What's On The Moon?

[nomuse]

Shoot far, with RAM storage and CG available now, if I had any doubt at all then NOTHING that came from a probe would convince me in any way. That's even if I was intercepting the data stream with a dish and associated gear I'd built with my own hands!

I love this brand of hoax believer. They know durn well that all they'll ever see is some public-release stuff posted days or weeks after the orbit in question, in low-res JPEG at the NASA web site. And maybe down the road a pic or two at APOD. And those will be so easy to dismiss they won't even break a sweat doing so.

[Grand Lunar]

Am I correct in assuming that the LRO will have the same (or similar) camera that the MRO does? That, I think, would, for lack of a better term, rule.

[Bob B.]

grandlunar1980 said:

Am I correct in assuming that the LRO will have the same (or similar) camera that the MRO does? That, I think, would, for lack of a better term, rule.

I believe that is the case. I seem to recall reading somewhere that LRO is mostly derived from MRO and uses essentially the same optics. But then I could also be remembering incorrectly.

[inconceivable]

Even if they can't get a good picture of the LMs or the Rovers or the hundreds of miles of rover tracks, will they have anything that will detect metal. So one could discern the locations of the descent stages, rovers, alsaps, etc.?

[Jason Thompson]

Again, that depends on the resolution. It also depends on the elemental composition of the surrounding rock and dust. The equipment isn't a magic metal detction system. It will scan the spectrum and analyse what elements are present. Some areas of the Moon, for example, are rich in titanium, so if you put a few bits of titanium down in those regions they wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the chunk of titanium from the surrounding titanium-rich rocks right away. And if the spectrometer doesn't have at least as good resolution as the camera, again the items there may just be too small to be detected.

Bottom line: whatever data comes back from LRO will be dismissed by HBs as easily as the existing evidence has been. If they can make a studio to fake the landings in, they can fake up some low-res pictures from orbit nearly forty years on.

[PhantomWolf]

As far as I know, they aren't there to search for metal. You have to remember that the LRO is going there to look for new landing sites for the 2020 missions. This is its objective. If it comes back with images of the old landing sites that is a bonus. If you want to get close up photos of the old sites, get all the HBs together and build and launch your own one. You don't even need to go through NASA. Get the Russians, the ESA, the Indians, the Japanese, ther Chinese or Boeing to launch it, that way you will know that NASA can't interfer in the results. But don't expect anyone else to send a mission to the moon to specifically show that Apollo was real. Everyone involved in the space programmes about the worl already knows that they were, so they don't have to spend absurd amounts of money to prove it to themselves, and they aren't interested in spending that money to prove it to anyone else, especially those that would just ignore the results anyway.

[PhantomWolf]

Bottom line: whatever data comes back from LRO will be dismissed by HBs as easily as the existing evidence has been. If they can make a studio to fake the landings in, they can fake up some low-res pictures from orbit nearly forty years on.

Exactly. We already have photos from Surveyor 3 and Apollo 12 that show an identical moonscape, and that doesn't change a thing.

[inconceivable]

Have any satellites used RADAR to find the LMs and Rovers left on the moon. Some radars have ranges over 100 miles. Wouldn't these items show up on radar with their angles and metal components?

[JayUtah]

...will they have anything that will detect metal.

Not directly. Remote sensing does not yet meet "Star Trek" standards. Depending upon optical resolution and specific captured wavelengths it may be possible to devise a discriminator for refined metal after the fact, but there is no magic filter or button that distinguishes it during the mission, nor any guarantee that discrimination is ever possible.

[inconceivable]

Phantomwolf -
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.



Wouldn't it show up on RADAR?

[Bob B.]

inconceivable said:

Have any satellites used RADAR to find the LMs and Rovers left on the moon. Some radars have ranges over 100 miles. Wouldn't these items show up on radar with their angles and metal components?

Radar has far lower resolution than optical instruments. If you can't see it optically, you sure as heck won't see it with radar.

[JayUtah]

Some radars have ranges over 100 miles.

But not sufficient resolution.

Wouldn't these items show up on radar with their angles and metal components?

Not against a surface background, no. We see airplanes at that distance because there is nothing else in that direction to reflect radio waves. So in the radar spectrum an airplane stands out like a piece of silver confetti glued to black felt. Trying to distinguish a small manufactured object against the lunar surface is like trying to spot a piece of silver confetti glued to a wall that has been covered with tin foil.

[inconceivable]

What would they get if they did RADAR the moon? Would they get any signs of the LMS, rovers, and ALSAPs or would it just be a blank screen?

[furi]

Laser topography would be good as well, however scattering would lower the resolution for smaller objects, unfortunately I believe nothing short of a visit to the moon by ALL the HBs on the planet would be good enough(well the ones that aren't terrified of the Killer Radiations/Aliens/Masons/Hitler Clones)

If the offer ever came up BTW , I would be right there in an "I believe, and have the Probe polyps to prove it" Tshirt and a hat with coathangers, Kit Kat wrappers and vinyl tubing on. it's a trip to the moon ;D, my integrity can go walking in the lakes

[PhantomWolf]

RADAR will just tell you that something is there. With the items on the moon, it'd tell you that, well the moon was there. Short of using a mapping satellite like we have mapping the Earth with very precise radar, and even then it'd just show a bump that could be a big rock, there isn't mauch that will show enough to see it. As I say, the best way to do it is to build a satellite yourself. That way you can get a really great camera that will show 1 cm per pixel at 30 km, and you can have great pictures. Honestly, no one else needs them.