Over the next few months we will get better resolution pictures of some of the landing sites.
Please explain any science behind your argument that resolution is a different optical problem at 100-200 miles vs many light-years.
It’s not.
It may well be the case that spy satellites cannot resolve objects smaller than say 1 foot. We have no way of knowing.
The point of my statement along those lines was to illustrate how the average person could have an intuitive, uncalculated take of things that Hubble had better resolution than it does. Most often when a statement is made that a spy satellite can do such-and-such, no one trots out a calculation proving that that degree of resolution is impossible. A person might reasonably figure that for all the hoopla about Hubble’s optics that it might have better resolution yet than what they thought was the case for a spy satellite. Actually it turns out it doesn’t.
I don’t know how it wasn’t clear that that was the only point being made, not, as you appeared to think, an attempt to prove that Hubble does more than it can. That very clearly was not being stated.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Please explain any science behind your argument that resolution is a different optical problem at 100-200 miles vs many light-years.
It’s not.
It may well be the case that spy satellites cannot resolve objects smaller than say 1 foot. We have no way of knowing.
The point of my statement along those lines was to illustrate how the average person could have an intuitive, uncalculated take of things that Hubble had better resolution than it does. Most often when a statement is made that a spy satellite can do such-and-such, no one trots out a calculation proving that that degree of resolution is impossible. A person might reasonably figure that for all the hoopla about Hubble’s optics that it might do better yet than what they thought a spy satellite can do. Actually it turns out it can’t.
I don’t know it wasn’t clear to you that that was the only point being made, not, as you appeared to thing, an attempt to prove that Hubble does more than it can. That very clearly was not being stated.[/quote]
To help give a little perspective the hubble has an aperture of 94 inches. The largest amature telescopes that you will see will typically top out at 35-40 inches. The resolving power of a telescope is primarily linked to its aperture by using: Dawes - Wikipedia’_limit. So the size of the Hubble is actually very small in terms of professional scopes, for example the keck telescopes in Hawaii have an aperture of 394 inches each. Also their are telescopes being designed that are close to 1500 inches in aperture.
The thing that made the Hubble so revolutionary was the fact it was above the atmosphere. Astronomer’s have on the ground have to contend with the effects of the atmosphere as it will distort images depending on how turbulent the atmosphere is at the time. The hubble was the first telescope to not have to deal with this which is why it was so revolutionary. Professional telescopes on the ground are now being built with adaptive optics, meaning they reduce the effects of the atmosphere’s distortion by manipulating a mirror to cancel out their effects, so the Hubble is not quite as groundbreaking as it once was.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
My mistake, I should have done the calculation or found a source that did (the first link only asserted it) rather than using my (wrong) opinion of the resolution of the HST.
As a completely separate point, that’s really not just what I’d had it cracked up to be. For illustration, let’s take that 384,400 km and convert it to 384 km, which is a fairly modest orbital height above the Earth. (Not as low as a spy satellite can be, though.)
315 feet then converts to 315/1000ths of a foot, or basically about 4 inches not counting effect of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Either the claims of what spy satellites can do are lies, or Hubble is no or little better than them, whereas I had wrongly figured that, if not for the Earth’s atmosphere, at such a distance it would surpass the spy satellites for resolution. It cost a ton more anyway and has a bigger mirror so theoretically it should.
OK claims of what the spy satellites can do are lies. Too many people get their info from hollywood movies. Decent spy shots (and google earth maps) are taken by planes, not satellites.
To compare hubble to a spy satellite is wrong as well. Hubble is designed to look at huge things that are a very long way away using various EM wavelengths. Spy satellites are designed to look at troop movements and buildings here on Earth.
For the person that said why can’t we take the shuttle to the moon, well because it is not designed for that. It is designed to put satellites in orbit and return to earth. Taking it to the moon would be like crossing the atlantic in a tugboat.[/quote]
A little late, no?
[quote]pookie wrote:
<<< that we did go?
[/quote]
Hold on a minute here. Who’s we? Does Pookie wanna be a U.S. homeboy when we start talking about the Apollo program? I’ll give the Avro engineers their due, but that’s only because NASA hired them after the Canadian government deep sixed the Arrow project.
That said their work was quite significant if I remember right. I don’t remember why, but quite a few years ago I read something about it somewhere.
better late than never!
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
So, would someone like to tell me again why there’s some big conspiracy to not point Hubble at the moon, since it’s SOOOOO obvious that since it can image galaxies, it can image the moon too?[/quote]
it’s no conspiracy. Telescope time is extremely valuable and booked quite literally years in advance. Nobody’s going to waste valuable and limited science time to take snapshots.
[quote]yorik wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
So, would someone like to tell me again why there’s some big conspiracy to not point Hubble at the moon, since it’s SOOOOO obvious that since it can image galaxies, it can image the moon too?
it’s no conspiracy. Telescope time is extremely valuable and booked quite literally years in advance. Nobody’s going to waste valuable and limited science time to take snapshots.
[/quote]
Umm… I really don’t understand posts like this. You do realize we’ve established that the big reason no one’s pointing a telescope at the moon–cost and availability not withstanding–is because no telescope can image the left over Apollo equipment, right? Besides, the quoted sentence was sarcasm anyway…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hold on a minute here. Who’s we?[/quote]
“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”
That “we”.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Hold on a minute here. Who’s we?
“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”
That “we”.
