rephrase his last post - it appears to have been garbled translation.


*Would you please do that for us teslaandlyne?

I enjoy your posts, but I cannot understand this one.

Thanks in advance!

reply to post by LunarLooney1




Ground based telescopes and the Hubble are built for light gathering power not magnification iirc the max magnification from Hubble is about 5000x .Moon distance varies between 225,000 - 252,000 miles divided by 5000 would still look 45-50 miles away

Re your quote you said

"If you read the article you'll come to the conclusion that the technology being used now as far as video is concerned, can take a picture of a freckle on my butt from the Moon."

How big would your butt be from 45-50 miles?
To see your butt from the Moon it Must be HUGE!

reply to post by wmd_2008



The Hubble had the ability to perform Earth Observation. I remember being astonished when it was announced years ago that it had broken.
Just a year or two prior NASA had made a statement that the moon was too close for Hubble to observe.

Help me out here, which is Hubble closer to, Earth or the Moon?

reply to post by Cyberbian


Great point - don't hold your breath on getting an answer off that one though

Manchester Lunar Program pictures I have from a BOOK (A new Photographic Atlas Of The Moon - Zdenek Kopal (1971) show some VERY close detailed views of the Moon - better than NAZAs recent attempts BTW. ...

reply to post by Cyberbian

Hubble is obviously closer to the Earth than to the Moon, it's in orbit around the Earth, at an altitude of 559 km.

I never heard about the possibility of taking photos of the Earth, after all, Hubble was not made for that.

It would be good if you could point to where NASA said that Hubble was too close to take photos of the Moon, although they do not look that good, you can see several here, here, here and here (resolution on that last photo is said to be 600ft, very low when compared with missions specifically made to photograph the Moon).

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Can you tell us the source of the photos for that book, that could be helpful.

Thanks.

reply to post by ArMaP



Thank you (obrigado!) for your excellent work as always, ArMaP. It's great to see baseless rumours and innuendo brought down to size.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow:

Great point - don't hold your breath on getting an answer off that one though

[edit on 6/28/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Cyberbian
The Hubble had the ability to perform Earth Observation.

I believe you are mistaken on this. I don't think Hubble is capable of imaging Earth at all. And it's not good for taking images of the Moon either. It's meant for deep space imaging.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Manchester Lunar Program pictures I have from a BOOK (A new Photographic Atlas Of The Moon - Zdenek Kopal (1971) show some VERY close detailed views of the Moon - better than NAZAs recent attempts BTW.

...

As has been stated numerous times. The recent photos from NASA were not taken from the proper altitude nor were they taken with a high resolution camera. Just wait a few weeks until some of the test images from NASA's LRO are released.

reply to post by LunarLooney1


yeah, they're totally insulting everyones intelligence in suggesting thos are the best pictures of the moon they can get. ive always w ondered why ive never seen a decent picture of the moon. sure we have the capability to see it; yet nothing. its obvious they have to be hiding something.

the problem is; if people dont realize their intelligence is being insulted; does that make them dumb? or just unobservant?

its criminal how little they teach kids at school. it was never mentioned to me at school that the moon rang like a bell when seismic tests were done on it - suggesting it might be rather hollow inside; or anything else about the other anomalies.. i guess the idea is they are trying to 'protect us'; but if we dont know from what; how can we know if they really are protecting us or not...maybe its better we DO know the truth, whatever it is??

school is apparantly about brainwashing. does anyone find that disturbing? i do.

reply to post by rapunzel222


rapunzel, did you just read the OP on page 1, and then post without reading ALL of the rest???

You see, that is what's known as being ignorant.

The OP's assertions have been addressed, and shown to be incorrect.

AND, as to the Moon 'ringing like a bell' ... not on topic, but it is just another one of those 'Urban Legends' that form from ignorance and misunderstanding.

Bells are hollow; the Moon is not. BUT, because of its composition, seismic readings are different than then seen on Earth. This is due to the internal make-up of the two planets being different.

Here's an experiment for you to try: Find a big rock, lay your ear against it, and hit it with a hammer. (The rock! NOT your ear! )

Listen for that stone to 'ring like a bell', then check to see if it's hollow.

Originally posted by rapunzel222
reply to post by LunarLooney1

 

yeah, they're totally insulting everyones intelligence in suggesting thos are the best pictures of the moon they can get....

...the problem is; if people dont realize their intelligence is being insulted; does that make them dumb? or just unobservant?...

I wasn't insulted because I knew exactly what this part of LCROSS's mission entailed (i.e., it was never meant to take "the best pictures of the Moon they could possibly get"). This part of the mission was designed to get the Moon's gravity to pull LCROSS into the proper orbit for its October close encounter.

...its criminal how little they teach kids at school...

You may think it's criminal what they teach in school, but as I said in an earlier post, I think it's sad how many ATS members (who are supposedly the ones paying attention to science news) don't actually take the time to learn about the subject matter we are discussing here on ATS.

It may not quite be criminal, but it IS very depressing to see the general scientific ignorance displayed by some ATS members.

For the record:
LCROSS is NOT supposed to take the best pictures humans can possibly take...NASA's LRO (The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) is designed to do that -- and as you know (if you were paying attention -- or don't know, as the case may be) the LRO is a totally separate spacecraft that was launched at the same time -- and on the same rocket -- as LCROSS.

The LRO spacecraft contains the super-high-resolution camera that wil be able to resolve surface features less than a meter across, which is a much high resolution than ANY spacecraft ever sent to the Moon. The LRO will start taking photos withing the next several weeks.

The LCROSS, on the other hand, has infrared and visible light cameras (of modest resolution) and spectrometers. A super-high-resolution camera is not at all required for LCROSS to carry out its mission, which is to crash its upper-stage (cruising stage) engine into the South Pole region of the Moon and look at the plume of debris caused by the impact, to see what's there (possibly water-ice). It would be a waste of money for LCROSS to have had a very high-res camera.

So -- no -- NASA did not insult anyone's intelligence with these pictures. I personally thought they were beautiful, because they were "real-time" live images of the far-side of the Moon.


[edit on 6/28/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Cyberbian
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The Hubble had the ability to perform Earth Observation. I remember being astonished when it was announced years ago that it had broken.
Just a year or two prior NASA had made a statement that the moon was too close for Hubble to observe.

Help me out here, which is Hubble closer to, Earth or the Moon?

My reply was about using Hubble or ground based telescopes to photograph the Moon so I gave information based on that question IF you cant read and understand information given thats not my problem and IT seems your question has already been answered by others