PDA

View Full Version : Could Chinese see Apollo sites if they were in moon orbit?



RBG
2003-Jun-17, 12:51 AM
With talk of the Chinese launching a manned moon mission, I began speculating whether it would be possible for them to actually see an Apollo LM with powerful binos or other imaging equipment. (Sorry if this has been discussed before.)

If the Chinese do go to the moon, will the hoax nuts believe it?

RBG

Peter B
2003-Jun-17, 01:33 AM
Shouldn't be a problem to see them. After all, the Command Module Pilots were generally able to spot the Lunar Modules on the surface. These days, we know precisely where the LM descent stages are, while the CMPs had to do a bit of a search.

Some conspiracy theorists say they'll accept evidence produced by spacecraft at the Moon. Others (Kaysing would appear to fit in this category) say that all the superpowers are in some sort of grand conspiracy, so nothing the Chinese say can be trusted. Others again (I think Cosmic Dave belongs here) suggest that "something" will "go wrong" with any mission the Chinese attempt to send to the Moon.

JayUtah
2003-Jun-17, 04:01 AM
Some conspiracy theorists say they'll accept evidence produced by spacecraft at the Moon.

Until such evidence is actually produced. The conspiracist standard of evidence is always N+3 where N is the amount of evidence currently available. Why do you think someone who ignores mountains of evidence is going to be swayed by an additional handful?

Others (Kaysing would appear to fit in this category) say that all the superpowers are in some sort of grand conspiracy, so nothing the Chinese say can be trusted.

Of course. Anyone with the ability to disprove the conspiracy must have been educated by the "Establishment" and therefore suspect. The only people who have a hope of breaking this "cycle of deception" are those "brave souls" who educate themselves by their own means and stand up to the "persecution" of the "narrow-minded intellectual elitists." It's all a nice neat package of self-delusion.

And of course the only motive someone could possibly have for defending Apollo -- that infernal deception perpetrated by an evil government -- is to keep the "lie" going, or to be so wrapped up in and starstruck by lunar exploration, that one is willing to deny "obvious evidence" that reveals the lie.

(See, it's all spin.)

Others again (I think Cosmic Dave belongs here) suggest that "something" will "go wrong" with any mission the Chinese attempt to send to the Moon.

... which is entirely likely. After all, the U.S. "crash" program took eight years and suffered numerous setbacks and casualties. So when the Chinese suffer their first failure, Cosmic Dave and his ilk will dance around in victory, as if it's somehow magical to predict the bleedin' obvious.

DataCable
2003-Jun-17, 05:55 AM
I've sometimes pondered what it would take to dissuade some of these nitwits. Aim the Hubble at the moon (even if it were possible)? Nope, they'd just claim the image was digitally altered or just an outright fabrication. Photos from a satellite or manned capsule (of whatever nationality) in lunar orbit? Same difference.

It occurs to me the only thing that would do it (and I'm sure those more knowledgable than I can explain why it'd be physically impossible or prohibitively expensive) is to aim a purely optical earth-based telescope at one of the sites to show the footprints, and invite the HB du jour to look through it him/herself.

But, if resolving surface details down to 6" from LEO is right on the edge of our technological capability, I'm assuming doing the same from a quarter-million miles away just isn't doable, atmospheric distortion notwithstanding.

Of course, even if it could be done, I'm sure the rationalization would quickly spring up, "Robots made the footprints!" :roll:

RBG
2003-Jun-17, 06:37 AM
A little on a tangent with this particular thread...

Has it occurred to anyone, or is it possible that many or most of the moon hoax conspirators are a) practical jokers themselves on a grand scale or b) same as a) but also crave attention to a degree that is not really healthy?

I present this little hypothesis based on my own compulsion (no, compulsion is too strong a word)... desire to perform elaborate practical jokes on deserving individuals from time-to-time. And it *fleetingly* crossed my mind that it would be entertaining to attempt to work some elements of the scientific community into a lather / tie their shorts into a knot, etc over similar issues.

In my case, I don't think I could ever pull it off (if at all) without one heck of a lot of work. (But I definitely could see some obsessive personalities going for it.) Also, there would be the unknown oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-we-practice-to-deceive factor ie: Heaped international condemnation can't be a good thing.

But of course we have to recognize that these mega-jokers do exist everywhere. Thus we have crop circles; flying saucers; big foot; cults; on & on & on.

There may be more than a few different motivations at work here:

Those who truly believe people from earth never made it to the moon
Those who are simply loonie
Those who say such things for the notoriety
Those who say such things for the "intellectual exercise" of it all. (Like arbitrarily defending the flat earth concept.)

So I submit that some of the debunking that goes on in these pages is not completely for purposes of maintaining "truth, justice & the American way"... but also as a "counter-intellectual" pastime. This view is actually complementary, I think, as it suggests that the jokers are not really taken seriously around here.

There. I think I managed to be a little provocative.

I'll leave it to others to explain the damage that the conspiratory theorists, in fact, wreak.

Cheers,
RBG

Glom
2003-Jun-17, 10:33 AM
It occurs to me the only thing that would do it (and I'm sure those more knowledgable than I can explain why it'd be physically impossible or prohibitively expensive) is to aim a purely optical earth-based telescope at one of the sites to show the footprints, and invite the HB du jour to look through it him/herself.

Such resolution is beyond our capabilities, but you must also recognise that powerful optical telescopes aren't made for people to look through. They use CCDs to capture the image. Partly because only a CCD will be strong enough and also because at that resolution, you don't want anyone's heartbeat to shake the scope.


Has it occurred to anyone, or is it possible that many or most of the moon hoax conspirators are a) practical jokers themselves on a grand scale or b) same as a) but also crave attention to a degree that is not really healthy?

Evidence continues to mount that David Percy and Bart Sibrel are liars who do not genuinly believe their bilk to a huge degree but are just out to sell books and gain a bit of notoriety.

Wingnut Ninja
2003-Jun-17, 07:34 PM
There's a $25,000 prize for any taikonaut who can drop a penny on the lunar rover from orbit. :)

Okay, I just made that up, but it would be pretty cool.

BigJim
2003-Jun-17, 11:27 PM
There may be more than a few different motivations at work here:

Those who truly believe people from earth never made it to the moon
Those who are simply loonie
Those who say such things for the notoriety
Those who say such things for the "intellectual exercise" of it all. (Like arbitrarily defending the flat earth concept.)


The majority of them just do this because they are, well, idiots. They have no conception of logic, reason, or fact, and have a searing hatred of NASA for some reason. They have no concept of "intellectual exercise." They are so stupid that they actually believe that Apollo astronauts had to climb a rope to return to the CSM or that they accuse us of not doing research but then make the statement contained in my signature.

Darnon
2003-Jun-17, 11:30 PM
Actually, I don't think it's a problem of imaging resolution to use the Hubble telescope to spot the moon landers (After all, satellites can take photographs of objects about the same size if not smaller.), but it's a problem with the focusing ability of the Hubble. It's kind of like with your eye. If you hold something up really close to your eye, you can't focus on it because our eyes are designed to look at stuff a bit farther away, so a telescope designed to look at other galaxies might not be able to see a pinprick on something relatively quite close. I think the focusing ability of the Hubble was stated before, so maybe a more learned individual could give the exact scope.

JayUtah
2003-Jun-17, 11:48 PM
No, Darnon, it's resolving power. Which isn't to say you're wrong. (In fact, the HST's motion compensators "blur" the moon if not carefully controlled.) But there is something to the resolution issue.

Spy satellites focus on objects typically 100 miles away or less. The HST aimed at the moon is trying to see something 250,000 miles away. That's why you can see a penny at arm's length, but you can't see a large truck ten miles away. It's all about angular resolution, or how far part two objects have to be in angular measurement from the viewpoint, in order to appear to be two separate objects.

For any optical system the smallest angular resolution that can be achieved is proportional to the wavelength of interest (e.g., visible light or infrared or something like that) divided by the diameter of the principal reflector or refractor. For the HST's 2.4-meter mirror at visible light, that works out to something like 0.05 arcsecond, which at lunar distances works out to about 80 meters. So in other words, the HST can't see anything on the moon that's much smaller than a football stadium.

Darnon
2003-Jun-18, 12:24 AM
I stand corrected.

