|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 2, 2007 8:36:31 GMT -4
Good question, especially when you consider the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has managed to image the Spirit rover and tracks as well as bits and pieces of the Viking landers. All the way through the Martian atmosphere which limits orbital height, unlike the moon where you could arrange a highly elliptical orbit. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16055585/A probe like the MRO has not yet orbited the moon. Do research before making such a comparison and claim. Such research would also show you that such a probe is set to be launched in 2008. But even when such images do come out, people like you will undoubtly shift your goalposts.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 2, 2007 8:44:47 GMT -4
Hold on there cowboy, where in the heck did I say they had. I think you need to resaerch my post old boy.
Gwiz. My criteria for a believable photo recon shoot of the Apollo sites would be that they are done in real-time and repeated with the use of a HEO which takes the orbiter over the sites at it's perigee.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 8:51:31 GMT -4
Hold on there cowboy, where in the heck did I say they had. I think you need to resaerch my post old boy.
You implied they could have and should have by now, and that they only reason they hadn't was because of what they would (or rather, would not) find. Don't walk right up to a conclusion and then hesitate before taking that last step just so you can pull the punch when challenged. It's dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 2, 2007 8:57:45 GMT -4
Hold on there cowboy, where in the heck did I say they had. I think you need to resaerch my post old boy.You implied they could have and should have by now, and that they only reason they hadn't was because of what they would (or rather, would not) find. Don't walk right up to a conclusion and then hesitate before taking that last step just so you can pull the punch when challenged. It's dishonest. I unlike yourself haven't the luxury of a conclusion due to lack of conclusive evidence. No punches pulled.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 2, 2007 10:46:35 GMT -4
Gwiz. My criteria for a believable photo recon shoot of the Apollo sites would be that they are done in real-time and repeated with How would you intend to verify that the received image aren't fake? Are you able and qualified to check the complete Hard- and Software? I predict a shifting of goalpoasts...
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 2, 2007 11:16:09 GMT -4
If the manage to get a very nice Hi Definition camera in realtime relay to several indepenmdant relay satellites whilst simultaneously broadcasting telemetry signals which when received from a mass distributed series of antennae and plugged into any Windows operating computer all paid for and funded by the respective governements in the world. that returns photographic and video evidence independantly by a mass audience, would the pictures be believed, after all the whole world could be watching pre broadcast matted 3d rendered artefacts on an actual scan of the moons surface rendered in realtime huh. or maybe the artefacts where flown up and placed by bootprint making artefact planting robots,
Or the fact that none of the space agencies considor such a high expenditure to placate a handful of people is simply not worth it, besides at least this way it keeps them off the streets and under the tinfoil hats.
Let's face it HBs are not going to let a little thing like evidence get in the way of their theories, a lot haven't mastered fundamental science yet.
If you get a load of HBs and transported them to the moon, I wonder how many would try and remove their helmets because they are obviously in an atmosphere,
I take it all the HB/HPs have written to the respective space agencies with demands of their methods of proof for any next mission. but the shift will probably be that these missions are real but thhe apollo ones are still fake yadda yadda yadda,
I think some people are just in need of a some serious Lully Fluffeh Kittunz Tiem.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 12:04:19 GMT -4
Gwiz. My criteria for a believable photo recon shoot of the Apollo sites would be that they are done in real-time and repeated with the use of a HEO which takes the orbiter over the sites at it's perigee. What is so special about this scenario that you'd accept it but nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 2, 2007 12:11:56 GMT -4
And, given that you are never going to be in mission control when the realtime telemetry comes in to produce the images, how are you going to verify that they really came from the Moon?
Or, put another way, why will such a new set of pictures that you have no way to verify convince you while the vast piles of pictures, video, documentation etc, fail to to do so?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 2, 2007 12:41:42 GMT -4
Hold on there cowboy, where in the heck did I say they had. I think you need to resaerch my post old boy. Gwiz. My criteria for a believable photo recon shoot of the Apollo sites would be that they are done in real-time and repeated with the use of a HEO which takes the orbiter over the sites at it's perigee. High Earth/elliptical orbit? Perigee or perilune? I'm not sure I understand this scenario. I need to read up on the LRO mission, not sure what kind of orbit they will be using. Low lunar orbits tend to be shortlived due to the Mascons perturbing the orbit. Now, do the MRO images meet the above requirements for believability? You seem to accept them as authentic.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 2, 2007 13:01:23 GMT -4
Looking at AS15-84-11324 I see the light area but it looks like other light colored areas in the photo. It just looks indicatve of the natural surroundings. If you look at AS15-86-11600 it hard to believe that the surroundings of the LM with the lunar soil disturbed like it is would not show up in the satellite imagery but the exhaust disturbance from the LM would that I cannot see any proof of. Shouldn't I be able to see something in that photo or AS15-86 - 11598,11501,11599,11502 that coincides with the satellite photo.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 13:12:36 GMT -4
Shouldn't I be able to see something in that photo or AS15-86 - 11598,11501,11599,11502 that coincides with the satellite photo.
No, you shouldn't, for the reasons already explained at length. The satellite image represents something that cannot necessarily be distinguished by the naked eye or normal photography at any range.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 2, 2007 13:21:34 GMT -4
LRO will have a final mission polar orbit of 50km, planned mission of 1 year. The initial orbit will be 30x280km and will be circularized over about a week.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 2, 2007 17:00:03 GMT -4
Will LRO have the capabilities or will it just be another satellite that won't have the resolution, or orbit, or altitude, or mission directive?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 2, 2007 17:05:25 GMT -4
Depends what you want to see. It should be good enough to make out that there is something there, but you aren't going to see the footprints of the astronauts or the flag decal on the LM descent stage. (And you certainly won't see any flags, they'll have been dustified by the "weather" long ago.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 2, 2007 17:07:25 GMT -4
To further.. I believe that the LRO supposed to have a resolution of around 1m per pixel. The descent stage is 3m wide, that means it will be about 9 pixels on the image.
|
|