|
Post by inconceivable on Jun 26, 2007 19:36:32 GMT -4
Is there anything that can be detected on the moon besides the laser reflectors? Can't they detect anything metal? Can they detect anything thermally? Like maybe the LMs or rovers giving off a different heat signature than the surroundings. Is it realy true that it is impossible to detect anything at all. Also didn't the command module circling the moon while the astronouts were on the moon have a lot of scientific instrumentations and cameras that could have recorded the proof?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 26, 2007 19:53:09 GMT -4
Also didn't the command module circling the moon while the astronouts were on the moon have a lot of scientific instrumentations and cameras that could have recorded the proof? If certain people won't believe photos taken by astronauts on the surface of the moon are real, why would they believe photos taken from the CSM showing, at most, a tiny speck on the surface?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 26, 2007 20:07:02 GMT -4
The orbiting CSM did, in a few cases, photograph the landed LM. I'm sure one of my friends here will provide the link; I don't have it handy.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 26, 2007 20:17:41 GMT -4
There is also this, though few HBs find it very convincing: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images Of course your question didn't stipulate the evidence had to be convincing. You asked: Is it realy true that it is impossible to detect anything at all? So to that the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 26, 2007 21:45:37 GMT -4
inconceivable, Try this experiment. Stand a quarter (if if you are British a New Pence, or if an Ozie a 20c or if none of the above, a coin that is slightly bigger that your thumb) on it's edge with the "heads" side facing you. Walk about 25 paces. Now read the date on the coin. This is the same problem as seeing objects a few metres across on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 26, 2007 21:55:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jun 27, 2007 10:15:28 GMT -4
I noticed in the article of the Apollo 15 LM landing site, the anomoly that coincides with the LM landing site shows a 165ft to 490ft disruption in the lunar regolith. Is this a blast crater? Does this coincide with the actual lunar photographs at the Apollo 15 site, showing this blast crater if that is what it is?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 27, 2007 10:32:34 GMT -4
Is this a blast crater?
No. The degree of disturbance revealed by the photograph does not even remotely qualify as a "blast crater." The image processing technique used here amplifies subtle differences in optical properties. Some researchers have correlated it with the effect of the LM descent engine's exhaust plume preferentially sweeping away certain types of particle in the upper layer of regolith as the LM flew over.
The LM's descent engine was not nearly powerful enough to dig a deep crater, as some conspiracy theorists have proposed. While it was near the surface, the engine was developing only 3,000 to 6,000 pounds of thrust -- less than some jet engines at medium power.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 27, 2007 10:38:12 GMT -4
I think those figures are estimates at best. The disruption is just disturbed dust that may expose slightly lower soil layers. There was no "crater", as the soil below the upper dust layer is pretty firm. But it's evident that there is something there, and it coincides with the documented position of the LM from the records. Someday, I hope, someone will go back and find the artifacts. It won't be the first trips back, as they have more important things to explore than old hardware at previously examined sites.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jun 27, 2007 10:59:05 GMT -4
Viewing the Apollo 15 photographs I notice the ground around the LM looked undisturbed . The only disturbance of the lunar soil I can see from the actual lunar photographs is from the astronouts and the lunar rover. Shouldn't the photograph showing the 165ft to 490ft lunar disturbance also show the lunar rover and astronouts disturbance of the lunar soil?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 27, 2007 11:20:58 GMT -4
As described in the text, the Clementine pics were processed for this picture with a red filter, not sure exactly what effect that might have. Also, the Clementine camera and the SIM bay A17 cameras were no doubt different, so differences in resolution can be expected. edit...misread your question. I think the answer would be "not necessarily". The area around the LM was heavily travelled, especially around the ALSEP bay side. Then some travel back and forth to the nearby ALSEP site. The rover missions would take off to several distant stations for sampling. But these pics are pretty bad resolution, with the presence of the LM "just" apparent. Distinguishing individual "trails" is not likely.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 27, 2007 12:22:57 GMT -4
Shouldn't the photograph showing the 165ft to 490ft lunar disturbance also show the lunar rover and astronouts disturbance of the lunar soil?
No, because those features are below the resolution of the Clementine cameras.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jun 27, 2007 12:27:07 GMT -4
The Clamentine could distinguish the "suttle differences" around the LM. When viewing the Apollo 15 lunar photographs, the astronuats and the lunar rover noticeably disturbed the lunar soild all around the LM. Not subtle like the LM . Why didn't these unsubtle rover tracks show up?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 27, 2007 12:54:54 GMT -4
I'm guessing at this:
The area disturbed by the LM's engine is much larger than that disturbed by the rover's tires.
Also, the soil disturbed by the rover may not be different enough to register on Clementine's (there's no "A") detector.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jun 27, 2007 13:02:36 GMT -4
Why can't I see this 165ft to 490ft lunar disturbance on the Apollo 15 lunar photographs?
|
|