1971 replies to this topic

[MID]

Insanity, on 03 October 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

You're certainly not the only person who has, Insanity!
If you wanted to image a LM descent stage like the ones photographed above from low  lunar orbit by extremely sophisticated high powered cameras...you would need a telescope that could image a single pea, from a distance of 700 miles!  To be fair, you'd have to have that pea looked at from the Earth's surface, through the atmosphere, and out around 650 miles into space.

It's not possible today.

I imagine that one day, it may be possible, but I find myself thinking...
With pictures like  those I posted from LRO, and with many many hundreds of 70mm photos like this one, taken on that surface...



AS17-140-21372,  taken December 13, 1972 in the Taurus Littrow region on the surface of the Moon....what do we need telescopic images for??

Edited by MID, 03 October 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 03 October 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

You're certainly not the only person who has, Insanity!
If you wanted to image a LM descent stage like the ones photographed above from low  lunar orbit by extremely sophisticated high powered cameras...you would need a telescope that could image a single pea, from a distance of 700 miles!  To be fair, you'd have to have that pea looked at from the Earth's surface, through the atmosphere, and out around 650 miles into space.

It's not possible today.

I imagine that one day, it may be possible, but I find myself thinking...
With pictures like  those I posted from LRO, and with many many hundreds of 70mm photos like this one, taken on that surface...



AS17-140-21372,  taken December 13, 1972 in the Taurus Littrow region on the surface of the Moon....what do we need telescopic images for??

Have a Great YEar Mid I hope all is well with you !
See ya !

[Obviousman]

To be fair MID, the day will come when an individual will be able to have a cheap satellite to provide live images as they please. Cubesats are the beginning of this. I can envisage the day when the individual can see whatever lunar images they like, live from an imaging platform that they control.

[Chrlzs]

Gaden, on 03 October 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Not going to hold my breath!

Me either.  But I do think he may briefly step up to the plate..

BTW, my intention is to go right back to basics, so initially I'll be asking Turbonium to assist me to define the concepts of:
1. 'Accepted' information
2. Information that requires proof (eg any statement that requires logical/numerical/technical proofs, cites, examples before being accepted)
and of course..
3. Handwaving.

In case it isn't clear (are you reading this, Turbs?), type 1 statements are fine, type 2 statements do require proof/cites/examples before being accepted, and type 3 statements..? well, they're completely unacceptable.

Examples:
Type 1 - here's an example of 'accepted' information...
The Moon orbits the earth on a roughly circular orbit at between ~356,000 km to ~407,000 km (to 3 sig figs).
I don't think anyone disputes that information - after all, it is possible for a normal human to measure the distance to the Moon using some pretty basic 'tools'.  So there isn't really any need to 'prove' it.

Type 2 - here's an example of a statement requiring proof...
The regolith of the Moon exhibits 'heiligenschein', in other words it is much more reflective in the direction back towards the light source.
Now, even though it is quite true, this is not a particularly well-known 'fact'.  So if I (or Turbonium) was to bring this up (and I will) I should (and will have to if asked) supply compelling proof (and I will).  BTW, in that statement I have not elaborated on just how much more reflective it is, so numbers (and ways to verify those numbers) need to be provided. And yes, I will...

Such statements WILL require proof if questioned by either side, no matter who brings them up.  And finally..

Type 3 - here's an example of handwaving...
Obviously the LM would have blasted a huge crater - everyone knows that so let's just move on..
Bzzzt.  Not acceptable.  Not only is there no measurable claim, the intention of the poster is to have this meaningless handwave accepted without question..  That's NOT gunna happen in this debate.  BTW, statements that start with "Obviously", "Clearly", "Anyone can see", "It's just common sense" and the like are very often handwaves.

Note that handwaves can often be reworded back into Type 2 statements - ie ones that require proof... but then of course that proof must be forthcoming.  I'm sure if I get caught handwaving, Turbonium will no doubt be delighted to assist me to reword my handwave into a statement that is then followed up by all the requisite proof.  In the same way, if Turbonium handwaves, I shall be delighted to stop him immediately and help him to to do the same.  As the debate will only progress one or two statements at a time (and if no proof is supplied the statement will be rejected) there is no way of avoiding the truth.  And we will all learn lots of stuff, right?!  I'm sure Turbonium will be enlightening me on lots of stuff I don't know...

Anyway, getting to the truth, learning things, and avoiding handwaving is what all of us wants, surely, so let's go.. right, Turbonium?

And are you really, really sure you want to do this on the subject of visibility of Apollo LM exhaust disturbances?  I can tell you in advance it will be a quite short debate - forgive me if I don't say why..

[MID]

Obviousman, on 04 October 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

To be fair MID, the day will come when an individual will be able to have a cheap satellite to provide live images as they please. Cubesats are the beginning of this. I can envisage the day when the individual can see whatever lunar images they like, live from an imaging platform that they control.

Not too outlandish a concept...assuredly!

What do you think the odds are of such a capability ending HBs???

Me?

I think, no matter what, we'll still have 'em!

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 04 October 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Have a Great YEar Mid I hope all is well with you !
See ya !

Thank you, D!
All is well, as am I!

[skyeagle409]

MID, on 04 October 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

Not too outlandish a concept...assuredly!

What do you think the odds are of such a capability ending HBs???

Me?

I think, no matter what, we'll still have 'em!

I heard that!!

If they fly them to the moon right now, they will probably claim the Apollo landing sites were prepared by NASA just before their arrival.

[MID]

skyeagle409, on 04 October 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I heard that!!

If they fly them to the moon right now, they will probably claim the Apollo landing sites were prepared by NASA just before their arrival.

I've thought of flying HBs out to the Moon, Sky.
If they made it out there, I think the shock of their experience might well make 'em at least believe that man might have landed on the Moon!  You know, seeing those footprints, rovers and tracks, the LMs sitting there...but:

I somehow think a typical HB would either pass out during ascent into LEO, or be so petrified by that, and then attempting to land on the Moon, that they'd be utterly useless upon getting them there.  

And even if they managed that part of the trip, they'd also have to slam into the atmosphere at nearly 7 miles per second, and go through the 6 g fireball of re-entry when coming home!

I'm thinking the typical HB isn't coming close to accomplishing any of that!

[turbonium]

MID, on 30 September 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

I don't care about haloing, turb.  Didn't when I first saw it, ecades ago (long before you were even around)  You do!
You try and explain why it's so significant...

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

But, the landing site of Apollo 15 does exist. Check it out.

Quote

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)
May 20, 2008 (JST)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

* The Apollo 15 was the ninth manned mission, and fourth lunar landing mission of the Apollo program. The Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971 (JST), landed on the Moon on July 31, 1971, and then landed back on Earth on August 8, 1971. This mission was the first "J mission" and was primarily concerned with scientific research, and stayed longer on the Moon than previous Apollo missions.

3D view image of the Apollo 15 landing site obtained by TC

The "Falcon" Lunar Module of the Apollo 15 landed on the moon on July 31, 1971 (JST) near the Hadley Rille, at the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium. The Hadley Rille is a sinuous Rille with a length of 80km and depth of 300m. One of the missions of the Apollo 15 was to study the origin of this Rille. The Rille and the towering mountains near the Rille make this a place of scenic beauty.

This still image is a cutout from the movie taken by the SELENE (KAGUYA) HDTV (telephoto camera) on January 29, 2008 (JST.). The Apollo 15 landing site, as well as the Montes Apenninus, Hadley Rille (in the left) and Archimedes crater (in the center) are seen in this image.

3D view image around the Hadley Rille obtained by TC

During the Apollo 15 mission, astronauts also collected samples of mare basalt near the Hadley Rille. They confirmed that the Mare Imbrium was composed of many layers of lava flows, from several to ten meters in depth. The 3D view of the TC looking at the southeast direction from the northwest clearly shows the layers of lava flows on the upper parts of the Rille's wall. These layers were probably formed approximately about 3.2 billion years ago.

