Moon Close-ups ( Digital Through Telescopes )

You have got to check this out. Makes me want to spend money. Look at the shots folks have taken of the moon and other objects through thier home telescope with the proper equipment. Why does Nassa shots not end up this clear from space ? Here is the link to digital shots

Be sure to checkout the entire site with other digitals captured through telescope and sent in by customers.

There are some great pictures on that site................

Great find Harry55

Harry! What a champ you are! I've been saying this all along -- that people can take better pics of the moon with their backyard telescopes than the piece of junk we've got floating up in the atmosphere called the Hubble.

The Hubble can't take a decent picture of the moon but NASA wants us to believe they can look out into the universe gazillions of light years out.

All they are is Calvin Hamilton's drawings and touchups on the virtual reality programmed into that hunk 'a junk floating around up there.

You have made my day. I have been lectured here and ridiculed for not understanding how the Hubble works, that its resolution is too STRONG for the moon (Ha!) It's resolution is too WEAK. It's admittedly too weak. The explanation Hubble gives for not being able to take good pics of the moon is because they say their resolution is too low. They admit it.

This should be a wake-up call to people that the rest of the Hubble pictures are big fakes, virtual reality pics created by computer input from over-eager space junkies at NASA wanting to entice people into keeping them afloat a bit longer by showing them pictures of the "wonders of space."

Calvin Hamilton is a layperson who's good with Photoshop and he has done almost all NASA's fancy pics and posters.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

Here is another digital taken by telescope. Makes you wander how many photos have been taken this way that are never shown. This was taken in January 2003 . The equipment used today is so much better than it use to be. Makes me want to start looking again through mine but first need to make an order. This is a supposed triangle. ( been covered here on ATS before I think. )

Originally posted by Harry55
Why does Nassa shots not end up this clear from space

The cameras and film used in the 60s for the Apollo missions is nothing in quality compared to what we have today. The same goes for image processing power, since until about 10-15 years ago that was non-existant!

resistance...

You've been told time and time again as to why the Hubble cannot look at the Moon effectively. The derailment of this thread ends now.

It's amazing what you can see through a 5" or 8" scope. I think most of those shots were taken through scopes 16" and under.

But one of the best scopes for moon observation is the VLT (Very Large Telescope.) It is comprised of 4, 8 meter mirrors that are linked together by fiber optics. That is a but load of light gathering power. It is the world's largest telecope.

When you take into consideration how great those pics look taken by home astronomers, it makes you really wonder what the VLT's images of the moon's surface look like... especially the Apollo landing sites

The VLT can see a human hair from 16miles away.

You can read about the VLT here: (there are pics of this monster telescope too)

www.eso.org...

Absolutly stunning pictures,

awesome find, makes me wish i had a decent telescope instead of the cheap stuff i once got for my birthday...

Originally posted by resistance
Harry! What a champ you are! I've been saying this all along -- that people can take better pics of the moon with their backyard telescopes than the piece of junk we've got floating up in the atmosphere called the Hubble.

The Hubble can't take a decent picture of the moon but NASA wants us to believe they can look out into the universe gazillions of light years out.

All they are is Calvin Hamilton's drawings and touchups on the virtual reality programmed into that hunk 'a junk floating around up there.

You have made my day. I have been lectured here and ridiculed for not understanding how the Hubble works, that its resolution is too STRONG for the moon (Ha!) It's resolution is too WEAK. It's admittedly too weak. The explanation Hubble gives for not being able to take good pics of the moon is because they say their resolution is too low. They admit it.

This should be a wake-up call to people that the rest of the Hubble pictures are big fakes, virtual reality pics created by computer input from over-eager space junkies at NASA wanting to entice people into keeping them afloat a bit longer by showing them pictures of the "wonders of space."

Calvin Hamilton is a layperson who's good with Photoshop and he has done almost all NASA's fancy pics and posters.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

Well, that hunk of junk just discovered two new moons orbiting Pluto, do that with your telescope and then maybe you can make a case against Hubble being worthless and a fake.

hubblesite.org...

The Hubble is now taking pictures of the moon using ultraviolet wavelengths, like to see your telescope do that.

As for the pictures in the OP, I have seen better, I've seen pics that were taken on the moon!

Frosty - Why don't you start a new thread on the Hubble, what it can and can't do? This thread is about the backyard telescopes and Commander Keen already said nobody's allowed to discuss the Hubble here.

Okay? I will post there with you on that topic and I'm sure a lot of other people will too. I am not ready to start my own threads here yet. I'm too new here.

Thanks for the all. I was very excited when I first seen these digitals and amazed at how crisp and clear. Reminded me of the hours I spent as a teenager ( some very cold nights ) looking through my cheap telescope trying to view the heavens. Would love to have one of these under my tree now for Christmas.
I know the technology is much better now than it was in the 60,s but still do not understand why now we do not have better photos of the moon from space if we can do this from our backyards. Imagine one of these mounted to the space station what would we be able to see and why has Nasa not done this ?
Thanks for the link to the VLT. I was wandering though why they only show 2 views of the moon and they were taken April 30, 2002 and no new ones released since ? I do hope these new digitals are being shown to our children in schools.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Harry55]

Excellent pictures! Thanks for the links,

I can't see any American Flags on any of these pics???

Impressive photos

I wonder how much the digital camera adapters run

Noslenwerd here is the link to thier site. ScopeTronix
Very good information there on how to get started and beginner telescopes for under $400.00. Lots of links to very interesting sites concerning astronomy. Hope this helps.

Mod Edit: Fixing link.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

These are great shots. I'd love to be taking shots like those. But I don't think these are better pics than the Hubble. Lots of them look really sharp and clear, but the photos are also small. None of them are this big:

Hubble Moon photo [2.43mb]

Close-Up View of the Aristarchus Crater [861.5kb]

So I wouldn't call Hubble junk just yet.

Wow those are really good!

Here is a page on thier site that I could spend all day on. You all need to check this out. Everything from close-ups of the sun spots to pet fleas. Very neat photos taken and sent in by thier customers. As mentioned above the new telescopes are so advanced you can use them for space or local viewing. These are real as we see views of the solar system. I have placed one of these on my wish list. Space View Gallery


[edit on 8-11-2005 by Harry55]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Harry55]