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.

 

I was wrong, if this is right. apollo did land on the moon.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

blah, blah, blah....yet we still get )#*& black & white pictures and Hubble can't look at the moon to really see the landing craft that s/b still there..

try again plz.....


Yes, Hubble can look at the Moon, but track it's motion, no. The apparent motion of distant objects (hundreds, thousands of lightyears away etc) are easy to track. Imaging the Moon with Hubble would give you a nice grey streak of nothing.

As for crap B&W photos. Well, on a mission such as LRO's, weight, space, bandwidth, time, power etc, are at a premium. You can't afford (not just financially) to carry flashy high res colour cameras. Other instruments take priority. Imagine having to downlink tens of gigabytes of images. First you have to store the data, then its in a long queue with the rest of the other instrument data. Where are you going to get the required power from to transmit it all? Pretty pictures may be what Joe Public wants to see, but they are not much use to the scientific community. The pictures of the Apollo sites are merely a byproduct of the LRO mission.

S




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Speaking of Apollo and satellite images. A new image of Apollo 17 has just been released. It's at 53cm/pixel (the previous one was at 1.4m/pixel). Here's a link that shows some images from it. There's also link at the bottom of the page for the full image.


Thank you for this. Cant wait for the hoaxers thoughts on this. Of course it's photoshopped or maybe they went all out and took satellite images in a studio!



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
One thing about the moon landing that always amazed me was how they managed to fit a dune buggy on board, get it going and drive around the moon. Surely if you made this vehicle, you would let the world know, you made the car that runs in space. (think boeing made it)



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by brew8537
 

Here's the Owner's Manual:
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by brew8537
One thing about the moon landing that always amazed me was how they managed to fit a dune buggy on board, get it going and drive around the moon. Surely if you made this vehicle, you would let the world know, you made the car that runs in space...

There was empty wedge-shaped space on the Lunar module that was 5' high x 5' wide x 5' deep (shaped like a tall piece of pie). Amazingly, the Rover was designed to be able to fit into that existing space in the rover's "folded" position, and be able to be deployed/assembled by astronauts in 45 minutes.

The deployment instructions begin on page 97 of the pdf that phage linked.


...(think boeing made it)

It was a joint contract. General Motors designed the concept (including the rover's "foldablity" for stowage purposes, and its "spring action" deployment) and Boeing produced the working vehicle.


[edit on 11/2/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I would like to add something. Read the whole thing, it is relevant to this thread.

Some of you really need to know how a reflector telescope works..

Yes the Hubble has some great magnification abilities (digital for deep space and pure focal length for solar system) which makes it nice for taking pretty pictures of planets which is all fine and good, but what you guys don't seem to know is when it comes to space magnification means jack squat.

It's all about aperture! Aperture is the diameter of the scope. The bigger the diameter, the more light you can gather. The Hubble can gather TONS of light. That's how we get all those really neat pictures of distant objects.

To make this example, here is M42 (or the Orion Nebula) from the Hubble.



Here is M42 from an earth bound Dobsonian telescope (the Hubble is actually a massive Dobsonian telescope)



This is actually crappy and my Dobs looks better so a better example would be from an Observatory here on earth.



Make sure to compare.

The reason the Hubble image looks so much clearer is because the Hubble gathers so much light (and is not inside the atmosphere), they can actually magnify a small deep space image (not physical but digital magnification from outside computers) because of how much light the Hubble can absorb.

How is this relevant to this thread?

Well if you where to point the Hubble at the moon it's focal length would zoom you in heavily, but that's not the problem. The Hubble can catch so much light that the surface of the moon wouldn't even look like a blob, it would look like a pure white image.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by DaMod]




top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join