moon missions

[al71251]

I'm new to this site so this may have been asked before, with all the improved technology over the years why have we not seen telescopic images of the lunar landing sites and the things left behind?

 

[nevers]

Hi Al -<br /><br />Welcome to SDC! I'm sure there's volumes about the topic already and there are probably only two answers.<br /><br />One - because we didn't go to the moon and there is nothing left up there to look at.<br /><br />Two - because we did go to the moon, we know what we left behind and it would be a waste to look at something we know is there.<br /><br />With my telescope, I can only focus on the moon as if I were flying over it at the height of ~500 miles. Otherwise, I'd try and take a picture for you...sorry.

 

[odysseus145]

It also has to do with the fact that no existing telescope can resolve the sites.<br /><br />Here is a discussion on Badastronomy.com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

If we put the NEVERS telescope on a probe flying 250 miles above the surface of the moon, our resolution would be improved 1000 times, so it would be as if we were 1/2 mile above the 6 landing sites on the moon which would be close enough to see many of the details. Neil

 

[nevers]

I say let's do it!

 

[CalliArcale]

Awfully good of you to offer your telescope for such a mission. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Anyone interested in going along to man NEVERS' telescope on the mission? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />If our enthusiasm alone were enough to get the mission off the ground (so to speak), we'd've gone to the moon fifty times in the past ten years alone, and we'd have a sustained colony there by now. Sometimes I really wish we had more nerds in Congress. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[slayera]

I think that statement speaks volumes about the education level of this this country. Someone voted them in who cares more about god than space.

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">Anyone interested in going along to man NEVERS' telescope on the mission?</font>img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />I'll go!!

 

[alokmohan]

Ha ha ha.Fine .WE NEED MEN IN CONGRESS,INDIAN PARLIAMENT TOO.

 

[spaceman186000mps]

I guess it would be too dangerous and cost way too much to strap a couple of fueled rockets to the hubble after refurbishing it and then launch the hubble into a figure eight orbit between the Earth and the moon.<br /><br />I'd just like to take the dark seas of the moon and fill them with water and make an atmosphere to breathe...<br />My screen background is...<br />Now... how do I take this picture an add water and air ?<br /><br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">70 percent of novel proceeds </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.trafford.com/06-1593</font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff"> are donated to </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.caringbridge.org</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[heyscottie]

slayerA:<br /><br />Now, now, let's be nice! There really isn't any need for that talk here. You are right when you say a majority of Americans place a higher priority on God than on space. That does not, however, mean that those who believe in God are in some way against going to space. I, for one, would love to see a manned moon mission. I would even more love to see a manned Mars mission. In any case, the fault is not that of God or organized religion. The fault is, as you rightly implied, one of priorities, but let's see what those priorities are:<br /><br />Here is a partial, probably partially incorrect budget breakdown:<br /><br />2006 Budget Proposal: Agency Breakdown<br />Monday, February 7, 2005<br /><br />Department of Agriculture <br />$20 billion<br />Department of Commerce <br />$10 billion<br />Department of Defense <br />$420 billion<br />Department of Education <br />$56 billion<br />Department of Energy <br />$23 billion<br />Environmental Protection Agency <br />$8 billion<br />Federal Drug Administration <br />?????<br />Department of Health & Human Services <br />$640 billion<br />Department of Homeland Security <br />$29 billion<br />Department of Housing & Urban Development <br />$29 billion<br />Department of Justice <br />$19 billion<br />Department of Labor <br />$54 billion<br />NASA <br />$17 billion<br />Department of State <br />$32 billion<br />Department of Transportation <br />$59 billion<br />Department of the Treasury <br />$12 billion<br />Department of Veterans Affairs <br />$71 billion<br /><br />As you can see, the priorities are programs like Medicare/Medicaid and defense. (Defense spending, though generally does help push space science forward, but it doesn't have the focus of specifically pushing forward manned missions or high-end telescopes, etc.)<br /><br />Scott<br />