This website is kept for archival purposes only and is no longer updated.
 | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:43 pm a lot of people don't think you really went to the moon.Why don't you use the hubble to show the hardware left there | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:56 pm There are three problems with HST viewing things on the moon: 1. Size: An object on the moon 4 meters across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the FOC, at 0.014 arcsec. So anything we left on the moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot -- except see next point. 2. Motion of the moon: The HST pointing system is designed to hold it quite motionless relative to the distant stars -- but the Moon isn't. In 1 second of time, the moon moves over 0.5 arcsec. The shortest exposure time any of the HST instruments offers is 0.1 sec -- so an object we left on the Moon would appear as a streak. 3. Too much light: This one you can probably work around, but the Moon when illuminated by the Sun is far too bright for any HST instrument to take a picture of -- the detectors would saturate in much less than the shortest exposure time. So the picture would have to be taken when the Sun wasn't illuminating the area in question -- just lit up by Earthshine. | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 01:19 pm Those who don't think NASA went to the moon would not believe photos showing hardware left there. They are not of the "show me" crowd; rather they see conspiracy everywhere. Scientific evidence does not convince those who, no matter the truth, will hold their convictions. Look at those who still believe the Shroud of Turin is really the "zapped" image of Christ with all the scientific evidence to the contrary; or those who still think there is a monster in a Scotland lake, as well as those who think the wheat field patterns came from aliens dispite both having been admitted hoaxes. So, Hubble showing the moon's used car lot would prove nothing to that mindset. What they need is not more scientific evidence, but some heavy counseling. | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 04:54 pm Ahem - it seems the more we find fault rsh, the less we can accomplish a task - unless the person in question has a valid point. The point being here, "Did man land on the moon, show the proof?" Our webmaster gave an extremely valid answer to that question jowbolling put forward, and in fact I am one-hundred percent positive his answer is correct (I am no technician, but I value his answers). I hope we can further cooperate in such a unique BB. Nice points you put out rsh on Nessy etc., and to some folk Nessy is real! They saw 'something', call it what you will. In the meantime - hurrah for Hubble and its collective instruments and folks involved therein for bringing us back such overwhelming images, and three cheers to the seven astronauts currently enroute. Many blessings from us earthlings - you appear to be our 'bridge over troubled water.' Good Luck. Have a nice day. | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 07:58 pm The best solution to solve this problem would be for Humans to vist the moon again. It is about time we went there again anyway!!! | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 07:50 pm TO THE MOON!!! | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 05:37 am I have to admit that the concept of photos of the equipment that we left sitting on the moon would be very cool. Not that I disbelieve that we landed there, just that it would be spectacular to see them that way. There really is something interesting in abandoned hi-tech equipment silently sitting out there. | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 09:34 am My students constantly remark that the moon landing was an "impostor". It is not hard to justify in my mind; however, they have doubts that I have trouble removing. They think the pictures are fake. I try to expain that NASA would not publish fake pics. How can I be more convincing than just negating their coments? | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 10:27 am Perhaps this is an opportunity to discuss with your students the fine line between rational skepticism and paranoia. You could ask your doubting students to construct an alternate explanation that covers the known facts. Indeed, the pictures could be fakes. How about the LEM, command modules, and Apollo capsule -- were they fakes? Thousands of engineers and technicians claim to have worked on them, some employed by the government and some by contractors. Are they part of the conspiracy? Or were they somehow duped? How about the external engineering review panels that checked that the designs would work. Are they part of the conspiracy? How about the thousands of financial auditors (who come from another branch of the government) who were checking that that money was being spent the way the reports said. You might also ask, if they didn't go to the moon, where did they go? And lastly, what about the experiments done firing lasers off the retroreflectors left on the moon by the astronauts -- are those scientists part of the conspiracy too? Be interesting to see what they come up with. Once you have it all on the board, you can ask everyone if the result is more believable than putting a man on the moon. My own opinion is that you can't put together a conspiracy that involves a large number of people on a non-classified project, so all those engineers etc. really did build and deliver a LEM, command module, capsule, and boosters that they thought would make it to the moon. And if they built it, then you have to ask what the motivation would be for making fake photos instead of sending it to the moon. For contrast, you might ask them if they think the Patriot anti-missile system really works. | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 11:33 am Dave, I would add one more set of evidence for the students to consider, one I mention in my classroom discussions. Hundreds, if not thousands, of amateur radio enthusiasts ("hams") around the world tracked the telemetry and communications channels into space, to the moon, and back on those various missions. It would be physically impossible to rig something to fake this radio source without having that radio source itself go to the moon and back. So, at a minimum, we sent something to the moon and brought it back on several occasions. Interested readers can look up past copies of QST, the journal of the American Radio Relay League. Even if the radio amateurs in dozens of countries could have been persuaded not crying "sham!", the governments of the Soviet Union and various other nations would have. But they did not. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 05:28 pm Man on the Moon? Don’t believe it, Next your be telling me that the Earth is round! | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 06:24 pm When we landed on the moon It was my birthday and i was 12 years old and I believe we did land on the moon. | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 04:44 pm Is the moon really made of green cheese? Heck, I've got green cheese in the refrigerator! | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 04:49 pm Any chance we can put Bill Gates into orbit? Permanently... (space suit optional) | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:44 pm It's a sad, sad world when not just a few, but a "group" of students is buying into the old "we never really went to the moon" b.s. I think it's really weak that so many people feel so distrustful of our government as to buy into this crap, and are so unknowlegable about the great acheivments of the space program. I can't imagine the balls it took for those guys to do what they did, and it bothers me that they don't get more credit in the eyes of todays youth. Strapping yourself into a rocket like that makes any form of X-stunt look cheesy by comparison. My hat's off to the men and women who have done what would have most people crapping down their legs. | |
| ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 01:44 pm I find some of this talk rather puzzling. Why would we need pictures of the equipment on the moon left behind by NASA when we already have pictures when NASA was there? Seems like that would be a waste of taxpayers money to me. Better to use the money on something else. A site that might be of interest to the people who don't believe we landed on the moon is at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm This site systematically goes through some of the arguments of the people who say we did not go to the moon and shows why they are wrong. What I especially like about this site is that it has tests that you could do at home to help convince you that the moon photos were real. One of the best points though I have heard that shows NASA actually landed on the moon is on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site. There he points out that on videos of the lunar rover we see that dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover go in a perfect parabolic arc (no billowing of air, etc.). This would be impossible on Earth unless they were in a vacuum. This would cost a lot of money to create this effect on Earth (we would first need to develop the technology to do this)...it probably would be cheaper to actually go to the moon. See Phil Plait's arguments at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html At any rate, this sort of talk is better for his discussion board, not the SM3B discussion board. They have some lively discussions there. Go have fun. | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 12:47 am My uncle, who has been dead for thirty years, never believed man landed on the moon. I always thought it was because he had been born in a world in which man had been flying in airplanes for only ten years(1913),television and radar had not been invented,there was no such thing as an atomic bomb,and an "icebox" was literally a wooden box with a big chunk of ice in it. It's hard to understand why, in our technological society, people still don't believe we went there. | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 05:43 am I agree with Mark and Saleem- its time we went to the Moon again - time we started to explain to the 'powers that be' the importance of establishing a base on the Moon. Man needs the challenge of exploration. We must move forward, or stagnate. More publicity needs to be given to the public at large, who in turn will push Governments to take action. So many benefits have come to humanity from Space exploration, lets go on and on. One good reason for promoting all space news is that once you see whats out there it gives you a better perspective on life, and maybe we can manage affairs on planet Earth better. | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 07:43 am A point to consider, if these people don't believe that we went there in the first place then they won't believe we went there again. What those people need is for them to tune in the telescope, look through the view finder, and see for themselves. I for one am 100% convinced we made it. I seen that TV special and seen flaws both in their statements and flaws in the images. Both of which could be explained away by deliberate attempts to improve the image or distort the image. Thank you for HUBBLE though. | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 05:23 pm how is it possible to re-activate a spacecraft 7.5 billion m iles away that is 30 years old yet nothing on the moon emits anything | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 09:40 pm Vic, we didn't leave anything on the Moon that has a power source. So there's no way a receiver up there could be turned on to hear a signal. But the satellites carry power sources and are always listening for at least a "turn on" signal. It's rather like the way your computer or TV goes into a "sleep" mode, waiting for just the right signal to power the rest of the way up. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 09:18 am All this talk about going back to the Moon, Wouldn’t our time and money not be put to better use by building the next generation of orbital telescopes or unmanned probes? We could learn a lot more about our solar system and universe at a fraction of the cost. Of course the moon landings happened, to believe they didn’t is very narrow-minded. But the big question is, did the whole Apollo program significantly advance our understanding of the Solar System and the Universe? Was it motivated by national pride or science? | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 10:16 am There is no question that the whole Apollo project was nothing more than a definition of mine's bigger than yours attitude. We achieved that with flying colors. Don't get me wrong there was a lot of science that was done on those Apollo mission from zero g studies to material analysis. We still have people studing those rocks! The trouble with not going back though is we are getting into a rut. There should be no doubt that if we were to go back to the moon or other planetary body it would be to satisfy just those kinds of scientific questions that cannot be done without a human on site to make the decisions. Besides, wouldn't a moon hotel be great?!!! | |
| ||||| Monday, March 11, 2002 - 12:34 am Didn't we leave a retro prism (5 sided) on the moon that was used to do some measurements of the moons orbit? | |
| ||||| Monday, March 11, 2002 - 08:02 pm it appears to me that j m frysinger job is to convince people about the integrity of the moon landings i still feel there is something being covered up call it intuition or hunch but it just doesnt add up | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:26 am hey what going on | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:29 am what up? did you have fun | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 05:13 pm vic, What specifically doesn't add up about the moon landings? What facts lead you to this conclusion that something is being covered up? | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 06:30 pm scott this is a dead end if i could prove conclusively that there had been no manned moon landings i would have not used the word hunch | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:00 am I have followed the space program from the first mercury through gemini apollo and now the shuttle' I have always been a advid supporterand allways will. To all in NASA keep them flying!!This taxpayer thinks its worth every penny! Good luck God bless and Gods speed. | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:05 pm vic, So what you are saying is that you have no idea and for no reason whatsoever you think we did not land on the moon? This does not add up. | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:53 pm scott your a typical product of a closed mind i strongly suspect the tooth fairy is still a regular visitor. have you read everybodys comments on this page or are you just taking the establishments view | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:16 pm I find it amazing that vic is accusing Scott of a closed mind. vic, if you don't believe we went to the moon, I think it is YOU who has a closed mind. | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:03 pm edward it is very nice of you to come to scotts aid but nasa is still unable to show any conclusive evidence of there presence on the moon.they say the it is to difficult to use the hubble telescope to pick up moon buggys, landers,ect, but they were able to reflect a laser beam from the earth to the moon and back through the earths atmosphere with great accuracy. | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:49 pm We placed a retroreflector on the moon just so that we could bounce a laser from it. This requires no power so it was an easy decision. On the other hand, to use HST just to see hardware we left behind on the moon is a frivolous use of such a valueble resource. Only one out of nine proposals to use HST are approved. It is booked years in advance. Thus HST is used to answer the important science questions. Using HST time to view hardware we left behind will not convince those that do not want to be convinced. Even if we spent valueble telescope time and showed hardware, it would be fodder for those that say the pictures were doctored. We could easily have produced the picture in a movie studio. If you doubt that we went to the moon, you doubt what NASA is telling you. But where do you draw the line? Do you believe that we just serviced HST? Do you even believe that there IS an orbiting Space Telescope? Do you believe we have a Shuttle that can launch like a rocket, and land like a plane? You do? Why? Because you saw it on TV? | |
| ||||| Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:40 pm Edward, No one has brought up the fact, is that we didn't have the computing power for any thing approcahing ability to create the defination or information contained in any of the picutres or video made during the moon mission. I think my HP pocket calculator has more memory and computing power than the IBM computer used on the moon missions. All one has to do is look at some space movies or TV shows of the time. Any doubters could bounce a Laser beam off the prism. Again congradulations to all for job well done. syd | |
| ||||| Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:48 am Oy Vey! | |
| ||||| Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:10 am vic, Ok I'll repeat this once more. We DO have pictures of astronauts on the moon. Why do you deny this evidence? I asked you your reasons and you couldn't produce any reasons. I have a perfectly open mind on this...if you can show me any VALID evidence than we can discuss your "hunch". But is all you have is a hunch with no evidence or reason behind it. This is the definition of a closed mind. BTW -- go up to one of my previous messages and you can see some evidence maybe this will help open your close mind. Edward Cheung, Thanks. Maybe your discussion will help vic understand, but I doubt it. His mind is obviously close to any thing that has evidence associated with it. crzyldy, Well at least this time it is the moon and not the metric debate.  | |
| |
