Apollo artifacts visable?

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We have telescope pointed at earth that can read a newspaper.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This I greatly doubt. If we had a spy satellite this good, I doubt we'd have bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake. I suspect that our best spy satellites can just about resolve something the size of a newspaper; the letters on the newspaper would be too small to discern. I even doubt that it would be physically possible to get a spysat that good; newsprint is so tiny that even the clearest bit of Earth's atmosphere probably would distort it into uselessness. (There's a reason Hubble's above the atmosphere, after all.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

In fairness, stories of reading newspapers (or licencse plates were another big one) have been floating around since I was a young.<br /><br />There is also a tendency to think of spy sats as being a lot closer to the moon than they really are, many realize, but don't really *realize*, that the moon is 1000 time further from the sats than the Earth is, so an ablity to resolve a cm here on Earth turns into 10 meters on the moon.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Yeah; that's another reason I tend to discredit such stories. The popularly reputed capabilities of these spy satellites has stayed the same for decades, when they should've been continuously improving. Obviously the popular myth doesn't come from folks in the know. Of course, folks in the know can neither confirm nor deny -- and will tend not to even confirm or deny whether or not they can confirm or deny. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> So the myth wanders merrily along from generation to generation, independent of any of the facts. This is characteristic of an urban legend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Apollo 17 lander seen from the command module. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

The point is that is it a good use of the limited financial resources to spend tens of millions just to photograph the landers? I don't think so, at this time.<br /><br />When (and if) we are truely going back to the moon, then we will have orbiters with current resolution capabilities, and will take those pictures.<br /><br />Even if you could read the plaque on the lander though, it won't convince someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

anvel:<br />We act like everything that's worth understanding about the Moon is already understood, and it isn't worth another look by a probe as sophisticated as MRO. I have a great deal of difficulty wrapping my head around that reality. It's worth doing just to silence the moon landing hoaxers.<br /><br />Me:<br />Its all about budgets. Right now the moon is not real high in priority and no lunar MRO equivalent was developed as a result. But if the VSE stays on course, we will probably see a few unmanned percussor missions to the moon with unmanned vehicles with imaging systems equivalent to or better than MRO.<br /><br />Despite this, images of artifacts on the moon won't convince HBs that humans were ever there, even if bootprints are visible in the images. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

(Anvel)<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Oh, like that pic is going to convince the tin foil hat crowd. I know you got my drift. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I suggest that the skeptics gather some money together and create and launch a probe themselves by going to the lunar landing sites. But quite frankly I think that is counter the skeptic mentality. <br /><br />Its easier to be a skeptic than to prove stories wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

A true skeptic would state that tickery was the basis for any proof that came from such an exercise.<br /><br />A true skeptic, if they could personally, literally touch an Apollo artifact would state that it had been placed there recently as a coverup.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[logicize]

There's nothing wrong with a tin foil hat. They can look pretty cool if you've got the right pair of shades.<br /><br />http://www.adhurl.com/the_optimist.jpg