question about google earth sky

a reply to: wmd_2008

yeah but the point was, they say they cant get a whole image of earth but they can with fish eye

a reply to: dan121212

They can't see a whole Earth.

This



for example, shows all the curve of the horizon that they can see in the cupola, but it is not the whole Earth.

In order to see the entire Earth in one photograph you need to be several thousand miles out, not several hundred.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace
The shuttle in 2001 ferried people back and forth to the moon. This is what was sold to the American public early on about the real shuttle. Build a space station to assemble or outfit craft to shuttle back and forth to the moon, to build bases as jumping of point to Mars, etc.

I'd like to see some quotes or links for this, please.

As far as I've always been aware, the Space Shuttle program was specifically for low earth orbit. The ideas to build a shuttle craft at a space station in low earth orbit for moon missions in _not_ what the Space Shuttle program was designed for. Such a "moon shuttle" wouldn't need SRBs, the external fuel tank, or the wings and landing gear for this kind of thing. A Space Shuttle wouldn't be able to land on the Moon safely.

originally posted by: dan121212
a reply to: wmd_2008

yeah but the point was, they say they cant get a whole image of earth but they can with fish eye

Couldn't see the iamge on your link so as we have a few members on here that seem to believe the flat Earth BS and that every NASA image is taken with a fisheye I thought I would show that is wrong.

a reply to: wildespace

I think he was referring to the film 2001.

Films from that era widely predicted we'd be living on Mars by now. We aren't, and the obvious conclusion is not that the purse holders pulled the plug and consequently manned exploration of the solar system stalled, but that they are just hiding the fact that we are.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Like I said sometime earlier, the way Hubble tracks is by moving its entire self, just like any ground based telescope moves itself to track stars. Hubble achieves this through reaction wheels and sometimes thrusters.

However -- and this is what's important -- since Hubble's observation targets are so far away, there is very little apparent motion between Hubble and the thing it is observing. Therefore, only the minor and slow movements that the reaction wheels (and sometimes thrusters) can provide are enough to allow Hubble to track its targets.

Thats for long time exposures. For hi speed camera shutters only a short track of the ground target would be needed.

As already pointed out with detailed calculations, the maximum shutter speed would have to be about 0.000016 seconds to avoid blurring. The minimum exposure time is 0.5 seconds for the UV/Visible light detectors in Hubble's WFC3 camera, so no, it can't get sharp pictures of the earth below the telescope.

the minimum exposure time for the UVIS channel is actually 0.5 s.

www.stsci.edu...
It's not capable of tracking fast enough AND the shutter is orders of magnitude too slow to compensate.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: wildespace

I think he was referring to the film 2001.

Films from that era widely predicted we'd be living on Mars by now. We aren't, and the obvious conclusion is not that the purse holders pulled the plug and consequently manned exploration of the solar system stalled, but that they are just hiding the fact that we are.

Whats more laughable is many Apollo hoax / flat Earth believers say Kubrick filmed the Apollo landings in secret for NASA strange in 2001 he shows stars in the background and Apollo pictures don't and we know because of exposure setting stars don't show.

Here is an Example

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Like I said sometime earlier, the way Hubble tracks is by moving its entire self, just like any ground based telescope moves itself to track stars. Hubble achieves this through reaction wheels and sometimes thrusters.

However -- and this is what's important -- since Hubble's observation targets are so far away, there is very little apparent motion between Hubble and the thing it is observing. Therefore, only the minor and slow movements that the reaction wheels (and sometimes thrusters) can provide are enough to allow Hubble to track its targets.

Thats for long time exposures. For hi speed camera shutters only a short track of the ground target would be needed.

I'm assuming that since your argument seems to be about the use of Hubble as a spy satellite, you are talking about using Hubble to look at things on Earth close-up.

The closer a camera looks at an object, the more motion blur would occur. For example, If I were in a plane at 37,000 feet up, I could take a clear (non-blurred) picture of the ground below me with a noraml "everyday" shutter speed, even though the plane was moving at 500 mph....

Now, Let's say I was in that plane at ONLY 200 feet off the ground and I was moving at the same 500 mph. If I tried to take a picture of the ground 200 feet below me, with that ground zipping past me as my plane moves over it at 500 mph, and using the same shutter speed as I did at 37,000 feet, you can bet that the image would be blurred.

Another example: If an astronaut in the ISS took a picture of the daylit Earth with a "normal" focal length lens of 24 mm to say about 45 mm, and with "normal" shutter speed, the picture would probably be sharp/non-blurred even though the ISS is moving 5 miles per second over the Earth. But if that same astronaut added a long telephoto/telescopic lens -- say a 600mm lens -- and took a picture of Earth using the same shutter speed as the 24mm lens, the picture would most likely have mortion blur from the relative motion of the ISS orbital speed.

So if Hubble tried to take a telescopic picture of Earth, it would probably have motion blur. But hypothetically, if a camera attached to Hubble were to take a NON-telescopic picture of the daylight side of Earth, it might come out clear and without any motion blur....

...However, what advantage would a Non-telescopic image of Earth by Hubble give to spy agencies that they couldn't get using any other photograhic satellite?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace
The shuttle in 2001 ferried people back and forth to the moon. This is what was sold to the American public early on about the real shuttle. Build a space station to assemble or outfit craft to shuttle back and forth to the moon, to build bases as jumping of point to Mars, etc.

I'd like to see some quotes or links for this, please.

As far as I've always been aware, the Space Shuttle program was specifically for low earth orbit. The ideas to build a shuttle craft at a space station in low earth orbit for moon missions in _not_ what the Space Shuttle program was designed for. Such a "moon shuttle" wouldn't need SRBs, the external fuel tank, or the wings and landing gear for this kind of thing. A Space Shuttle wouldn't be able to land on the Moon safely.

The sci fi genre was always aimed at expanding, colonizing space. Prior to actual space exploration sci fi was all there was.

The hi priest of Sci Fi with a tech background was Arthur C. Clark. His book 2001 become a movie one year prior to moon landings, it was the be all to end all trumpet charge. The moon landings themselves were 'supposed' to be about colonizing, and using moon bases as stepping stones to reach further out.

But, they realized, before we can get to "Jupiter, Infinity and Beyond" like in Clarks book, we are going to have to lighten the load of launch. We are gong to need moon bases to construct factories to mine moon resources to make fuel to get to the outer solar system.

And before we can build moon bases we are going to need orbiting stations around the moon and earth. And before we build an earth orbiting station we are going to need a shuttle.

Tadah.

That is about the time they began designing the shuttle. Now that is forgotten.

Part of the problem was the accepted notion space travel was going to be done by astronauts (like in 2001) instead of probes. Back then everything space was personnel oriented (see 2001)

They also didn't figure the enormous cost of all the logistics of making space ports on the moon, something which up to that point was the main stay of all sci fi.

Plus they didn't figure people would tire of all that space race stuff, eventually.

Part of that was political, the Soviets and United States were embroiled in an arms race, a space race and a peace race.

This is a lifelong observation halving lived thru the era, seen it first hand, as an avid sci fi fan, and my dads tutelage from an engineer at Lockheed, Aerospace Division perspective.

Reference films like Dr. Strangelove, 2001, And Blade Runner, to get flavors of sci fi from the eras culture.

We were very goal oriented back then, had our heads in the clouds.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wmd_2008

The Shuttle in 2001 has NOTHING to do with NASA and the real shuttle was never ever claimed to be transport other than to low Earth orbit.

Now thats a disclaimer. Thanks for the official line. What is this, the disinfo desk at NSA?

You prolly weren't even alive before the shuttle, when 2001 was first released.

I was.

Edit: Oh, to your question, the 'streak' photos of earth are taken with the long range cameras to adjust for light. I'm talking about hi speed shutters, the kind they use to capture bullets in flight. You could try and convince me they don't utilize that tech in space, too...

but don't bother.

