Apollo Hardware Spotted!, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 55 times


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 08:03 PM by obilesk
reply to post by Blaine91555


I see. So couldn't we put bigger lens with a huge light on an orbiter? I see that at some point we get into the realm of having such a big rocket that we might-as-well send a crew there to take ground shots (which would be fine with me), but then we are right back to where we started with all the "It's all fake footage taken in Arizona" or some suchness.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 08:08 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by obilesk


I think it would require a large telescope placed in orbit. I'd imagine the cost would be staggering.

A light that bright would I think require a huge power supply and be totally untenable.

The biggest issue must be financial. Space Exploration has not been too high on the agenda for many years. I think it is a shame that that is true.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 08:18 PM by obilesk
reply to post by Blaine91555


I agree. It's obvious we aren't that interested in exploring space with the technology we posses. I think it is more important to work on our problems down here first, despite my fascination with space. But it's just sad that we spend anything at all if we can't spend what needs to be spent. And yet, we can't fix our problems down here - that much is certain.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 08:22 PM by Pauligirl
Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Blaine91555


I aimed to please . There were a couple of things that began to sway me away from the possibility of 'we landed on the moon'- but one thing that swayed me back was that jackass who got punched out by Neil Armstrong. a) he was well over the top, and the look on Armstrong's face said it all: " I went to the moon, moron. What more do you want?!"
My moments of fuzziness were the Japanese moon pics. Supposedly high def, ect- and I couldn't find so much as a pinprick that looked like a lander. Turns out THOSE are 3d rendered, for whatever insane reason.... Used the data, made cute little 3d models out of it.


I think it was Aldrin that punched out Sibrel.
www.newsweek.com...
On those occasions when the men involved in the Apollo landings have been approached directly by deniers, it's led to calamity. Bart Sibrel, the filmmaker behind the Moon Hoax movie, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, once approached Buzz Aldrin and taunted him, calling him a "coward," "liar," and "thief." Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, had one response: a punch in the face. Ed Mitchell, an astronaut on Apollo 14, reportedly kicked a denier in the rear once. Eugene Cernan, who flew on Apollo 17, had a more elegant solution, plainly saying, "Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me."

But I’m surprised he didn’t get punched more than once.
gershkuntzman.homestead.com...
Make that ex-astronauts. According to Aldrin’s lawyer, Robert O’Brien, Sibrel has been stalking many former Apollo astronauts. Neil Armstrong cursed him out once. Al Bean had to throw him out of his house. Even Al Worden, whom I like to consider “The Forgotten Moonwalker,” got the Bible treatment.

Pull out the list of men who have walked on the moon and Sibrel has stalked them all, said O’ Brien.




reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 08:37 PM by ngchunter
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by obilesk

I suspect the problem to be lens size. I can shoot a clear shot of a car from about 1,000 yards with a 1,000mm lens and an exstention tube, but it requires a lot of light and no motion on top of the extremely limiting size of the lens. To shoot in motion in low light and get any good results would require a very large lens. My first guess is that is the issue.

They have a .195m lens for the narrow angle camera, basically the same size as my telescope. The thing is, it's f/3.59. Why? Well for one thing, as you mentioned, they are in motion, so you need fast exposures to avoid blurring due to the satellite's orbital speed. That means the same size 'telescope' lens could be magnified more if it had more focal length with a slower f ratio (like my own f/10 telescope), but the images would be blurred and useless or so fast in exposure that they'd be underexposed. Furthermore, the kind of resolution enhancement you'd get would be on par with the kind they're going to get just by dropping into a lower final mission orbit; that kind of gain is unlikely to please those who aren't already pleased.

Theoretically you could orbit the moon with a much bigger telescope with the same F/ratio and have a camera with an insane amount of megapixels (5,000 something pixels wide on a CCD like with LROC is already pushing the limit on what we have that's certified as radiation hardened I think), but you're looking at a much bigger satellite at that point, more like a tradiational spy sat 14 times as massive as LRO, so you're basically launching the same magnitude of mass to the moon as a manned mission anyway.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 09:29 PM by ngchunter
reply to post by conar


The apollo 17 image is about 40% lower in spatial resolution than the Apollo 14 image. We won't easily see rover tracks until LRO settles into its lower mission orbit. Incidently I do think I see some of the rover track in the west bound direction, but it's really tough to say for sure.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 09:34 PM by wylekat
reply to post by Pauligirl


That guy got abused more than Wile E Coyote. I lost track who punched, yelled, cursed, called him names, cursed and yelled some more, threatened legal action.....

It stands, tho... Act like a fool and you'll be treated like one.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^