Alleged spacecraft/objects on moon

Originally posted by Donoso

Originally posted by Proct0r
Those are called satellites, they orbit our planet.

I'm an amateur astronomer and astrophotographer and I take a ton of pictures of the moon. I've taken many pictures of the moon, and I've never seen anything like that on the moon.

I know a lot of astrophotographers who have problems with long exposures and satellites ruining their pictures with lines.

Exactly. That's my true stance on these pictures. I'd really love to get the location of that "object" on the moon surface though. It *looks* like it's sitting on the surface with a root hanging off, but, it could very well be a tricky shot.

The only issue I have with some of the images is that they have parts which don't belong on the satellites I've witnessed. Mainly the "orbs" with dangling pieces. Could be a focus issue, though.

I would love to get the location also as I could easily debunk this on the next full moon, or other moons.

it would be nice is the pics where more clear so we can see wat the craft looked like

Here's a picture of mine of the moon:

img120.imageshack.us...


[edit on 14-6-2007 by Proct0r]

Unfortunately, it's very cloudy here in M.A right now or I'd go outside to take some snap shots.

Actually, most of the MEADE telescopes such as mine (ETX-60A) follows its target (go-to) and they're fairly cheap. The issue is, they're very clunky and annoying to operate most of the time, but, once calibrated they work fine. In fact, these telescopes are what is offered first to beginners because they're fairly easy to use and don't require star maps. The controller has the orbiters programmed into it, but, if you don't then you can program it in yourself via coordinates.

The images of the ISS differ in no way from this guy's images. I don't believe that saying "case closed" at this point is shooting before asking questions.

Referring to the "moon tower" photo. I just noticed that based on the curvature of the lunar surface this tower is spanning a huge distance. Wouldn't it be visable from earth, or through any cheap low powered telescope?

I'm not an expert by any means, but I thought that you can make judgements of the size of a structure like this based on the curvature of the surface of the moon (or planet if earth).

I see that the curvature of the moon is very pronounced in that photo, and it seems like we cannot see great details of the lunar surface. If this was a photo of a structure on the earth (in comparison), the top of the structure would be in our upper atmosphere, or enter space.

Anyone see what I'm saying?

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Electro38]

Originally posted by Electro38
Anyone see what I'm saying?

Exactly why I requested for the coordinates. It should be visible with standard binoculars. It's amazing to think that he's the first to spot this vast tower while there are hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers, moon watchers, even sky watchers looking at the moon right now who can't see it.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Donoso]

I dont know about anyone else, but doesnt the orb on the far right of the picture marked raw footage have a very human face look to it?bergle

[edit on 14-6-2007 by bergle]

I can definately see some of the pics just being satellites, for example compare these.


Lenard's picture above,

with Nick Gilbert's below


But some of the others... I don't know...


Doesn't look like any satellites I've heard of before, and it looks HUGE.

Ref. The "Moon Tower";
Could it just be a ploy to get people interested in a website, or product sold on a website?

I wonder if anyone could estimate how much space on the lunar surface that structure would occupy, based on the moon's curvature in the photo?

If you could estimate the distance it occupies across the surface, we can then estimate its height, (which looks like it would be poking into the moons orbit.)

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Electro38]

Originally posted by Navieko
But some of the others... I don't know...


Doesn't look like any satellites I've heard of before, and it looks HUGE.

Satellites move much faster than any of the normal objects that telescopes and trackers are meant for, therefore the close objects, satellites, the ISS etc would appear to be smudged, out of focus and in some cases wiped across the image, like a time lapse I suppose.

Originally posted by Stale Cracker
Nice rig! I've been drooling over on of those Go-To motorized mounts for a while...

Do you have a CCD eyepiece or cam mount for it? If John drops some info. I'm sure you could unleash it's power for us!

Mine is in desperate need of collimation.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Stale Cracker]

Thanks for the compliment Unfortunately, it's about a 45 minute trip to palomar mountain to get any decent viewing out of it...light pollution is horrible in san diego.

I know abit about CCD imaging. I have the correct gheto rig required (A logitech web cam) but I don't have the required mount to set it up properly. I might buy one soon.

