Icon134 0 #26 October 4, 2006 Quotetrue - but the media in which you have to look through - i.e. atmosphere - is not there to impede your "vision" *sigh* are you going to make me get out my books? Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 October 4, 2006 QuoteQuotetrue - but the media in which you have to look through - i.e. atmosphere - is not there to impede your "vision" *sigh* are you going to make me get out my books? Yep.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reginald 0 #28 October 4, 2006 QuoteThink about this though - The russians were first in space, first to orbit the Earth, first to put a man in space....do you see them claiming we didn't go so they can claim the title of first to the moon??? The russians never went to the moon."We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #29 October 4, 2006 Quote The russians never went to the moon. Robots my boy . . . robots! The Russians did in fact land robots on the Moon before we landed people on it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #30 October 4, 2006 QuoteYep.I just did and after looking through them I decided it wasn't worth trying to explain it to you... go to your local DOD sponsored graduate program and take a class on Remote Sensing... that or go get yourself a degree in Opticical Physics... ok fine... the quick and dirty is that the atmosphere more or less adds random noise but the issue real issue with imaging an Object on the earth vs imaging an object on the moon is one of resolution... a pack of cigs (10x5 cm) at 800 km (assuming a 1 meter focal length lens) creates an image 100x50 nanometers (10^-9 meters) versus the lunar lander on the moon (assuming its 3x5 meters) creates an image approximately 1.3x7.8 nanometers. (which is comparable to trying to image an object that is 6 mm long and still be able to make out details... there just isn't enough resololution... (oh and btw... what are you basing your assumption that we can read the letters on a pack of Cigarettes on anyway... not hollywood I hope... )Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #31 October 4, 2006 Quotetrue - but the media in which you have to look through - i.e. atmosphere - is not there to impede your "vision"it's the same ammount of ATM for both the satelite and the moon, The optical image that telescopes see can only give you a limitied resolution, to get a higher resolution to be able to see a 3mtr x 2mtr object the telescope would need to be exponentially bigger, we can not build lenses that bigYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkie 0 #32 October 4, 2006 Quote But lets be honest, given the scope of the missions.....That is some amazing stuff, and I can understand how some people find it hard to grasp. We were able to go to the moon in the late 60's, but decades latter we finally went to the bottom of the ocean. Also remember that we had two shuttles explode and "all" they had to do was circle the globe, not travel to the moon, land and come back. I think we did it...But it amazes me still. Yeah right, next thing you guys will be saying captain picard and his starship aren't real! bah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #33 October 4, 2006 QuoteYou can watch people get into a shuttle. You can watch a shuttle launch. You can watch a shuttle land. So you know that people are going into space. The scientists and engineers that work for NASA are extremely intelligent. We know that they have sent people into space, what makes you think they couldn't land on the moon? That is now.We are talking about then.When the computer power that would fit in a space capsule would not run a digital watch. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #34 October 4, 2006 QuoteYeah right, next thing you guys will be saying captain picard and his starship aren't real! bah You better believe they're real... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