Apollo 15 Site




   SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings. On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971.

• 
  
  Apollo 15 rover
  
• 
  
  Apollo 15 photo

http://www.jaxa.jp/p...0_kaguya_e.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 October 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Obviousman]

Still waiting for the section of the quoted material that supports your assertions, Turbs.

[Chrlzs]

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Why is it so significant?

REJECTED.  This is just arguing from ignorance.  Pointless statement.

Quote

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't {sic} exist either.

REJECTED. Handwaving of the worst kind.

Quote

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region.

ACCEPTED.  This is ... CORRECT!!!  No cites required as this is well-known and easily demonstrated.

Quote

So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined

REJECTED.  Even worse handwaving and an ignorant and ridiculous simplification.  Visibility depends on many, many factors - I'll be going into them if ever Turbonium agrees to debate properly.

Quote

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period.

REJECTED.  In fact this is clearly an attempt to mislead the forum, as the effect has been clearly shown numerous times on this thread alone.

Quote

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

REJECTED.  Unbelievable hypocrisy.  Turbonium just reeled off a pile of statements without logic, let alone a single source, and he then has the hide to  ask others to source their claims when they HAVE been doing so?   Disgraceful.


It's time your illogic, hypocrisy and misinformation was torn apart piece by piece, Turbonium, so .. allow me.

I'm still waiting - are you willing to debate this properly?  Or shall I just continue tearing down each new falsehood?

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period

Is everything easier to see when you get closer to it?

Why exactly do you think archaeologists use aerial photography to locate sites?

[MID]

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period.   .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

Makes perfect sense to me!
Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times,  then it's just fictional.

And, in your skewed version of thought, since it can't possibly exist, then this:


AS15-86-11602
or this


...couldn't have been taken 41 years ago in a really great place on the surface of the Moon, strangely enough, by either Dave Scott or Jim Irwin, members of the Apollo 15 lunar surface crew !

AS15-87-11819

And you think (sic) that this didn't exist...or was somehow fake because you can't see micro-fractions of an inch of regolith disturbed by the DPS engine exhaust  all around that craft?!




...by the way, neither could Dave, or Jim (rest his soul*)



Almost a totally worthless post, turb.
You did answer my question, but I expected (for what reason, I really can't say now...) a little more than more old stuff you should already understand being again re-used to promote your idea.

It just doesn't work.
Your ignornce of things simply can't be covered up.

I'm suggesting, very kindly, mind you, either taking off, and not posting anymore, so as to avoid blantant illustrations of silliness and ignorance.
Perhaps think about a question that you have about Apollo and ask it.

Saying things that have already been explained to you (thouroughly an professionally), as if you don't understand them at all, makes you look, well...even you know!
Perhaps, no one will be annoyed enough at this virtual trolling you do to either break your stones over it, or to have the staff intervene in your redundant tactics.


Take the week to think asbout something, anything...not old already explained stuff you should know.   Post an intelligent question about your doubts.  You can even apologize for not remembering something you were taught about before ()like this present issue of yours).  I'd understand that and be happy to explain it again, as I did before, voluminously.  

But something else is definitely required of you here.  For the most part, lauging at you isn't really being done with happiness attached to it.  It's always a good thing to laugh, certainly, but you hve to realize that alot of this laughter covers pity..perhaps even anger.




And don't ever ask me to repeat myself again, and re-do your homework for you.  Contact Marshall Spaceflight Center and get their technical report on lunar surface visual characteristics, or , do something previously suggested, but not done because your afraid:

Contact NASA yourself, directly, and ask about what you want.




T R Y A G A I N...







*
James Irwin, 1930, 8-8-1991...passed on due to a massive heart attack at 61 years of age, 20 years after he walked on the Moon on Apollo 15.

I salute YOU, Jim!


...one of, if not THE  greatest manned space flights ever.

Edited by MID, 06 October 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[MID]

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

turbonium, on 06 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

Significant...to YOU.
That's a very different thing from SIGNIFICANT.

What you don't understand is indeed significant...