Don't feel bad, mine is also in serious need of collimation. *sigh* One day It's gathering dust in the closet right now lol.

The motorized mounts may *sound* cool, but man I'm telling you I'd much rather have the ability to "unlock" the scope from the mount so I could adjust it manually. The coolest thing about the motorized mounts is definately the tracking quality - it's really sharp. But, unfortunately, you also have to slew the scope using the motor - which for distant stars can be a real mother sometimes. All in all, I dig it better alt / azimuth mount & eq mount (I like eq better actually, but alas, the tracking on the go-to rocks)

Plus, I can plug it in to Celestrons "The Sky" software via my laptop and it'll auto slew to whatever I program it too (I can do it through the handset too *shrug* it's so much cooler to do it through the laptop lol).

Cheers,

- zeeon

Why the hell is this not om the news.

greatlakes,

I'm all for this being deemed a closed case at this point. But in regards to your last post; if you watch the "Interstellar" preview video the objects appear the same as the photos but seem to have been shot on video. The objects appear stationary in the video but upon magnification appear exactly as in the photos.

Does this have to be an effect of motion blur or can it be a trick of the optics due to the magnification?

Change of subject. These photos are probably just trying to generate hype for the "Interstellar" movie posted before. They are also obviously the ISS or other type of object

Originally posted by Hollowmoon
Why the hell is this not om the news.

It is on the news, the ISS is having some computer issues, attitude and control and such and the shuttle is using its thrusters to compensate.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
greatlakes,

I'm all for this being deemed a closed case at this point. But in regards to your last post; if you watch the "Interstellar" preview video the objects appear the same as the photos but seem to have been shot on video. The objects appear stationary in the video but upon magnification appear exactly as in the photos.

Sorry i missed the link, I'll watch the trailer...

[edit on 6/14/2007 by greatlakes]

They lost the Russian side computers that maintain attitude, oxygen, and water. Atlantis is using their thrusters to turn the ISS to keep them oriented in the sun, so they keep the sun on the solar panels. They had some of the computers back up earlier, but they went down again later in the day.

ETA: They still have the US gyroscopes, and Atlantis is acting as backup when the gyroscopes get overwhelmed, or saturated. They have 56 days of oxygen and water supplies once Atlantis leaves.

[edit on 6/14/2007 by Zaphod58]

Maybe these ships are where chad and raji are launching the probes from. LOL. I think this is just a rehash of the apollo 20 hoax with some doctored photos. I fthey are real images there is more than one space station up there at the moment. Remember th inflatable unit that was privately launched by Bigelow Aerospace based in Las Vegas. It's still up there.


[edit on 14-6-2007 by orthisguyoverhere]

Originally posted by Teutonic47
If a telescope can get such a closeup of structures on the moon, then why cant they get better pictures of the shard, cube and other anomolies that we have all seen in those old fuzzy black and white photos.

I've always wondered this. I used to try to find the cube (5 miles high) and shard (1 mile) with my puny 8 inch catadioptric but, although I thought it should have enough light gathering power to find something that large, I didn't know exactly where to look and was unsuccessful. As for the picture in question, that looks like a painting to me. If it was real, wouldn't he just have to give the coordinates and be famous overnight?

errr I cant find a link for the Interstellar movie trailer....
do you have a link shadowflux?

ps. the 56 days of supplies for the ISS is great and all, but after the shuttle leaves, if the ISS needs a rescue, a rescue shuttle launch most likely will not make it on time. It takes lots of time and planning for a new shuttle launch...

But then again the ISS does have escape modules for the existing ISS crew, but that would mean abandoning the ISS.


[edit on 6/14/2007 by greatlakes]

That's why they're looking at extending the Atlantis even more than they already have. They extended it to 13 days to repair the thermal blanket problem, if they can't get the computers up and running in the next couple of days, then they're looking at extending it longer, until they can either repair the computers, or make the decision to abandon until they can get them up and running again from the ground.

Edit: Bah, stupid false CNN. I figured out it was a rotational Soyuz-TM that can be used as an escape vehicle if they're docked. My bad.



[edit on 14-6-2007 by Donoso]