telescope view of the moon. Need help

Hector,

Please,

The sat's are way low in orbit, say 100 to a few hundred miles up? You really think that the moon being ~1/4 million miles away from Earth that Earth based telescopes can make out a 7" x 12" license plate on the moon.

I wish it were that easy my friend. Take care,

Well my mission is not looking good.
What I was attempting to arrange was to get a photo of the moon with the telescope at the Keck observatory.
The Keck Telescope has the capability of seeing the heat from a candle on the moon, this is a very powerfull telescope.
Un fortunatly the optical resolution is 20m.
The astronomers talked about my request last night and concluded they would not be able to target the lunar lander because of 2 reasons. The first is the telescope tracks its target by focusing the single dot of light that is typically a star. The Moon is far to large to track. (I dont agree with this answer because my little meade etx90 can track the moon)
The second problem is the 20m resolution would be no greater a view than the SMART-1 sat.
It seems like I got the astronomers at Keck excited about trying though, So if they do attempt it I'll let everyone know.

As it stands now China is our only hope with the pending launch of the Chang’eI

[edit on 1-2-2007 by acmeartifacts]

Originally posted by Postal76
Neon Haze -- the moon landings were most certainly not faked. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to convince you, but these are the main pieces of evidence:

- photographic/video/physical evidence
- amateurs listened in on the radio transmissions in 1969
- Apollo 11's laser reflector plate experiment can still be used today by
astronomers around the world

Alrighty Then....

Please present your so called irrefutable proof...

I can tell you now that if it was so water tight, there could not be any conspiracy..

You should look over the many moon threads that are here in ATS.

The Mirror you speak of is used to calibrate a telescope. It allows a telescope to measure the interference our atmosphere creates and to filter it out. This enables far clearer imaging.

However... This mirror did not need to be placed on the moon directly, and could have quite easily been put there by automated means...

The fact that there have been no detailed ground level photographs is the most important and telling aspect to the moon conspiracy...

Most people say there are no telescopes capable of imaging the moon.... That is the weakest argument i've ever heard....

We have ways that we could image the moon in detail but for some unknown reason non have surfaced other than the images that are very dubious and have multiple issues.

If we can get good clear ground level images of mars why not on the moon? I ask, why are there no rovers on the moon??

Why no Information about the composition of the Moon...

Just to let you know the radiation belt between here and the moon is caused by the earths magnetosphere that draws charged particles from the solar wind and even focuses them at various levels at varying distances around the earth.

To get to the moon without radiation sickness the astronauts would have had to have been behind 6 feet of lead!!

It would have been impossible for any of the Apollo missions to have sailed through the radiation within 30 seconds... utterly preposterous.



In addition, the electric static discharge on the surface of the moon could run up several thousand vault charges over time, if anyone were to stand on the moon and 'RUN' about they would be zapped...

Crackling Planets

Don't just assume, think....

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Neon Haze]

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Most people say there are no telescopes capable of imaging the moon.... That is the weakest argument i've ever heard....

It's a fact. Well known physical processes explain why. The resolving power of a telescope is limited by its aperture and the wavelength of light. Read any physics textbook about optics and you'll see the mathematical formulas and why it's true.

Originally posted by Neon Haze
To get to the moon without radiation sickness the astronauts would have had to have been behind 6 feet of lead!!

How did you come up with this calculation ? It's wrong.

My agency would like to know just for bookkeeping of course..

Just kidding don't waste your time.

uhhh... no offense at all... but as per imaging... do you mean like looking at it or taking detailed scans of it.

I know if your just talking aobut seeing it up close there are loads o telescopes that can do that. And why use a telescope to image the moon anyways... Satelites.

sorry... just a wee bit confused

same thing with the six feet of lead... where did that particular figure come from?

pom pom

Neon Haze...

I'm assuming that you are not an astrologist, scientist, meteorologist, or astronaut, so do not make such blatantly wrong accusations. Again, take a look at this video if you haven't already: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Neon Haze...

I'm assuming that you are not an astrologist, scientist, meteorologist, or astronaut, so do not make such blatantly wrong accusations. Again, take a look at this video if you haven't already: www.youtube.com...

Errrmmm I teach Physics... have a PHD in Quantum physics....

If you want to get down with the actual math... here is a paper you may want to read...

Calafornia Institute of Technology Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy - SPACE RADIATION LAB...

A study of Radiation depending on solar maximum and minimum by the
Journal of Geophysical Research found the following...

Energetic Proton Observations at 1 and 5 AU

Further studies showed that Energetic Electron Bursts do occur between the Magnetopause Electron Layer and Interplanetary Space....

Bursty Energetic Electrons Confined in Flux ropes in the cusp region

On radiation in space....Space Daily says...

Space Radiation Threats To Astronauts Addressed In Federal Research Study

NASA scientists state...

Space radiation between Earth and Mars poses a hazard to astronauts. How dangerous is it out there? NASA scientists are working to find out.

Space.com have an interesting article...

Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars

On ESD... NASA scientist state...

ESD on the MOON

And to all those that seem to think it's perfectly normal and acceptable for there to be no ground level imaging of the moon then think again....

There are literally thousands of pictures of the surface of mars... The Mars global surveyor coupled with the mars Rover have produced some truly amazing discoveries in just a few years...

I pose the following questions...

Why are there no rovers on the moon?

Why have we not seen in detail the supposed Apollo landing sites, other than images from Apollo??

Wouldn't it make perfect sense to send scientific missions to the moon?? It's been nearly 40 years since the moon landings and we have nothing further to add until now???

Billions upon billions of pounds spent in that time... what percentile is focused on the moon??

I can think of hundreds of scientific projects and poetically lucrative missions that could have been set up using automated means at a fraction of the mission costs of the proposed manned moon missions or the ISS or etc etc…...

Don't take all you hear for granted...

Thinking for yourself is what humanity depends upon, and is what sadly appears to be happening less these days...

All the best people,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Neon Haze]

Aw shucks!! Even the Hubble can see the Moon with a max 60 meter resolution only. So anything less than a 20 story building and you'll just see mud! No roads, no tracks, no anomalies, no nothing!!

You got anything better than the HST here on mother Earth?? Otherwise you're good and ready for a leather hunt!!

Cheers!