|
Post by sts60 on Aug 17, 2005 17:28:13 GMT -4
I don't think so. Observatory time doesn't go by who's got the most money - though money does count - but also by the scientific merits of the proposed observing program. I doubt an application filled out in crayon would be received favorably.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 17, 2005 20:08:59 GMT -4
Maybe if a group of hoax believers pooled enough money together to buy time with the telescope they could settle this themselves. I can only imagine the "analysis" that would come from that endeavour...considering the "anomolies" they see in the NASA photos. They will see what they want to see... Dave
|
|
|
Post by Jairo on Aug 17, 2005 22:33:17 GMT -4
I didn´t find the quote "30 milliarcsecs" in the link. Does it changed? Is it stated with other words?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 18, 2005 3:08:14 GMT -4
I didn´t find the quote "30 milliarcsecs" in the link. Does it changed? Is it stated with other words? In the last paragraph of the "Little Brothers" section.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 18, 2005 4:32:05 GMT -4
I myself have these letters after my name,MOHC,member of human race. Without wanting to be too pedantic, would it not be MOHR ...
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 18, 2005 8:42:09 GMT -4
I myself have these letters after my name,MOHC,member of human race. Without wanting to be too pedantic, would it not be MOHR ... Just testing the powers of observation here! Well spotted Sir. Guess I`d better go back and remedy. Perhaps I should leave it,MOHC......member of human circus.
|
|
|
Post by mosis2 on Apr 29, 2006 20:33:08 GMT -4
How reliable is the Sunday Telegraph as a source? And why would astronomers try to take pictures of the Apollo landing sites, if they can observe extra-solar planets? Astronomers accept the Apollo record, while HBs would dismiss the pictures anyway as fake. A nice let out. You didn't address the OP's point. Why did the VLT team give up? If they 'can observe extra solar planets' then why did they even talk about imaging the alleged Apollo sites? Let me make one simple prediction: the Apollo landing sites will NEVER be imaged in your lifetime, in spite of 20M pixel digital cameras being available for $50 in ten years' time. You will NEVER see moving, high resolution video footage from satellites around the moon, in your lifetime, even though millions of people on earth would LOVE to see them. And we will NEVER go to the moon (notice I didn't say 'go BACK to the moon'...) in your lifetime. Apparently because 'the public's lost interest'... Yeah right. So I guess the billion or so people born since Apollo have elected you to be their spokespersons...
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Apr 29, 2006 20:54:15 GMT -4
Why do you think a 20M pixel camera can image the LM on the moon? Do you have so little faith in the Chinese being able to land on the moon themselves?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 29, 2006 22:37:49 GMT -4
Let me make one simple prediction: the Apollo landing sites will NEVER be imaged in your lifetime
How much you willing to put up? I say we see them before 2010.
You will NEVER see moving, high resolution video footage from satellites around the moon[
How many satillites do you know of that produce "moving, high resolution video" of anything? The camera might be relatively easy to produce, but the equipment required to transmit moving images is way big. Apollo cheated to send theirs, they used a black and white camera with a colour wheel then added each frame with the previous and next one to get the "colour". They also had to use big antennas to send the signal and HUGE attennas to receive it. Even putting what they had of a satelite is impractical.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 22:54:03 GMT -4
A nice let out. You didn't address the OP's point. Why did the VLT team give up? If they 'can observe extra solar planets' then why did they even talk about imaging the alleged Apollo sites?
Well, they can't really image extrasolar planets like that. The full interferometric system isn't running yet, so a stunt like imaging an Apollo site isn't exactly a high priority. Beyond that, you'd have to ask them yourself.
Let me make one simple prediction: the Apollo landing sites will NEVER be imaged in your lifetime,
They already were imaged, from Apollo 15. Clementine also found the shadow of one of the descent stages. But in any case, I plan to be around in a few years when Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter gets around to imaging some of the sites.
in spite of 20M pixel digital cameras being available for $50 in ten years' time.
I discussed some of the relevant issues on the Proof of Hoax thread.
You will NEVER see moving, high resolution video footage from satellites around the moon, in your lifetime, even though millions of people on earth would LOVE to see them.
Yes, but ask them if they want to spend hundreds of millions for it, and their enthusiasm may dampen somewhat. After all, you would think people would be even more enthusiastic about high-resolution motion imagery of the Earth, yet somehow no one has built such a system and cashed in on such a market. Why do you think that is?
And we will NEVER go to the moon (notice I didn't say 'go BACK to the moon'...) in your lifetime. Apparently because 'the public's lost interest'... Yeah right.
People were rapidly losing interest in Apollo during the Apollo missions. This is well-established. If you have data to back up your "yeah right" dismissal, I'd be interested to see it.
So I guess the billion or so people born since Apollo have elected you to be their spokespersons...
More than two billion, I think. And nobody here needs to be their spokespersons; they've voted with their pocketbooks for decades. If there was that much public enthusiasm for going back to the Moon, the politicians would have cashed in on the votes long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 29, 2006 22:59:36 GMT -4
If your camera has 20 megapixels or 20 gigapixels, it won't matter if your primary optics aren't big enough to resolve lunar hardware at long range. That's basic physics. Haven't you been paying attention?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on May 3, 2006 10:30:47 GMT -4
The bottom line is nobody wants to image the landing sites. The cost argument is a joke. The cost of the Iraq war is predicted to reach 1 Trillion dollars. I don't think anybody would squabble over a few million dollars to do this. Think of the PR and the jobs created.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 3, 2006 10:54:01 GMT -4
The bottom line is nobody wants to image the landing sites. The cost argument is a joke. The cost of the Iraq war is predicted to reach 1 Trillion dollars. I don't think anybody would squabble over a few million dollars to do this. Think of the PR and the jobs created. Unfortunately, scientific programs don't get the kind of funding that the military does. If NASA wants to send a probe to the Moon they have to justify it.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 3, 2006 10:55:57 GMT -4
The bottom line is nobody wants to image the landing sites. The cost argument is a joke. The cost of the Iraq war is predicted to reach 1 Trillion dollars. I don't think anybody would squabble over a few million dollars to do this. Think of the PR and the jobs created. Unfortunately, scientific programs don't get the kind of funding that the military does. If NASA wants to send a probe to the Moon they have to justify it. Perhaps we could claim the moon has WMD?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 3, 2006 10:56:44 GMT -4
Or oil.
|
|