NASA lied , now says moon is not too bright so Hubble can scan the moon for base locations. | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12533 United Kingdom 08/23/2005 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Renown Brave Heart™ (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 10:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Draco (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 10:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2737 Australia 08/23/2005 10:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12533 United Kingdom 08/23/2005 10:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12533 United Kingdom 08/23/2005 10:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14374 United States 08/23/2005 10:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
SunSpot nli User ID: 17061 United States 08/23/2005 10:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Renown Brave Heart™ (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 10:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12533 United Kingdom 08/23/2005 10:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3965 United States 08/23/2005 10:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The current scan will be in uv. Did you miss that? And do you really think 50 meters is good enough to see anything of the landing sites? Boy, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You present stupidity in a manner that sounds believable to the ignorant. You can either be part of a solution or part of the problem. You are certainly not part of the solution. |
Renown Brave Heart™ (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And just what is the problem that you perceive? If they are scanning this really bright object with the telescope, and they told the world that if they turned it on the moon or even a faint comet like Hale-Bopp it would damage it beyond repair, what has changed? Really a simple question, don´t you think? It's all a Conspiracy It's always been a Conspiracy A Conspiracy is~ All it will ever be... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6794 United States 08/23/2005 10:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "So why not demand that they take pictures of the landing craft for the debunkers who said we did not " Because the moon landing hoax woo-woos won´t believe *any* evidence that supports the idea that man went to the moon. |
Witness User ID: 2407 United Kingdom 08/23/2005 10:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Someone User ID: 593 United States 08/23/2005 08:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
idol_harobed User ID: 509 Brazil 08/23/2005 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8054 New Zealand 08/23/2005 09:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is a direct quote from the article: ["Previous missions have observed the Moon at a range of wavelengths. But none have boasted Hubble´s sharp resolution at ultraviolet wavelengths - it can identify spectral features just 50 metres across over swathes of lunar terrain."] Now, please tell us which part of the Apollo misson hardware left on the moon is bigger than 50 metres across? Please also tell us which camera with which filter was in question when the "too bright" statement was made, and whether that is the same as is discussed in that article. Cheers, |
RBH (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 09:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I sure would like to see a schema for the Hubble, as I would like to know how they change out the sensors. I mean, no one is there to do it manually, and to have it automated would be an increadibly difficult task. It is a refraction lens on one end and what on the other? A CDC? If so, then it should be no problem looking at even the sun. I smell fish. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8054 New Zealand 08/23/2005 09:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Renown Brave Heart™ (OP) User ID: 6033 United States 08/23/2005 09:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I do have a preconceived idea, and it tells me that no matter what frequency the light is, the power of the light source is what is going to damage film. It is not a film camera. Now what? It's all a Conspiracy It's always been a Conspiracy A Conspiracy is~ All it will ever be... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12865 United States 08/23/2005 10:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | uh, ultra violet cams or not, this here tax payer would love to see the marker we left on the moon. so they can see stars and deep space galaxies light years aaway but cant pick up things on the moon some 287,000 miles away??? did they leave the flag up there? |
nomuse (nli) User ID: 11755 United States 08/23/2005 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 131346 United Kingdom 09/07/2006 11:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Remember when they said they could not view the moon with the HST because it was too bright? So why not demand that they take pictures of the landing craft for the debunkers who said we did not go to the moon? Oh dear those bad astronomy assholes, gonna have a banfest because of this. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80475 United States 09/07/2006 12:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I've heard that Hubble can only resolve objects as large as several hundred feet on the moon, but the lunar buggy's tire tracks are in that category of size so maybe it is possible for the telescope to photograph the later Apollo landing sites. |
Mona Lisa User ID: 140360 Switzerland 09/07/2006 12:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 125023 United States 09/07/2006 12:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |