Keck Observatory

I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

"PP" wrote in message


I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

Obviously you're not getting any feedback on this topic. Gee whiz, I
wonder why?

As a photon detector that's simply way over-kill, a soft-modified KECK
instrument if specifically utilized as performing as such a nifty photon
detector, can in fact resolve down to something better than one
meter/pixel at 384,000 km, by way of simply masking off 99% of each
primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror as focused onto
the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of course that sort
of image resolution would also show us more than we're being allowed to
know about our extremely dusty and somewhat salty moon.

There's no such "conspiracy theory" that's running this askew. It's
simply a hard matter of absolute and easily replicated fact, that a
soft-modified KECK instrument can resolve down to one meter unless some
naysay mindset of such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in
the way. If need be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help
finish off the demonstration of what KECK can damn well accommodate if
roughly 99% of each primary mirror is masked off, and for otherwise
pulling out all the stops (that's organ-speak for making an all out
maximum effort).

Under the cloak of earthshine and having laser beam illuminated upon the
target area of roughly 3.14e6 m2 with a 550 nm spectrum worth of photons
should more than accomplish the task, of allowing the soft-modified KECK
instrument to eventually obtain a digital stacked image of a relatively
bright speck of photons emerging as per a direct retroreflected result
of having those supposed retroreflectors, as placed upon that otherwise
physically dark surface, that's unavoidably there to work with.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

wrote in message
...
I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

If it could resolve to that level of detail. Am I right in thinking that
there is a difference in light gathering ability i.e. detecting the light
from the candle and resolution i.e. being able to see the candle its self.
Similar to being able to see a torch shinning a couple of miles away but not
being able to see the torch. And anyway the trouble is the conspiracy
theorists would simply suggest that the Keck photos were a fake as well,
after all since when has a nutter.. oops I mean conspiracy theorist let
facts get in the way of a good paranoid delusion :-)

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:23:56 GMT, "lyndmar" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

If it could resolve to that level of detail. Am I right in thinking that
there is a difference in light gathering ability i.e. detecting the light
from the candle and resolution i.e. being able to see the candle its self.
Similar to being able to see a torch shinning a couple of miles away but not
being able to see the torch. And anyway the trouble is the conspiracy
theorists would simply suggest that the Keck photos were a fake as well,
after all since when has a nutter.. oops I mean conspiracy theorist let
facts get in the way of a good paranoid delusion :-)


You could be right about the resolution thing. I heard somewhere else
that the best telescope could barely see a football field on the moon.
How big is the lower part of the LM? Maybe 12 or 15 feet square?

In message ,
writes
I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

That's just being used as an example (like the football stadium on Mars
in yesterday's NASA briefing)
It can detect a light of that intensity against a black background but
it can't resolve it against a background of other lights (which is in
effect what the Moon looks like when it is sunlit)
Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that you (i.e. US citizens) went
to the Moon.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:32:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
Silverlight made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In message ,
writes
I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

That's just being used as an example (like the football stadium on Mars
in yesterday's NASA briefing)
It can detect a light of that intensity against a black background but
it can't resolve it against a background of other lights (which is in
effect what the Moon looks like when it is sunlit)
Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that you (i.e. US citizens) went
to the Moon.

Well, actually, "we (US citizens)" didn't. Just a few US government
employees did.

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message

In message ,
writes
I was just watching a show on National Geographic Channel about the
deadly planets. They mentioned that the telescopes on Keck
Observatory could detect a flickering candle on the moon. If they're
this good, surely they could see the Apollo landing sites. Why don't
they point one of the scopes at Sea of Tranquility, Fra Mauro or
Hadley Plains and prove that Apollo was for real?

That's just being used as an example (like the football stadium on Mars
in yesterday's NASA briefing)
It can detect a light of that intensity against a black background but
it can't resolve it against a background of other lights (which is in
effect what the Moon looks like when it is sunlit)
Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that you (i.e. US citizens) went
to the Moon.

Say what? Walked on the moon? Really, as in honest to God, and all of
that crapolla?

Finaly a topic kick in the butt from good old Guth, and all of
mainstream damage-control hell breaks lose.

Obviously you bible/koran thumping folks are still not getting any of
your own honest to God KECK feedback on this nifty topic. Gee whiz, I
wonder why not?

As a photon detector that's simply way over-kill, a soft-modified KECK
instrument if specifically utilized as performing on behalf of such a
nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve down to something better than
one meter/pixel at 384,000 km, by way of simply masking off 99% of each
primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror as focused onto
the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of course that sort
of image resolution would also beging to show us more than we're being
allowed to know about our extremely dusty and somewhat salty moon.

There's no such "conspiracy theory" that's running this askew. It's
simply a hard matter of absolute and easily replicated fact, that a
soft-modified KECK instrument can resolve down to one meter unless some
naysay mindset of such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in
the way. If need be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help
finish off the demonstration of what KECK can damn well accommodate if
roughly 99% of each primary mirror is masked off, and for otherwise
pulling out all the stops (that's organ-speak for making an all out
maximum effort).

Under the cloak of earthshine and having laser beam illuminated upon the
appropriate target area of roughly 3.14e6 m2 with a sufficiently
powerful 550 nm spectrum worth of photons should more than accomplish
the task, of allowing the soft-modified KECK instrument to eventually
obtain a digital stacked image of a relatively bright speck of photons
emerging as per a direct retroreflected result of having those supposed
retroreflectors, as placed upon that otherwise physically dark and
cosmic morge of a nasty surface, that's unavoidably there to work with.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


Well, actually, "we (US citizens)" didn't. Just a few US government
employees did.

LLPOF, and then some.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Rand Simberg wrote:

Well, actually, "we (US citizens)" didn't. Just a few US government
employees did.


Sorry, but aren't US government employess US citizens too?

--
Gareth Slee
http://www.meroffice.com

"PP" wrote in message


You could be right about the resolution thing. I heard somewhere else
that the best telescope could barely see a football field on the moon.
How big is the lower part of the LM? Maybe 12 or 15 feet square?

Do you know what being snookered and thus dumbfounded is?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG