Posted by
michael
on from the things-THEY-don't-want-you-to-know dept.
redbaron7 writes "The BBC is
reporting that NASA has cancelled plans for a book to challenge the Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory, due to criticism. No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake."
Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that shows the Apollo lunar modules on the moon? With its 2.4 diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of about 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across.
Besides, why would anyone who believed in that naive hoax suddenly believe a so-called Hubble picture?
-- I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The lego links to which you refer are sprinkled throughout this page. Some of the claims of the non-believers really are quite funny and far fetched.
By the way, for all those who were dissappointed that NASA is no longer making the book, the guy that runs the site link above appears to have his own book for sale. It's probably a rough equivalent.
Re:Why don't they...
by
Sc00ter
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Re:Why don't they...
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 5, Informative
First reason:
It's a waste of Hubble time. There's real science to be done.
Second reason:
The sunlit moon is way too bright. You'd cook all the expensive and highly sensitive optics. If you examine a new moon, maybe you could get away with it, but such a moon is still illuminated by the full sunny side of the earth. I wouldn't want to try it. Also, pointing towards the dark face of the moon is also pointing the Hubble very close to where the sun would be in its sky...
Third reason:
The Hubble's resolution isn't good enough. Depending on the wavelength you work at, the moon's distance at the time, and the assumptions you choose to make in your calculation, the Hubble could resolve objects no smaller than twenty to eighty metres in size--much larger than any of the artifacts left at the moon landing sites. You might have better luck with the Keck telescopes in Hawaii, but they too are busy being used for real science. Any hoax believers aren't going to be convinced by a smudge, which is all you'd see even with the Kecks--if you could see anything at all.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:Why don't they...
by
gorilla
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The Hubble physically can't take pictures of the landing sites.
1) They're too small. Even at the Hubble's resolution, all you'd see would be a blob.
2) The moon is too bright. It would overload the optics.
Re:as time goes by
by
josecanuc
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Why would it be a useful research lab? It's made of rock and dust. We brought some back. What else is there?
A lab of any sort seems to infer the presence of equipment. Equipment like what might be used on a Moon lab probably wouldn't be very lightweight. The Lunar Excursion Module was pretty much only capable of getting 2 guys to the surface and back again with 200-300 pounds of rocks.
It cost billions of dollars back then. Imagine how much it would cost now. Who pays for it? Back then, there was a large number of folks in favor of 'beating the Russians to the moon'. The majority of US citizens were willing to pay for it. How many are now? And how much are they willing to pay?
I don't think there's anywhere near the same number of people that would support (financially) such an endeavor.
Once we beat the Russians to the moon, public support waned.
Re:Why don't they...
by
deglr6328
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Hubble's CCD's will NOT be fried by the intensity of light from the moon. This has got to be the most common misconception about Hubble. A 2 second search for "Hubble + Moon" gives you THIS as the very first result!!!
-- - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Re:Not Entirely True
by
LuxFX
·
· Score: 2, Informative
-- Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Re:My point being...
by
electrafied
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There already is a book like this. Its called 'Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax"' by Phil Plait. He also has a website, www.badastronomy.com. I highly recommend checking out both the book and the website.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it me, or does it seem that in the last decade or so NASA has become more interested in PR and their image than space science?
And if you actually read the article, you would have realized that Jim Oberg is still going to write the book, but with alternative funding.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
This site is my favorite anti-hoax site so far.
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
trance-port
Let's score a Informative...
Why don't they just use the freekin' Hubble to take pictures of the landing sites and shut these idiots up?
As explained on this Astronomy Picture of the Day:
Besides, why would anyone who believed in that naive hoax suddenly believe a so-called Hubble picture?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The lego links to which you refer are sprinkled throughout this page. Some of the claims of the non-believers really are quite funny and far fetched.
By the way, for all those who were dissappointed that NASA is no longer making the book, the guy that runs the site link above appears to have his own book for sale. It's probably a rough equivalent.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part2/secti on-22.html s .html
http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/telescope
Just to name a few.
Free Mac Mini
It's a waste of Hubble time. There's real science to be done.
Second reason:
The sunlit moon is way too bright. You'd cook all the expensive and highly sensitive optics. If you examine a new moon, maybe you could get away with it, but such a moon is still illuminated by the full sunny side of the earth. I wouldn't want to try it. Also, pointing towards the dark face of the moon is also pointing the Hubble very close to where the sun would be in its sky...
Third reason:
The Hubble's resolution isn't good enough. Depending on the wavelength you work at, the moon's distance at the time, and the assumptions you choose to make in your calculation, the Hubble could resolve objects no smaller than twenty to eighty metres in size--much larger than any of the artifacts left at the moon landing sites. You might have better luck with the Keck telescopes in Hawaii, but they too are busy being used for real science. Any hoax believers aren't going to be convinced by a smudge, which is all you'd see even with the Kecks--if you could see anything at all.
~Idarubicin
1) They're too small. Even at the Hubble's resolution, all you'd see would be a blob.
2) The moon is too bright. It would overload the optics.
Why would it be a useful research lab? It's made of rock and dust. We brought some back. What else is there?
A lab of any sort seems to infer the presence of equipment. Equipment like what might be used on a Moon lab probably wouldn't be very lightweight. The Lunar Excursion Module was pretty much only capable of getting 2 guys to the surface and back again with 200-300 pounds of rocks.
It cost billions of dollars back then. Imagine how much it would cost now. Who pays for it? Back then, there was a large number of folks in favor of 'beating the Russians to the moon'. The majority of US citizens were willing to pay for it. How many are now? And how much are they willing to pay?
I don't think there's anywhere near the same number of people that would support (financially) such an endeavor.
Once we beat the Russians to the moon, public support waned.
Hubble's CCD's will NOT be fried by the intensity of light from the moon. This has got to be the most common misconception about Hubble. A 2 second search for "Hubble + Moon" gives you THIS as the very first result!!!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
I believe the link that you found was at badastronomy.com, an article by Ian Goddard. There is another great page at badastronomy that goes point by point to debunk the Fox special
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
There already is a book like this. Its called 'Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax"' by Phil Plait.
He also has a website, www.badastronomy.com. I highly recommend checking out both the book and the website.