Smart 1 may have photographed Apollo LEM.

Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he happened
to mention that as the orbit of the space craft decayed they had flown over
an Apollo landing site (I forget which one) and had taken pictures of the
area. He went on to say that beacause of camera resolution and the
relatively small size of the LEM legs a fully detailed picture was probably
not feasible but the elongated shadows of the structure was a distinct
possibility. They would have to see what turns up as the massive amounts of
data collected is sifted through and looked at.
I am looking forward to the pictures for nostalgic reasons (I am 55 and
remember those years vividly), and also it being the first time Apollo
equipment has been photographed in situ.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Dave.

Dave E wrote:

Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he happened
to mention that as the orbit of the space craft decayed they had flown over
an Apollo landing site (I forget which one) and had taken pictures of the
area. He went on to say that beacause of camera resolution and the
relatively small size of the LEM legs a fully detailed picture was probably
not feasible but the elongated shadows of the structure was a distinct
possibility. They would have to see what turns up as the massive amounts of
data collected is sifted through and looked at.
I am looking forward to the pictures for nostalgic reasons (I am 55 and
remember those years vividly), and also it being the first time Apollo
equipment has been photographed in situ.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Dave.


Dave
I forwarded this to sci.space.history
I'm sure they'll be interested.

--
Gareth Slee

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he happened


We have yet to get any photo evidence of the LEM that would shut the
wackjobs up for good!

In article jqYKg.3660$0k7.2783@clgrps13,
Thomas wrote:

We have yet to get any photo evidence of the LEM that would shut the
wackjobs up for good!

Nothing will shut them up. When arguing against them, your audience is
the public, not the loonies themselves.

-- Richard

Thomas wrote:
"Dave E" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he happened


We have yet to get any photo evidence of the LEM that would shut the
wackjobs up for good!

Of course not. They're not interested in facts, but in pushing an
idea/agenda. Just ignore them by kill filing them.

--- Dave

"Thomas" wrote in message
news:jqYKg.3660$0k7.2783@clgrps13...

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he
happened


We have yet to get any photo evidence of the LEM that would shut the
wackjobs up for good!


How long before they start telling us that Smart-1 was a Hollywood backlot
stunt??

Damn -- I shouldn't have said that -- don't want to give them ideas.

Dave E:
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he happened

Thomas:
We have yet to get any photo evidence of the LEM that would shut the
wackjobs up for good!

And we never will. The operative word here is "wackjobs," not
reasonable skeptics.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"Gareth Slee" wrote in message
...
Dave E wrote:

Hi all,
In this weeks "Sky at Night" programme, a monthly British astronomy TV
presentation, one of the featured guests was a member of the ESA Smart 1
team. In the conversation he was having with Sir Patrick Moore he
happened
to mention that as the orbit of the space craft decayed they had flown
over
an Apollo landing site (I forget which one) and had taken pictures of
the
area. He went on to say that beacause of camera resolution and the
relatively small size of the LEM legs a fully detailed picture was
probably
not feasible but the elongated shadows of the structure was a distinct
possibility. They would have to see what turns up as the massive amounts
of
data collected is sifted through and looked at.
I am looking forward to the pictures for nostalgic reasons (I am 55 and
remember those years vividly), and also it being the first time Apollo
equipment has been photographed in situ.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Dave.


Dave
I forwarded this to sci.space.history
I'm sure they'll be interested.

--
Gareth Slee
Thanks Gareth. Never thought of that.
As for the "moon hoax theories". I try to stay out of the debate as it's a
lesson in futility. Whatever conspiracy theories crop up it is usually of
the kind were the facts cannot be proven one way or the other. Ergo fertile
ground for "what if" theories. The big mistake they have made this time is
that the proof is sitting there on the moon. Sometime, sooner or later, the
Apollo equipment will be photographed and almost certainly revisited by
manned space progams. There is going to be quite a few red faces around when
the Apollo 11 landing site is designated a World Heritage site.

Dave E wrote:
As for the "moon hoax theories". I try to stay out of the debate as it's a
lesson in futility. Whatever conspiracy theories crop up it is usually of
the kind were the facts cannot be proven one way or the other. Ergo fertile
ground for "what if" theories. The big mistake they have made this time is
that the proof is sitting there on the moon. Sometime, sooner or later, the
Apollo equipment will be photographed and almost certainly revisited by
manned space progams. There is going to be quite a few red faces around when
the Apollo 11 landing site is designated a World Heritage site.

I'm not sure everyone realizes that it is not possible to produce
evidence that will quiet the moon hoax believers. (I.e., if they didn't
believe the first manned moon exploration happened, why in the world
would they believe a subsequent one did?) Any sort of photographic
proof presented will be deemed to have been faked.

--
St. John
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
-H.H. Munro, "Saki"

St. John Smythe wrote:

Dave E wrote:
As for the "moon hoax theories". I try to stay out of the debate as it's a
lesson in futility. Whatever conspiracy theories crop up it is usually of
the kind were the facts cannot be proven one way or the other. Ergo fertile
ground for "what if" theories. The big mistake they have made this time is
that the proof is sitting there on the moon. Sometime, sooner or later, the
Apollo equipment will be photographed and almost certainly revisited by
manned space progams. There is going to be quite a few red faces around when
the Apollo 11 landing site is designated a World Heritage site.

I'm not sure everyone realizes that it is not possible to produce
evidence that will quiet the moon hoax believers. (I.e., if they didn't
believe the first manned moon exploration happened, why in the world
would they believe a subsequent one did?) Any sort of photographic
proof presented will be deemed to have been faked.

The hardcore moon hoax guys will never be convinced, but the general
public would believe the produced photos, and I'm more worried about
them than the nutcases.

--
Gareth Slee