WRONG mate went to see it just after launch in the UK with my dad, photography is about capturing light when an object requires many seconds, minutes ,hours or even days the shutter is in BULB mode ie left open for a set time for the kind of images the Hubble is designed for, you really need to think more before you type,

Oh and I have a had an SLR camera first film from the late 70's fully manual and of course now digital so I know plenty about photography

You missed or sidestepped my point. If they can take photos of bullets in flight, it is possible to take images of the earth speeding by at hi magnification, with additional instrumentation they added to Hubble over the years.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm assuming that since your argument seems to be about the use of Hubble as a spy satellite, you are talking about using Hubble to look at things on Earth close-up.

The closer a camera looks at an object, the more motion blur would occur.

They take pics of bullets in flight. The only thing required is that fast of a shutter and computer control when to snap the image(s). The gyros and positioning computers on board Hubble are very precise as everyone keeps pointing out.

The upgrades to hubble over the years could involve addition camera tech to make the fast shutter speed possible.
Everyone keeps omitting this from the conversation. How many times have they 'serviced' Hubble, adding additional components we have no clue about?

a reply to: intrptr

Why?

Seriously, stop, just stop and think for just a minute: Why use a highly popular, well known device originally designed for deep field astronomy photography?

It's ridiculous.

Much cheaper, much easier, and much more secret to simply make satellites that are designed for taking images of areas on the Earth, and they do not need to anywhere near as large as Hubble is, as complex as Hubble, nor needing the maintenance and overhauls that Hubble needs. No need to involve anyone, nor hide the stuff from scientist.

Better yet: you can have many of these in orbit, and in different orbits. Like geostationary above the area you want to spy on.

Using Hubble as a "spy" satellite is one of the most ridiculous (and very incompetent) things I've ever heard.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Seriously, stop, just stop and think for just a minute: Why use a highly popular, well known device originally designed for deep field astronomy photography?

Because the mirror is enormous, space based and potentially very hi magnification, if they add a faster camera shutter to it.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wmd_2008

The Shuttle in 2001 has NOTHING to do with NASA and the real shuttle was never ever claimed to be transport other than to low Earth orbit.

Now thats a disclaimer. Thanks for the official line. What is this, the disinfo desk at NSA?

You prolly weren't even alive before the shuttle, when 2001 was first released.

I was.

Edit: Oh, to your question, the 'streak' photos of earth are taken with the long range cameras to adjust for light. I'm talking about hi speed shutters, the kind they use to capture bullets in flight. You could try and convince me they don't utilize that tech in space, too...

but don't bother.

WRONG mate went to see it just after launch in the UK with my dad, photography is about capturing light when an object requires many seconds, minutes ,hours or even days the shutter is in BULB mode ie left open for a set time for the kind of images the Hubble is designed for, you really need to think more before you type,

Oh and I have a had an SLR camera first film from the late 70's fully manual and of course now digital so I know plenty about photography

You missed or sidestepped my point. If they can take photos of bullets in flight, it is possible to take images of the earth speeding by at hi magnification, with additional instrumentation they added to Hubble over the years.

You have not shown that any of the upgrades made to Hubble would enable it to take unblurred high speed photography of the earth. In fact, I've already shown that Hubble's newest and most advanced WFC3 camera which was added during the final servicing mission has a minimum exposure length that is orders of magnitude too slow to avoid motion blur, even to the point that the entire field of view would completely change during the exposure several times before the shutter could close.

a reply to: intrptr

:facepalm:

oh jesus, please someone help me.

Mirrors are for gathering light....NOT MAGNIFICATION.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm assuming that since your argument seems to be about the use of Hubble as a spy satellite, you are talking about using Hubble to look at things on Earth close-up.

The closer a camera looks at an object, the more motion blur would occur.

They take pics of bullets in flight. The only thing required is that fast of a shutter and computer control when to snap the image(s). The gyros and positioning computers on board Hubble are very precise as everyone keeps pointing out.

Precise, but not nearly fast enough. Neither is its minimum exposure length nearly short enough to compensate. It is not designed to spy on earth based objects, it's a terrible instrument for that task and plenty of real spy satellites exist that are designed for that task instead.

