A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russian moon landers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 5th 08, 08:38 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 5, 11:32 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 5, 5:45 am, wrote:



On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote:
I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo CM.
One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting point.


I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know.


Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks.


Can you post a link to such official images?


Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##


Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known
kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts.


I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could
have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the
altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the
cameras and film used would have precluded that.


The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was
rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot
with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite
images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too.


Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the
last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth.


Andre


Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got
several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The
authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed
Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything
(lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!).


But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I
keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640.
I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting
but not alien.


Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track
went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no
end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided
craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side.


The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each
was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it
as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked
the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##


Of one-way hard moon landings or robotic deployments should have been
doable.

However, with 1e18 kg of mostly fluffy and crystal dry as well as
uncompacted dust and lose rock mixed with meteorite debris upon that
lunar surface, would tend to make such a fly-by-rocket science
deployment rather complex and extremely unlikely, especially along
with the degree of double IR pesky ionic/electrostatic charge raking
place, not to mention the unavoidable gamma and X-ray saturated
environment.

Show us something/anything from JAXA or ISRO that objectively proves
otherwise.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”


btw, KECK and its FL of 395 meters via its f40 secondary mirror can
project our Selene/moon at better than one meter resolution.

~ BG
  #22  
Old December 5th 08, 10:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default Russian moon landers


On Dec 5, 8:45 am, wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote:
I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo
CM. One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting
point.


I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know.


Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks.


Can you post a link to such official images?


Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago.


Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known
kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts.


I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could
have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the
altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the
cameras and film used would have precluded that.


The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was
rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot
with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite
images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too.


One must remain aware that the camera gear used for different
purposes in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit will be quite different,
with quite different resolutions.

Apollo cameras were often hand held cameras, used from
inside the CM. Also, even some SIM bay cameras were
chosen for their usefulness in mapping, where high resolution
is not the main criteria for such a choice.

http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/simbaycameras.htm

But, many Earth viewing spacecraft DO have missions where
the resolution of the ground is a primary mission criterion.
Think "spy sats"...

Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the
last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth.


Andre


Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got
several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The
authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed
Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything
(lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!).


The operative term here, to say the least, is "tainted source"...

But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I
keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640.


That number returns nothing on a search.


I have it in moderate quality. If someone can put it on a public
site I will send it him.


Check: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html

You will find that the numbers look like this: AS15-85-11354

^^
I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting
but not alien.


I am seriously doubtful that such an instrument could resolve any
non natural event results on the Moon.


I 100% agree. I talked about a small double ring crater I saw by my
own eyes. But I m not sure its the same like on the image I have
on file. Acording Steckling(?) "15-12640" was inside Humboldt crater
and I assumed a possible link with the moon domes. Thats why I filed
it. I`m not sure whether I filed the "rover track" images too.


Heck, the Hubble cannot
resolve a Lunar Module descent stage sitting there...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

Explanation: Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that
shows the Apollo lunar modules on the Moon? With its 2.4 meter
diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at
the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters
across. So, from low Earth orbit even Hubble's sharp vision can not
image the Apollo lunar module descent stages, at most a few meters
across, left behind at the lunar landing sites. A space telescope
over
ten times the size of Hubble could ... or a much smaller telescope in
close lunar orbit. In fact, this picture does just resolve Apollo
17's
Lunar Module, Challenger, and its shadow on the cratered floor of the
Taurus-Littrow valley in the Moon's Mare Serenitatis. It was taken in
1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about
100 kilometers above the Moon's surface and covers an area about
1.1 kilometers wide. Using a web site created by Dan Durda of
Southwest Research Institute, armchair astronauts can explore
orbital views of this and the 5 other Apollo lunar landing sites.
------------------------
Note that that is an Apollo image, taken in lunar orbit, and the
resolution is far too LOW to spot any Lunar Rover tracks.

Thus, I seriously doubt that any such images could have shown
similar to LR tracks made by Lunakhod 1.


I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks.
Was in an old AW&ST. If it was not shot by the CM, then the LM maybe?
To bad Henry went missing. He would know it for sure!


Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track
went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no
end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided
craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side.

The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each
was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it
as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked
the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates.


I remain a major skeptic. For the above stated reasons.

Andre



## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
  #23  
Old December 6th 08, 12:07 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Andre Lieven[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 5, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:45 am, wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote:
I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo
CM. One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting
point.


I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know.


Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks.


Can you post a link to such official images?


Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago.


Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known
kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts.


I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could
have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the
altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the
cameras and film used would have precluded that.


The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was
rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot
with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite
images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too.


One must remain aware that the camera gear used for different
purposes in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit will be quite different,
with quite different resolutions.


Apollo cameras were often hand held cameras, used from
inside the CM. Also, even some SIM bay cameras were
chosen for their usefulness in mapping, where high resolution
is not the main criteria for such a choice.


http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/simbaycameras.htm


But, many Earth viewing spacecraft DO have missions where
the resolution of the ground is a primary mission criterion.
Think "spy sats"...


Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the
last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth.


Andre


Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got
several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The
authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed
Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything
(lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!).


The operative term here, to say the least, is "tainted source"...


But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I
keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640.


That number returns nothing on a search.


I have it in moderate quality. If someone can put it on a public
site I will send it him.


That doesn't allow anyone to verify that it IS an Apollo NASA picture.

Until and unless YOU provide the *correct* NASA ID number, this
claim of yours and/or Stecking's remains 100% unsubstantiated.

Verifyable evidence is the key phrase. If Steckling used a pic
that cannot be shown to be an actual Apollo picture (Not to
mention the serious hit to any credibility for him pushing lunacies
such as Lunar "alien bases"...), any and all claims that it is such
a picture are not believable.

The record of hoaxers in this field is such that the only reasonable
position is a high degree of skepticism for such claims, until and
unless *specific and verifyable evidence* if offered up for such a
claim.

Check:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html


You will find that the numbers look like this: AS15-85-11354

^^


Note that what I wrote shows that the alleged NASA number from
your very loopy "source" does NOT match actual NASA Apollo image
numbering systems. That would lead to a reasonable conclusion that
his claim of that being a NASA Apollo picture is simply false.

I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting
but not alien.


I am seriously doubtful that such an instrument could resolve any
non natural event results on the Moon.


I 100% agree. I talked about a small double ring crater I saw by my
own eyes.


Well, thats 100% irrelevant to any claims about seeing any rover
tracks on the Moon, because not even the Hubble could see such a
thing from the Earth.

But I m not sure its the same like on the image I have
on file. Acording Steckling(?) "15-12640" was inside Humboldt crater
and I assumed a possible link with the moon domes. Thats why I filed
it. I`m not sure whether I filed the "rover track" images too.


IOW, you have NO evidence in support of any of this. Thats not good
for your credibility. And, citing a chap who claimed that there are
"alien bases" on the Moon kicks that cred way, way down, too.

Heck, the Hubble cannot
resolve a Lunar Module descent stage sitting there...


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html


Explanation: *Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that
shows the Apollo lunar modules on the Moon? With its 2.4 meter
diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at
the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters
across. So, from low Earth orbit even Hubble's sharp vision can not
image the Apollo lunar module descent stages, at most a few meters
across, left behind at the lunar landing sites. A space telescope
over
ten times the size of Hubble could ... or a much smaller telescope in
close lunar orbit. In fact, this picture does just resolve Apollo 17's
Lunar Module, Challenger, and its shadow on the cratered floor of the
Taurus-Littrow valley in the Moon's Mare Serenitatis. It was taken in
1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about
100 kilometers above the Moon's surface and covers an area about
1.1 kilometers wide. Using a web site created by Dan Durda of
Southwest Research Institute, armchair astronauts can explore
orbital views of this and the 5 other Apollo lunar landing sites.
------------------------
Note that that is an Apollo image, taken in lunar orbit, and the
resolution is far too LOW to spot any Lunar Rover tracks.


Thus, I seriously doubt that any such images could have shown
similar to LR tracks made by Lunakhod 1.


I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks.


My Google image searches turn up no such images.

Was in an old AW&ST. If it was not shot by the CM, then the LM maybe?


Perhaps. If it was shot from the LM ascent stage, then it would have
to have
been taken in the first minute after liftoff.

To bad Henry went missing. He would know it for sure!


Yes, he would likely be able to settle this issue, but I would hazard
the
estimate that his answer would not contradict anything that I have
said.

Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track
went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no
end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided
craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side.


The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each
was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it
as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked
the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates.


I remain a major skeptic. For the above stated reasons.


And, still.

Andre
  #24  
Old December 6th 08, 02:40 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Andre Lieven[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 5, 7:42*pm, OM wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:07:30 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks.


My Google image searches turn up no such images.


...Did you look under "Cheese Pizza"? That's where you find all of
Guthball's Ma...er..."Venus" images.


Oh well, I doubt that even Google image searches can turn up
but a fraction of the delusions that the Guthball suffers from.

I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line
above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is
otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate
when used about the Guthball. g

Andre
  #25  
Old December 6th 08, 06:24 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Russian moon landers



Andre Lieven wrote:
I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line
above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is
otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate
when used about the Guthball.


I remember ascent video from a LM showing visible tracks from the LRV.

Pat
  #26  
Old December 6th 08, 06:28 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Russian moon landers



Andre Lieven wrote:
I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line
above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is
otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate
when used about the Guthball.


Lookie what I just found: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg
Not just LRV tracks, but footprints.

Pat

Pat
  #27  
Old December 6th 08, 09:39 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Andre Lieven[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 6, 12:24*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line
above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is
otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate
when used about the Guthball.


I remember ascent video from a LM showing visible tracks from the
LRV.


So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of
such a low altitude in-boost flight view.

And, the OP was asking about pictures taken from the CSM in
lunar orbit. 100 km or so up. So LM low alitiude ascent views
are not relevent to that question.

Andre
  #28  
Old December 6th 08, 03:12 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Russian moon landers



Andre Lieven wrote:
So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of
such a low altitude in-boost flight view.


In case you didn't catch it:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg

Pat
  #29  
Old December 6th 08, 03:26 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 6, 6:12 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of
such a low altitude in-boost flight view.


In case you didn't catch it:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg

Pat


Apollo equipment was sent to the physically dark and dusty surface of
our moon, just not along with any crew.

~ BG
  #30  
Old December 6th 08, 04:06 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Russian moon landers

On Dec 5, 9:28 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line
above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is
otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate
when used about the Guthball.


Lookie what I just found:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg
Not just LRV tracks, but footprints.

Pat


Of zero dust, nothing ever ionic/electrostatic charged, always of thin
dust and extremely good clumping, 0.65 albedo, near zero mineralogy
color/hue saturation, though in this ascent1.jpg offering a good
enough indication of whatever UV and its secondary/recoil bluish
affect, otherwise zilch worth of gamma ot X-rays and never the least
bit hot from the double dosage of IR. In fact, the lander itself was
that of a medium gray coated aluminum (obviously for better
photographic reasons).

~ BG


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Russian Moon probe Pat Flannery History 28 June 18th 06 07:01 PM
New Russian Moon probe Pat Flannery Space Science Misc 8 June 10th 06 07:35 PM
Russian Moon Module in New York Museum? Mitch History 0 April 10th 06 08:56 PM
seeing the moon landers shadow by telescope!! Hayley UK Astronomy 4 February 26th 06 09:16 AM
seeing moon landers John Misc 22 October 3rd 03 02:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.