BigJim
2003-Jun-18, 01:38 AM
For all the talk about imaging the Apollo landing sites with Hubble or spy satellites, many people ignore the fact that it's already been done - Clementine.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_apollo_site_02.jpg&cap=Map%20of%20photometric%20anomalies%20around%20 the%20Apollo%2015%20landing%20site.%20Click-to-Enlarge


Arrow A points to exactly the spot of Falcon's landing site. [/quote]

Darnon
2003-Jun-18, 01:46 AM
I just hope that that the hoax believers don't take the noticeable darkness from it being quite strongly contrast enhanced as proof that NASA faked it because of the strong discoloration (therefore greater effect on the surface) which the caption at the bottom says as being caused by the engine blast.

AGN Fuel
2003-Jun-18, 07:33 AM
A little on a tangent with this particular thread...

Has it occurred to anyone, or is it possible that many or most of the moon hoax conspirators are a) practical jokers themselves on a grand scale or b) same as a) but also crave attention to a degree that is not really healthy?

There may be more than a few different motivations at work here:

Those who truly believe people from earth never made it to the moon
Those who are simply loonie
Those who say such things for the notoriety
Those who say such things for the "intellectual exercise" of it all. (Like arbitrarily defending the flat earth concept.)

So I submit that some of the debunking that goes on in these pages is not completely for purposes of maintaining "truth, justice & the American way"... but also as a "counter-intellectual" pastime. This view is actually complementary, I think, as it suggests that the jokers are not really taken seriously around here.

There. I think I managed to be a little provocative.

I'll leave it to others to explain the damage that the conspiratory theorists, in fact, wreak.

Cheers,
RBG

Look, I agree that there may well be an element to this. However, my motivation in investigating this issue is not primarily to directly debunk the HB's, who are likely to be driven by greed, narcissism, mischief or an irrational level of distrust of authority, amongst other possible factors.

What I find distressing is the fact that I regularly come in contact with layfolk and (especially) children, who have been exposed to this nonsense and do not have the skills to critically address the points raised. This is where these HB's are at their most destructive, and this is why they need to be set straight with vigour.

And if I give a practical-joking HB his jollies by responding in all seriousness to why the moon could not possibly be made of green cheese, then so be it. Although I can see where responding to some of these people reinforces their sorry little reasons for being, I think there is a greater risk in not responding and have the layperson think that their arguments must have some merit.

(I hope this has not come across as a rant...it is not intended to be. I have a splitting headache & my restraint module has gone off-line. Damn chemtrails.....) :lol:

Peter B
2003-Jun-19, 12:01 AM
Look, I agree that there may well be an element to this. However, my motivation in investigating this issue is not primarily to directly debunk the HB's, who are likely to be driven by greed, narcissism, mischief or an irrational level of distrust of authority, amongst other possible factors.

What I find distressing is the fact that I regularly come in contact with layfolk and (especially) children, who have been exposed to this nonsense and do not have the skills to critically address the points raised. This is where these HB's are at their most destructive, and this is why they need to be set straight with vigour.

This is what I've been discussing on Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum here: http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/

AGN Fuel
2003-Jun-19, 03:37 AM
Look, I agree that there may well be an element to this. However, my motivation in investigating this issue is not primarily to directly debunk the HB's, who are likely to be driven by greed, narcissism, mischief or an irrational level of distrust of authority, amongst other possible factors.

What I find distressing is the fact that I regularly come in contact with layfolk and (especially) children, who have been exposed to this nonsense and do not have the skills to critically address the points raised. This is where these HB's are at their most destructive, and this is why they need to be set straight with vigour.

This is what I've been discussing on Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum here: http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/

Which topic thread, Peter?

Peter B
2003-Jun-19, 08:09 AM
The thread is titled "Moon Question !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " (obviously all the question marks made it special :wink: )

The poster was Lanky Legs, and the original post was number 539814. The thread started on 18/06/2003 at 7:44:10 PM (AEST)

Donnie B.
2003-Jun-19, 11:25 AM
Except that they're exclamation points. :P

Nice reply in that other forum, Peter B.

Peter B
2003-Jun-19, 10:49 PM
Except that they're exclamation points. :P

D'oh!


Nice reply in that other forum, Peter B.

Thanks.

I hope a few people from here become regulars there. It's quite a community on the SSSF.