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.

 

A proposed telescope that will finally see the Apollo modules on the Moon!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I don't think this telescope is large enough to make out any of the leftover hardware at the Apollo landing sites. You would need a telescope to be at least 100m in diameter just to make out the LM and the LRV according to the math on this site:

calgary.rasc.ca...

But it would still be nice to have a telescope that big. I hope it can be built.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



Go from Earth orbit to the Moon in a capable rover with TV worldwide viewing.


They did that already. It was called Apollo.


Hey just trying to help out the non Apolloists.
You can't support going back just say so.


It costs money to go to the Moon. What would we gain from doing so? You realize we have a rover on Mars right? I don't think you have thought this through.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



Go from Earth orbit to the Moon in a capable rover with TV worldwide viewing.


They did that already. It was called Apollo.


Hey just trying to help out the non Apolloists.
You can't support going back just say so.


It costs money to go to the Moon. What would we gain from doing so? You realize we have a rover on Mars right? I don't think you have thought this through.


Yes I have.
A Moon Vehicle going into Earth orbit is the first step.
Then go to Moon instead of Mars.
Traverse the Moon to see whats on the ground.
Simple celebration of the Moon Landing.

We get nonsense form Mars anyway and can't explain what we see so they
avoid saying anything as usual.
The Moon should be riddled with rocks like Mars and parts of Earth that have
cosmic origins they will not own up to only their own ideas or silence as
if they see no problem here.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


There should have been a Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon decades ago - and if the landings really took place as NASA described by means of the Apollo missions - there surely would have been. Logic dictates it!
The mission to Mars is a pictorial ruse designed to deflect/distract away from the fact that there never was a moon landing. If there really was an Apollo mission most of the attention would obviously have been pointed in that direction. Forty some years and ZIP - NADA - Think about Hubble and how much more tremendously successful it could have been were it a moon based operation rather than just being several hundred miles in space v. about 240,000. If the moon mission were real we would be seeing many other moon based scientific/cosmic experiments as well. It's all a hoax foax.

A Fine Example Of "In Your Face" NASA Arrogance In posting such an image they are actually laughing at you. The Nazi's at NASA have never changed their ways. Von Braun had all of you fooled and unfortunately - most deserve it for participating in such a massive deception.



edit on 10-9-2012 by de_Genova because: add pic



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Yes the movers and shakers pay for whatever dreams and propaganda plans exist.
We plan for Mars and ignore the Moon.
Mars is just as impossible and dangerous in every aspect as the Moon still is.
And a lot closer to test any space ships.

As you are suspicious and others are of space planers in the logic and priorities that
are presented I find perhaps more than that in their motives.

I for one side with those that suggest the secret true space has already been invented.
Of course the technology is very powerful and was perhaps very eager to be used by
von Braun in his desire to go to the Moon or Mars. A vehicle that develops force from
nature however can only be utilized with the plans of the inventor. Indeed remote
testing and control would be possible. The idea of using a rocket landing on a
jet of hot gasses is foolish in my book but given as plans for people to hold on to and
people go along with what they are told.

Thus something is going on in a space conspiracy of sorts. Well the conspiracy just
happens to engross all of science and industry and finance perhaps as one author
in a sweeping work of research has suggested.
edit on 9/10/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I didn't say anything about a telescope on the Moon in my last post but of course its
a great idea. As we are on the Moon take some lander photos. Perhaps that is not wanted.

Do you think the astronauts seeing no stars from the Moon is now a way of hiding
behind that 'fact' and will never suggest a telescope on the Moon or find one materialize.

Again without a true space ship to haul heavy equipment might be a problem but the
Hubble might be moved and even the parts for a new Hubble can be moved from orbit
to the Moon.

