Moon question

[JulesMaximus]

Actually that's a good point. With Hubble, and other methods of getting images, it's odd that we don't have more imagery of the moon given it's fairly close compared to other stuff we have images of.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be there is stuff on there such as a full blown military base they actually don't want us to know about? Then again there are plenty of amateurs out there with high powered telescopes that would have probably found stuff by now.

The images we have of earth are taken from satellites in orbit around the earth. A satellite in low earth orbit is only about 1200 miles up. The moon is 225,000 miles away from earth. You tell me how to resolve a vehicle the size of a small car from 225,000 miles away.

 

[Locut0s]

The images we have of earth are taken from satellites in orbit around the earth. A satellite in low earth orbit is only about 1200 miles up. The moon is 225,000 miles away from earth. You tell me how to resolve a vehicle the size of a small car from 225,000 miles away.

With a HUGE ass orbital telescope that costs billions to develop and launch, just so we can have high res google maps of the moon!

 

[KeithTalent]

Damn, was hoping for Sam Rockwell.

KT

 

[Locut0s]

Damn, was hoping for Sam Rockwell.

KT

Tell me Keith, what percentage of your thoughts are either directly or tangentially movie related?

 

[Red Squirrel]

The images we have of earth are taken from satellites in orbit around the earth. A satellite in low earth orbit is only about 1200 miles up. The moon is 225,000 miles away from earth. You tell me how to resolve a vehicle the size of a small car from 225,000 miles away.

That same telescope can also take pictures of galaxies that are billions of light years away. It just seems odd that the moon is not studied more given it's so close compared to other stuff.

 

[Locut0s]

That same telescope can also take pictures of galaxies that are billions of light years away.

The magnification isn't as great as you might think. To see the lunar landers from earth:

http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm

"
From the above table, even ignoring the limitation imposed by Earth's atmosphere we can see that we would need an optical telescope with an objective mirror about 100 meters (about 328 feet) in diameter to just about be able to see the landers and the rovers.
"

 

[Jeff7]

Actually that's a good point. With Hubble, and other methods of getting images, it's odd that we don't have more imagery of the moon given it's fairly close compared to other stuff we have images of.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be there is stuff on there such as a full blown military base they actually don't want us to know about? Then again there are plenty of amateurs out there with high powered telescopes that would have probably found stuff by now.

Hubble was built to look at things a lot farther away than the Moon. Get a camera with a strong zoom lens that can focus on things beyond 50 feet away, and try taking a picture of an ant 1" from the lens and see how it turns out.

That same telescope can also take pictures of galaxies that are billions of light years away. It just seems odd that the moon is not studied more given it's so close compared to other stuff.

Except that you're going to get a resolution of a few light years per pixel.

 

[Locut0s]

Hubble was built to look at things a lot farther away than the Moon. Get a camera with a strong zoom lens that can focus on things beyond 50 feet away, and try taking a picture of an ant 1" from the lens and see how it turns out.

Too late, already said this

 

[ImpulsE69]

Let's put this in simpler terms, Hubble is far sighted, not near sighted. The rest are designed to look at earth, not the moon.

 

[Jeff7]

Too late, already said this

Doh....I loaded various threads, then got the whim to spend some time in a game.

 

[Red Squirrel]

My bad then, but don't we have tons of other telescopes up there rotating around earth, mars, the moon etc? At least that's what I thought. With all the incredible imagery we do get, it just surprises me they can't get the moon, or maybe it's just too boring to explore or something.

 

[Locut0s]

My bad then, but don't we have tons of other telescopes up there rotating around earth, mars, the moon etc? At least that's what I thought. With all the incredible imagery we do get, it just surprises me they can't get the moon, or maybe it's just too boring to explore or something.

They would have to send up a small fleet of satellites in "low moon" orbit to map the moon in detail. It would take time and cost billions of dollars. There really isn't anything of real interest on the moon beyond mineral resources and we already have satellites mapping the moons mineral reserves.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm sure we'll get a close enough look when a random asteroid knocks it off course and into us.

 

[bobdole369]

According to the Big Bang Theory(the show) there's reflectors up there that you can shoot lasers at and receive them back.

True.

Ham radio operators routinely bounce radio off its surface as well to talk to other parts of the world on VHF.

 

[bobdole369]

Actually that's a good point. With Hubble, and other methods of getting images, it's odd that we don't have more imagery of the moon given it's fairly close compared to other stuff we have images of.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be there is stuff on there such as a full blown military base they actually don't want us to know about? Then again there are plenty of amateurs out there with high powered telescopes that would have probably found stuff by now.

It doesn't work that way. It'd be like trying to read directly in front of your eye. You just can't focus that close. The stuff on the moon is TINY! This explains it well:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...hy-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/

 

[slayer202]

http://www.google.com/mars/
http://www.google.com/moon/

that is awesome

 

[DrPizza]

"Sir, we don't have any pictures of the lunar landing sites taken from above."
"Who gives a shit?"
"These people on the Internet. They think we should send a satellite to the moon to take pictures of the Apollo landing sites."
"Tell them to go screw themselves."
"But sir, it would only cost a few hundred million dollars."
"Don't you have something you should be doing? Get out of here."
"But Sir! There are people who don't believe we landed on the moon! We need pictures to prove that we landed on the moon."
"Those morons would just say the pictures were faked as well. Hell, even that crazy flat Earth guy thinks that all our satellite images that show the curvature of the Earth are faked."
"Good point sir. So, I should tell them to go screw themselves?"
"Indeed. Dismissed."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Actually that's a good point. With Hubble, and other methods of getting images, it's odd that we don't have more imagery of the moon given it's fairly close compared to other stuff we have images of.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be there is stuff on there such as a full blown military base they actually don't want us to know about? Then again there are plenty of amateurs out there with high powered telescopes that would have probably found stuff by now.

Don't be an idiot. The military base is on the dark side of the moon so it can't be seen from earth. They also have kickass parties there that you're not invited to. (There really is a dark side of the moon since the moon is tidally locked to the earth!)

 

[FoBoT]

google earth? doesn't take a rocket scientist to make sense of it.

we just need google moon

 

[CZroe]

According to the Big Bang Theory(the show) there's reflectors up there that you can shoot lasers at and receive them back.

Is that really your only source of that knowledge?

 

[sportage]

Here, page 17

So the airline really DID lose my luggage... Damn

 

[ImpulsE69]

So the airline really DID lose my luggage... Damn

Maybe they just sent you to the wrong airport :whiste:

+1 for that reference. It's on topic..sorta.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to certain suggested versions of the grand unified theory, the primary particles constituting this product may decay to nothingness within the next 10 x 32 Years.

 

[BladeVenom]

According to the Big Bang Theory(the show) there's reflectors up there that you can shoot lasers at and receive them back.

They did that on one of the Mythbuster episodes.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

"Sir, we don't have any pictures of the lunar landing sites taken from above."
"Who gives a shit?"
"These people on the Internet. They think we should send a satellite to the moon to take pictures of the Apollo landing sites."
"Tell them to go screw themselves."
"But sir, it would only cost a few hundred million dollars."
"Don't you have something you should be doing? Get out of here."
"But Sir! There are people who don't believe we landed on the moon! We need pictures to prove that we landed on the moon."
"Those morons would just say the pictures were faked as well. Hell, even that crazy flat Earth guy thinks that all our satellite images that show the curvature of the Earth are faked."
"Good point sir. So, I should tell them to go screw themselves?"
"Indeed. Dismissed."

lol