Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:26:42 +0930, "Kevin(Bluey)"
wrote:
wrote:
On 9 fév, 03:47, wrote:



What say you, toward? away?

Barring some unforeseen circumstance, my belief leans to toward.




Well if it does there will be no shortage of cheese.
Maybe Turcaud could discover some cheese mines.

Winsleydale for me.


Most varieties of blue will do for me. A blue moon. (Looks like full
moon tomorrow, folks).

On Mar 31, 5:15 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:41 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

The theoretical (diffraction limited) resolution of KECK is apparently 85
metres on one axis and 10 metres on the other.

Visible light is about 500 * 10^-9 metres, or 5 * 10^-7 metres

Therefore the theoretical maximum resolution is 5*10^-7/85 radians on one
axis, and 5*10-7/10 on the other, or say 5*10^-9 radians (generously) and
5*10^-8 radians.

At the distance to themoon(400,000 kms = 4*10^8 metres), each pixel will
be 4*10^8 * 5*10^-9 by 4*10^8 * 5*10-8 or 2 metres (wow) by 20 metres, for a
combined area of 40 square metres. I don't know how big the LIDAR reflectors
were, but even if they were a metre square (much larger than I remembered),
each pixel is 40 times bigger than the LIDAR reflectors.

This is the diffraction limited resolution, and assumes a perfect CCD array,
no atmospherics, etc.

You seem to think that under natural lighting (ie, not illuminated by a
laser) the LIDAR reflectors will be bright. If you think about it, you will
realise that they will in fact be darker than the surroundings. Even if they
were completely black, this would reduce the brightness of one pixel by
2.5%, which is way less than the change of brightness in adjacent pixels
caused by the fact themoonis not of uniform brightness. Keck is at least a
factor of ten and probably more like a factor of 100 too small to directly
see the LIDAR reflectors, or anything else manmade on the surface of the
moonfor that matter.

If you want photos of the LIDAR equipment on themoon, then it cannot be
done by any existing earth based observatory (or Hubble for that matter).
However, I am sure that the astronauts took photos of the equipment from a
range of one or two metres, and these should be available on the web.

HTH

Peter Webb

You're out of context, as well as out of your freaking mainstream
status quo mindset.

Modify KECK. If you folks simply can't, then I will.

BTW; where is Venus within any of the NASA/Apollomissions?

Remember that Venus (for its camera viewed size) was actually brighter
than Earth, and also remember those rad-hard Kodak moments were
optically unfiltered.
-
Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since it's so entirely taboo/nondisclosure as to soft-modify KECK for
easily obtaining that meter/pixel look-see; Why not instead hover the
quality rad-hard camera and of its 10X or greater telephoto lens at a
mere km or less off the deck?

What's the big insurmountable hovering probe of such a fly-by-rocket
problem?

A one-way probe's reasonably fast ticket to ride should take but a
40:1 rocket/payload ratio (instead of the original 60:1), especially
doable since the inert GLOW shouldn't have to be 15% (half of what the
old NASA/Apollo Saturn-V fly-by-rocket demanded). In fact, this nifty
image and multiple other scientific obtaining effort that should have
been doable decades ago, as such would be of a small enough (nearly
micro probe) deployment that it could be efficiently air-launched from
40,000', while cruising directly over the equator, in which case a
30:1 rocket/payload should more than do the trick of getting at most a
few hundred kg probe that's fully capable of hovering itself for a few
minutes above most any given NASA/Apollo landing site, and then soft
landing itself in the same general area.

Because of the relatively short loop of signal delay, of not more than
2.75 seconds, means that such a little fly-by-rocket probe could even
be somewhat humanly remote flown. This micro fly-by-rocket probe of
perhaps less than 100 kg (including its deorbit and down-range fuel
supply) should be more than sufficient. Therefore, we're talking
about as little as a 3 tonne air-launched or SRB assisted package.

The actual core workings of the fancy rad-hard camera and a few other
science instruments outfitted into this probe need not be 10 kg.
After all, this is nearly 4 decades long after the fact, and more than
a few things have greatly improved. At most 17 pounds of thrust can't
possibly demand all that much fuel, so that extended hover time and
downrange scope shouldn't be all that insurmountable, therefore most
likely accommodating the internal space and mass for a set of those
nifty momentum reaction wheels.
-
Brad Guth

A green laser illuminating the moon (throughout a given hour, say
stackingsuch narrow band-pass exposures per every other 1.5 seconds
each) via earthshine conditions is perfectly usable, and so is the
soft modification to KECK.

Since it's so entirely taboo/nondisclosure as to merely soft-modify
KECK for easily obtaining that meter/pixel look-see; Why not instead
hover the quality rad-hard camera and of its 10X or greater telephoto
lens at a mere km or less off the deck?

What's the big insurmountable hovering probe of such a fly-by-rocket
problem?

A one-way probe's reasonably fast ticket to ride should take but a
40:1 rocket/payload ratio (instead of the original 60:1), especially
doable since the inert GLOW shouldn't have to be 15% (half of what the
old NASA/Apollo Saturn-V fly-by-rocket demanded). In fact, this nifty
image and multiple other scientific obtaining effort that should have
been doable decades ago, as such would be of a small enough (nearly
micro probe) deployment that it could be efficiently air-launched from
40,000', while cruising directly over the equator, in which case a
30:1 rocket/payload should more than do the trick of getting at most a
few hundred kg probe that's fully capable of hovering itself for a few
minutes above most any given NASA/Apollo landing site, and then soft
landing itself in the same general area.

Because of the relatively short loop of signal delay, of not more than
2.75 seconds, means that such a little fly-by-rocket probe could even
be somewhat humanly remote flown. This micro fly-by-rocket probe of
perhaps less than 100 kg (including its deorbit and down-range fuel
supply) should be more than sufficient. Therefore, we're talking
about as little as a 3 tonne air-launched or SRB assisted package.

The actual core workings of the fancy rad-hard camera and a few other
science instruments outfitted into this probe need not be 10 kg.
After all, this is nearly 4 decades long after the fact, and more than
a few things have greatly improved. At most 17 pounds of thrust can't
possibly demand all that much fuel, so that extended hover time and
downrange scope shouldn't be all that insurmountable, therefore most
likely accommodating the internal space and mass for a set of those
nifty momentum reaction wheels.
-
Brad Guth

I think Turdball already has! His brains have turned to cheese!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:26:42 +0930, "Kevin(Bluey)"
wrote:

wrote:
On 9 fév, 03:47, wrote:



What say you, toward? away?

Barring some unforeseen circumstance, my belief leans to toward.




Well if it does there will be no shortage of cheese.
Maybe Turcaud could discover some cheese mines.

Winsleydale for me.