[/quote]
I was giving the Canadian R&D some deserved credit, but fair enough and I agree with Nixon BTW. I was very young in 69, but especially when I was living in NY I talked to people from all over who remembered and that was one moment when much of the Earth was united in pride. Another small benefit to mankind provided to the rest of the world free of charge by the evil U.S. who’s flag is still the only one stuck in the dust up there.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Another small benefit to mankind provided to the rest of the world free of charge by the evil U.S. who’s flag is still the only one stuck in the dust up there.[/quote]
Pics or it didn’t happen!
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Another small benefit to mankind provided to the rest of the world free of charge by the evil U.S. who’s flag is still the only one stuck in the dust up there.
Pics or it didn’t happen![/quote]
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I don;t think it’s a hoax. But what im saying is that the technology to look at the moon, right where we landed, is very easy for us at this stage. I don’t care if it’s the Hubble or another machine, we have the technology to do this fairly easily. [/quote]
After everything that has been posted, you are still claiming that we could snap some clear pics “fairly easily?”
You are either not very bright, or so deeply entrenched in the conspiracy mindset that nothing will change your mind.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
So why doesn’t NASA do it and put it all to rest instead of coming up for elaborate explanations and such. A single picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe they didn’t think of it? [/quote]
I’m sure you’re right. They probably just never thought of taking picutres. The people at NASA aren’t exactly rocket scientists. Oh, wait…
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I don’t think it’s a hoax. But what I’m saying is that the technology to look at the moon, right where we landed, is very easy for us at this stage. I don’t care if it’s the Hubble or another machine, we have the technology to do this fairly easily.
After everything that has been posted, you are still claiming that we could snap some clear pics “fairly easily?”
You are either not very bright, or so deeply entrenched in the conspiracy mindset that nothing will change your mind.
Gregus wrote:
So why doesn’t NASA do it and put it all to rest instead of coming up for elaborate explanations and such. A single picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe they didn’t think of it?
I’m sure you’re right. They probably just never thought of taking picutres. The people at NASA aren’t exactly rocket scientists. Oh, wait…[/quote]
If greg wasn’t aware, they videotaped the whole thing. Even at a low frame rate that has to be literally thousands of pictures. But I guess you are right, if you believe they faked video from point blank range, a pixely obscure picture from a telescope thousands of miles away will surly convince.
If it is oh so easy to take the picture, why don’t the conspiracy nuts take a picture of the landing sight and prove it never happened? Unless you are also insinuating that the us government has a monopoly lockout on the telescope market world wide, denying anyone the ability to point one at the moon.
There are in fact private telescopes. Surely you think one of them would have thought to point one at the moon… It just baffles the mind that none of them ever thought of it…
/sarcasm
I don’t know how it got this out of hand but im not claiming any conspiracies. I was merely insinuating that the best way to have all conspiracy nuts STFU is to photogrhaph the site. Yes i stated NASA but it could be any agency anywhere in the world. It’s just an idea thrown out there.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
<<< Yes i stated NASA but it could be any agency anywhere in the world. >>> [/quote]
There is no serious agency anywhere in the world that seriously doubts the moon missions. Like I said pages ago, the Soviets were in the best position of anybody on Earth to demonstrate a hoax and had every motivation to do so. They knew better.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gregus wrote:
<<< Yes i stated NASA but it could be any agency anywhere in the world. >>>
There is no serious agency anywhere in the world that seriously doubts the moon missions. Like I said pages ago, the Soviets were in the best position of anybody on Earth to demonstrate a hoax and had every motivation to do so. They knew better.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
yorik wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
So, would someone like to tell me again why there’s some big conspiracy to not point Hubble at the moon, since it’s SOOOOO obvious that since it can image galaxies, it can image the moon too?
it’s no conspiracy. Telescope time is extremely valuable and booked quite literally years in advance. Nobody’s going to waste valuable and limited science time to take snapshots.
Umm… I really don’t understand posts like this. You do realize we’ve established that the big reason no one’s pointing a telescope at the moon–cost and availability not withstanding–is because no telescope can image the left over Apollo equipment, right? Besides, the quoted sentence was sarcasm anyway…[/quote]
Then let me explain the simplicity of it…even if they could resolve it, they wouldn’t waste the time; a point that no one had made yet, sarcasm or not. Now, giddy-up!
[quote]yorik wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
yorik wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
So, would someone like to tell me again why there’s some big conspiracy to not point Hubble at the moon, since it’s SOOOOO obvious that since it can image galaxies, it can image the moon too?
it’s no conspiracy. Telescope time is extremely valuable and booked quite literally years in advance. Nobody’s going to waste valuable and limited science time to take snapshots.
Umm… I really don’t understand posts like this. You do realize we’ve established that the big reason no one’s pointing a telescope at the moon–cost and availability not withstanding–is because no telescope can image the left over Apollo equipment, right? Besides, the quoted sentence was sarcasm anyway…
Then let me explain the simplicity of it…even if they could resolve it, they wouldn’t waste the time; a point that no one had made yet, sarcasm or not. Now, giddy-up![/quote]
No, I think that point was made long ago.
I always thought that stuff they left was on the dark side of the moon and we'll never see it from earth telescopes anyway. I read a few years ago Japan was going to use one of their orbiters to put this to bed once and for all.Could be wrong though.Also mythbusters did a thing on this with the shadow angle on some of the photos.