NASA lied , now says moon is not too bright so Hubble can scan the moon for base locations.

Why not put your your other face on, the one that looks like a hill billy?

Why don´t I just put on my Draco face?

Isn´t it cute?

perhaps their scanning the darker side?

What Draco the greek?

Do you have a draconian face?

Or are you referring to a lizard, like neo-cons?

Oh the cuntstellation, space boy!

"NASA lied"

no! tell me it´s not so, spanky!

Hubble doesn´t have the resolution to pick out the stuff that was left on the Moon.

Says who SunSpot? NASA? Like they never lie, am I right?

Whats the focal length of the Hubble?


Do you really think it was designed to focus on the moon?


It would have been cheaper to send a probe to look at it than create the Hubble....

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.

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?

"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.

You know RBH it is really SCARY when I have to agree with you! But, sorry, your OP has a very valid point.

Good catch.

Moron.

They´re NOT using the visible spectrum, they´re using the NEW infrared scope.

SO they DID NOT lie.


.

RBH, the article said they are going to use the ultraviolet sensors.

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,

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.

...or you could just continue to pick and choose what to believe according to your own pre-concieved ideas.

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?

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?

I was not aware the lunar lander was the size of a galaxy.

Oh dear those bad astronomy assholes, gonna have a banfest because of this.

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.

The sheeps accept all, as long as they eat.

All they have to do is look at the pics ESA got on the mission that they just crashed onto the surface of the moon. Don't they read ESA press releases?

SMART1 should have the answers, right?