First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective

It would be if there were a telescope powerful enough to do so.
Unfortunately, no such telescope exists. Keep in mind just how
far away the moon is.

-Geoff

Well the LM lower stage, and probably the rovers path trail likely would be
visible. Whatever happened with the plan to image it with that telescope in
chile?

In article , alice wrote:
a few years ago there was a BBC documentary about the moon landing and
if it had been faked or not. At some point in the footage there is a
belief that the background actually wobbelled as if bieng hit by air -
obviously without the footage i can't substantiate this.

I don't recall any BBC documentary... I'm sure I'd have noticed, it not
being the sort of thing the BBC is prone to coming out with. Perhaps
you're referring to the FOX program which caused much entertainment a
couple of years back?

Even in the 60's, the hammer and feather can be made to hit the ground
at the same time either by using some photographic fakery (i believe
technology existed) or by ensuring that the hammer was the same weight
as the feather i.e. how do you know the hammer and the feather were
authentic objects?

Um. The issue of the hammer/feather experiment, unless you've decided
you don't like Sir Isaac today, is to show that regardless of the
weight/mass of the objects, they fall with equivalent accelerations -
ie, the gravitational acceleration, as opposed to the 'attraction', does
not vary with mass.

This can be demonstrated reasonably easily with a ball bearing and a
small rubber ball, for example, as these are the same size and shape;
try it with anything else, and you soon run into air resistance screwing
things up for you (especially in cases where you go from small, dense
objects to large, flat, not-dense ones... like feathers. Remember, if
you wave your hand vigorously enough nearby, you can keep a feather
floating for prolonged periods...).

So, if you wanted to "fake" this - ie, to demonstrate what it'd look
like without air resistance - then all you'd have to do would be to film
it in a near-vacuum. I'm sure there were dozens of film clips flating
around even in 1960 to show this; I've seen cobbled-together equipment
for school labs to release different objects simultaneously inside a
bell jar, so you can see it.

No need to mess around with any intrinsic properties of the materials,
just stop down the air pressure a few orders. (Getting a vaccum chamber
that large would be an annoying job, but by no means impossible)

We may be seeing a perfect example of hoax claims doing the
overcomplicating thing here :-)

--
-Andrew Gray

Warhol wrote:


"Henry Spencer" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
In article , alice
wrote:
If proof is really needed 100%, and if it was true would it not be
possible to view the original footprint and american flag using a
powerful telescope from earth.

No. Fundamental physics limits the resolution of telescopes; no Earth
telescope is big enough to show you the flag. The very best telescope
complexes now being built might eventually be able to show you one or two
little fuzzy blobs in the right places to be the LM and the rover.

Besides, if you don't believe razor-sharp photographs taken with ordinary
cameras by people on the spot, why would you believe a fuzzy computer-
enhanced image taken with a telescope?
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |


So you admit, No proof of Man On the Moon

No, you delusional troll, he admits you can't take a picture of the landing
sites with a telescope. He merely points out that if some morons (e.g.,
you) don't accept the Apollo surface pictures as genuine, you won't accept
a poor telescopic picture of a LM as genuine either.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Well the LM lower stage, and probably the rovers path trail likely would
be
visible.

Are they? How about doing some research on the expected resolutions of the
largest telescopes and reporting back here? Why not spend a moment to *find
out* before posting for a change?

At the moment, it isn't possible, because footprints are simply too small.

Most were likely erased by the upper stages exhaust on liftoff

Did they ever try pointing the camera left behind on the rover at any
footprints after the astronauts left for earth?

Geoff Cashman wrote:

In article , alice wrote:


If proof is really needed 100%, and if it was true would it not be
possible to view the original footprint and american flag using a
powerful telescope from earth.




It would be if there were a telescope powerful enough to do so.
Unfortunately, no such telescope exists. Keep in mind just how
far away the moon is.

Oh, yeah?
Sir John Herschel built one that see the Moon in detail in 1835,
Mr.Smarty-Pants!:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html :-)

Pat

Are they? How about doing some research on the expected resolutions of the
largest telescopes and reporting back here? Why not spend a moment to *find
out* before posting for a change?

Well we KNOW that chile telescope will be capable of imaging the lower stage,
its been dicscussed before. But just how does one research the possible
visiblity of a moon rovers trail? First how dusty and how was the dust
disturbed initially from tranversing, how much did the disturbance change the
paths appearance, and following that the LMs takeoff? beyond that long term
effects change the appearance yet again?

theres o way to tell without looking....

individual footprints are impossible with todays technology.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
But just how does one research the possible
visiblity of a moon rovers trail? First how dusty and how was the dust
disturbed initially from tranversing, how much did the disturbance change
the
paths appearance, and following that the LMs takeoff?

There are many (dozens or hundreds) of photos showing rover tracks. They are
pretty visible on the surface, but I doubt would be visible from "overhead".
They were not visible from the CSM in orbit. Since the traverses were
multiple km, they would be largely undisturbed from the LM liftoff.

There are many (dozens or hundreds) of photos showing rover tracks. They are
pretty visible on the surface, but I doubt would be visible from "overhead".
They were not visible from the CSM in orbit. Since the traverses were
multiple km, they would be largely undisturbed from the LM liftoff.


Well for the missions with rovers.

I question wether such disturbances were ever visible from above and what
effects 30 years have had. solar wind, impacts, and what little atmosphere the
moon had after the last LM left. Primarilty LM exhaust.

all of this makes it impossible to know without looking.

Warhol wrote:


"Henry Spencer" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
In article ,
Warhol wrote:
So you admit, No proof of Man On the Moon

Prove to me that you aren't a chimpanzee, or admit that you are. :-)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |


Fair warning: Henry Spencer is OCD and a phucking moron

For a moron I sure did pluck your feathers!!!!!!

OHHHHHH HO HO HO HO

HO HO HO HO

aaaaaaaaaaaaahhaahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

Who loves you Kitty cat KISS KIS

You've proven you're either an eleven year old human moron or Henry's
contention that you're a chimpanzee. Go away and throw your feces
somewhere else.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.