|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
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 :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Keck Observatory
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Keck Observatory Reaches Major Milestone On Road To Expand Adaptive Optics | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | October 8th 03 08:18 PM |
Keck Observatory Reaches Major Milestone On Road To Expand Adaptive Optics | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | October 8th 03 08:17 PM |