A powered space ship would do nicely but the governments of the free world are against
using such a ship.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


In keeping with your snetiments as to fakery and fraud on the part of the powers that be - especially at Nazi/NASA -

Even the entire science of orbital mechanics as taught in the mainstream university system is most likely fraudulent science/astrophysics -- big beyond the wildest dreams of the average onlooker. Big to the point where you can be sure of the demonic forces conjured by the likes of the founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jack Parsons, and of Aleister Crowley, OTO club president who are surely involved from the very beginning. ( SEE HERE JPL -- The occult roots of NASA) The degree and THE persistence of the great deceptions involved in rocket science Makow as he tells it straight up when he says "The world is in the malignant grip of a satanic cult.".
www.henrymakow.com...


edit on 10-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


There should have been a Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon decades ago



Can you NOT see why that's a bad idea think about it really hard



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by de_Genova
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


There should have been a Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon decades ago



Can you NOT see why that's a bad idea think about it really hard


Bad idea. To who.
Bad would be:
Instead assembly in orbit the astronauts would have to live on the Moon for
construction. Unless a one time fully constructed telescope could be put
in place. I don't know about daily sky opportunity in orbit as opposed to being
a fixture on the Moon, that would have to be investigated.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Well I found a lot of counter intelligence, that is making things counter to us being intelligent,
in the conspiracy research of William R. Lyne as far as technology concealment and the
obvious working of powers to hide what they obtained. A lot of it was dumb luck and
happenstance in a very strange tale but the technology winds up being controlled the richest
powers on Earth.

I have heard about some of what you posted on the net years ago so it does not go away like
people promoting aliens or taking the official version of the Moon Landing or the 911 attacks
and perhaps many more controversies.

Well there is the God and non God (devil) or the good and bad points of view such that why
incriminate yourself when holding on to a power that might put your own business out of
business. Buy up patents and never use the technology is a common way of life to keep
on top. Such is the world as God made it and we realize it. Such is also complaining about
many propagandized ideas that can't be true but never works to change the world.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
There should have been a Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon decades ago

I'm not sure what the advantages would be. Can you please explain why the moon would be a better place of a telescope than somewhere in space closer to Earth?


Think about Hubble and how much more tremendously successful it could have been were it a moon based operation rather than just being several hundred miles in space v. about 240,000.

Please explain why 240,000 miles is so much better than 350 miles.

The point of putting it somewhere other than the Earth's surface is to get away from the distortion of Earth's atmosphere, and at 350 miles out, it is away from 99.99% of the distorting atmosphere. I really don't understand how putting it on the moon would make that better.

The advantages to having it in orbit close to Earth is the ease of deployment and the ease of maintenance. The cost of deployment and maintenance of a Moon telescope would be very high. Maybe someday, but no time in the near future.


edit on 9/10/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by de_Genova
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


There should have been a Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon decades ago



Can you NOT see why that's a bad idea think about it really hard


Bad idea. To who.
Bad would be:
Instead assembly in orbit the astronauts would have to live on the Moon for
construction. Unless a one time fully constructed telescope could be put
in place. I don't know about daily sky opportunity in orbit as opposed to being
a fixture on the Moon, that would have to be investigated.




Once again a stark lack of logic applied, telescopes are for observing why put it on a lump of rock that takes 28 days approx to revolve on its own axis.

When in orbit you can point it where you want within reason.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by de_Genova
 
Well I found a lot of counter intelligence, that is making things counter to us being intelligent, in the conspiracy research of William R. Lyne as far as technology concealment and the obvious working of powers to hide what they obtained. A lot of it was dumb luck and happenstance in a very strange tale but the technology winds up being controlled the richest powers on Earth. .....I have heard about some of what you posted on the net years ago so it does not go away like people promoting aliens or taking the official version of the Moon Landing or the 911 attacks and perhaps many more controversies.....Well there is the God and non God (devil) or the good and bad points of view such that why incriminate yourself when holding on to a power that might put your own business out of business. Buy up patents and never use the technology is a common way of life to keep on top. Such is the world as God made it and we realize it. Such is also complaining about many propagandized ideas that can't be true but never works to change the world.


For a clearer understanding of the total and complete usurpation of 'science' in the west we have to know about the role of the Masonic Orders with respect to the workings of the Royal Society of London. Through the secretive Freemasonic networks, the Royal Society was formed in London, under a royal warrant from Charles II in 1662. It was the world’s first assembly of scientists and engineers, and it was to be the dominating influence in the west as to the direction ‘science' would be taking for the next several hundred years. Virtually all the early members of the Royal Society were Freemasons who knew that that direction was flawed and untrue. No doubt the same applies today.

The ‘father’ of the Royal Society, who was said to be its inspiration before he ‘died’ (or moved locations), was Francis Bacon, the top Rosicrucian, translator of the Bible, and architect of Freemasonry.
The Royal Society Masonic stalwarts also included:
Isaac Newton, the Rosicrucian Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, who became a fellow in 1672.
Lord Moray, a Scottish Freemason.
Elias Ashmole, one of the first registered Freemasons.
Andrew Michael ‘Chevalier’ Ramsey, a leading figure of Freemasonry, who was admitted to the Royal Society without any scientific qualifications whatsoever. Another fellow was John Byrom, a Freemason and member of the Cabala Club, also known as the Sun Club.

I am not sure about Michael Faraday with respect to Masonic involvement, but I know that he was obedient to his confreres in the Society for it was because of their beneficence that he was able to live a comfortable life.
edit on 10-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Do you think the astronauts seeing no stars from the Moon is now a way of hiding
behind that 'fact' and will never suggest a telescope on the Moon or find one materialize.


I believe seeing no stars on the Moon was due to the astronauts being on the day side of the Moon, under the blazing sunlight. To see stars, you need to be in darkness and have your eyes adjusted to the darkness.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



For a clearer understanding of the total and complete usurpation of 'science' in the west we have to know about the role of the Masonic Orders with respect to the workings of the Royal Society of London. Through the secretive Freemasonic networks, the Royal Society was formed in London, under a royal warrant from Charles II in 1662. It was the world’s first assembly of scientists and engineers, and it was to be the dominating influence in the west as to the direction ‘science' would be taking for the next several hundred years. Virtually all the early members of the Royal Society were Freemasons who knew that that direction was flawed and untrue. No doubt the same applies today.


How do you know they knew it was "flawed and untrue," and if it is "flawed and untrue." why does it work?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Do you think the astronauts seeing no stars from the Moon is now a way of hiding
behind that 'fact' and will never suggest a telescope on the Moon or find one materialize.


I believe seeing no stars on the Moon was due to the astronauts being on the day side of the Moon, under the blazing sunlight. To see stars, you need to be in darkness and have your eyes adjusted to the darkness.


On the Moon there is no atmosphere for the Sun to obscure the stars.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Do you think the astronauts seeing no stars from the Moon is now a way of hiding
behind that 'fact' and will never suggest a telescope on the Moon or find one materialize.


I believe seeing no stars on the Moon was due to the astronauts being on the day side of the Moon, under the blazing sunlight. To see stars, you need to be in darkness and have your eyes adjusted to the darkness.


On the Moon there is no atmosphere for the Sun to obscure the stars.


But there is the sunlit landscape, as well as the Sun itself. The astronauts even had tinted visors to protect their eyes.

When this is what you see, your eyes can't adjust to see the stars.


edit on 12-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Hey, how can we have all the technology and not yet have one of these?

Hmm more money when we can use what we already got



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I still don't understand what the advantage would be for having a telescope on the moon, as opposed to having one in space, but closer to Earth.

For example, a telescope in space can theoretically look in every direction, all around it. A telescope on the moon could only see the stars that are visible from the direction the moon is facing at that particular time. That would be about only 1/2 of the total sky at any given time. A space telescope can look almost everywhere at any given time (except at the part of space in the direction of the Sun).

That along with the cost of deploying such a telescope makes me again ask: what is the advantage?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by wildespace
 


OK -- I must have misunderstood you.

You are right in saying that it would be nice in general to have a ground-based telescope that is good enough to see the equipment on the Moon. However, there really is no huge need to do that specific task, considering we can get a better view from the LRO.


edit on 9/6/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: speellling, and. grammar

Well, if you look at the article the-colossus.com... there are many other applications, such as seeing the discs of stars, better detection of exoplanets, studying black holes, and definitely much more.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join