The upgrades to hubble over the years could involve addition camera tech to make the fast shutter speed possible.
Everyone keeps omitting this from the conversation. How many times have they 'serviced' Hubble, adding additional components we have no clue about?

Those missions were not classified, thousands of people worked to make those missions happen, the EVAs were broadcast to everyone, we know what they added and what they took out, and none of it, none of it enables Hubble to become a spy satellite rather than an observatory. WFC3's minimum exposure length is 0.5 seconds.

There is absolutely no valid reason to even try to use Hubble as a spy satellite. Real spy satellites exist with the proper equipment for tracking and imaging earth based objects, capabilities which Hubble lacks because it was designed for highly accurate but SLOW tracking for VERY LONG exposures and isn't even capable of sufficiently short exposures. Hubble's optics are not larger than real spy satellites, in fact Hubble's size was dictated in part by the size of pre-existing spy satellites for which they already had the facilities to manufacture the optics!

Working with the LST science groups and
contractors, the team reduced the telescope’s primary mirror from a 3-meter
aperture to 2.4 meters. This major change mainly resulted from new NASA
estimates of the Space Shuttle’s payload delivery capability; the Shuttle could
not lift a 3-meter telescope to the required orbit. In addition, changing to a
2.4-meter mirror would lessen fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies
developed for military spy satellites.

history.msfc.nasa.gov...

If the government wants to use Hubble for spying they don't need to use Hubble, they already have KH-11's with the same size optics.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wmd_2008

The Shuttle in 2001 has NOTHING to do with NASA and the real shuttle was never ever claimed to be transport other than to low Earth orbit.

Now thats a disclaimer. Thanks for the official line. What is this, the disinfo desk at NSA?

You prolly weren't even alive before the shuttle, when 2001 was first released.

I was.

Edit: Oh, to your question, the 'streak' photos of earth are taken with the long range cameras to adjust for light. I'm talking about hi speed shutters, the kind they use to capture bullets in flight. You could try and convince me they don't utilize that tech in space, too...

but don't bother.

WRONG mate went to see it just after launch in the UK with my dad, photography is about capturing light when an object requires many seconds, minutes ,hours or even days the shutter is in BULB mode ie left open for a set time for the kind of images the Hubble is designed for, you really need to think more before you type,

Oh and I have a had an SLR camera first film from the late 70's fully manual and of course now digital so I know plenty about photography

You missed or sidestepped my point. If they can take photos of bullets in flight, it is possible to take images of the earth speeding by at hi magnification, with additional instrumentation they added to Hubble over the years.

Are you just acting stupid for the sake of it the Hubble is effectively a 57600 mm lens with an f24 aperture. It is not mounted on a platform like a missle tracking camera the whole telescope has to move. So tells us what instrumentation they added as you seem to know (but really it's just hot air) more to the point with dedicated spy satellites pointed at the Earth such as the KH-11 OR 12

The f/1.2 primary has a diameter of 2.4 m, and is refocused by the secondary to give an overall f/8 focal ratio, making the optical telescope assembly shorter than that of HST. With the addition of the tertiary mirror, this will produce a much wider field than Hubble's 2-mirror f/24 Ritchey–Chrétien optical design,

The f number is important as it gives an indication of focal length and light gathering.

Hubble is f24 at f8 the spy satellite gets more light for a faster shutter speed from f8 next is f11 half as much light then f16 half as much as f11 then f22 half as much as f16 then f24 would reduce light level a little more.

Hubble has a long focal length 57600mm and is designed for distant objects its that simple.

a reply to: SpaceXIsReal

You have not shown that any of the upgrades made to Hubble would enable it to take unblurred high speed photography of the earth.

You have not shown me it isn't possible.

a reply to: wmd_2008

You're stuck in the official stats about Hubbles primary mission. How stupid is that?

a reply to: eriktheawful

Face palm, mirrors aren't the topic.

ETA:

But since the ridicule and badgering is escalating and this whole side topic is off topic to the thread anyway, I won't be responding to any more replies here.

Gos forbid we should discover any actual secrets of the deep state.