Huh?? (Lunar probe)

[djf]

Now I don't want too sound to looney. (Hah, hah, looney, get it?)

But NBC just was talking about the lunar bombing (after which the loon dudes can justifiably be a little miffed and start chucking Kryptonite atus or something).

They (NBC, not the moon dudes) mentioned that scientists were ecstatic because it went so well (blah blah yada yada...) EXCEPT for the fact that the image qualities were poor.

Then, they said, EXCEPT they have some images yet to be analyzed taken by HST. (Hubble)

Now in all these years, haven't we repeatedly been told that the moon is way, way too close and too bright for Hubble to take pictures? I've heard such statements myslef. Lots of people like Hoagland have asked about using the Hubble and we hear the same thing.

So what gives? The Hubble could very easily map the whole moon and show us even the individual landers.

Somebodies lyin.

[dforest]

I was watching, but I didn’t see a damn thing.

[cripplecreek]

Uh, Hubbel has been upgraded in many ways over the years. Besides, Hoagland is an idiot.

[Mr. Lucky]

The ability to string together a coherent sentence can be a big help in trying to make a point.

[Hulka]

Excuse me, Hoagland is not an idiot. . . he's a blooming-freeking-weirdo idiot.

[SampleMan]

Much doubt that they would look at the moon. They would look into space just off of the moon’s horizon in order to analyze the debris kicked up from the impact.

[GeronL]

I dunno. Is the HST going to send back pictures or sensor data?

[ZX12R]

Maybe Hubble has the ability to stop down the aperture to an appropriate diameter.

[AlexW]

“Lots of people like Hoagland “

You mean Mr. NASA wannabe, the clown that thinks people are living on the moon? Kook to Kook’s favorite space cadet and science advisor? hahaha

[frankenMonkey]

Hubble can't focus on the moon, but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) can. NASA released images of the Apollo landing sites taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident. Also visible are the tracks left where the astronauts walked repeatedly in a "high traffic zone" and perhaps by the Modularized Equipment Transporter (MET) wheelbarrow-like carrier used on Apollo 14.

[djf]

OK! OK! OK! I KNOW he’s a kook!
Did I not make my post sufficiently kooky?

But kook or not that’s a very separate question as to whether the Hubble can take pics of the moon.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Reading this post is like watching a Paulie Shore movie.

[Brett66]

Now in all these years, haven't we repeatedly been told that the moon is way, way too close and too bright for Hubble to take pictures?

It could, but there are probes that have been launched that can do a better job than Hubble.

Hubble's resolution of the moon would be maybe 20 meters/pixel, why would NASA need an image of an Apollo site when they have videos of that area taken when the astronauts were walking around there? Would a Hubble pic with one pixel slightly shaded convince someone that we landed there when videos of them walking on the surface wouldn't?

[djf]

Well, I’m not a nutter. I know we landed on the moon, believe me, if we didn’t, the Russians would do a whole lot better proving it than the whack jobs who try now.

I just assumed Hubble was the instrument that had the highest resolution of all the things we got. And my real question is still some say we can photograph it, others say no.

So someone is wrong, or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“The pictures show the Apollo missions’ lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, “

Impossible. The moon landings were faked.