1 posted on
10/09/2009 7:16:32 AM PDT by
djf
To: djf
I was watching, but I didn’t see a damn thing.
2 posted on
10/09/2009 7:17:59 AM PDT by
dforest
(Who is the real Jim Thompson? I am.)
To: djf
Uh, Hubbel has been upgraded in many ways over the years. Besides, Hoagland is an idiot.
3 posted on
10/09/2009 7:18:06 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: djf
The ability to string together a coherent sentence can be a big help in trying to make a point.
4 posted on
10/09/2009 7:19:07 AM PDT by
Mr. Lucky
To: djf
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.
6 posted on
10/09/2009 7:20:43 AM PDT by
SampleMan
(No one should die on a gov. waiting list., or go broke because the gov. has dictated their salary.)
To: djf; KevinDavis
I dunno. Is the HST going to send back pictures or sensor data?
7 posted on
10/09/2009 7:21:48 AM PDT by
GeronL
To: djf
Maybe Hubble has the ability to stop down the aperture to an appropriate diameter.
8 posted on
10/09/2009 7:23:10 AM PDT by
ZX12R
To: djf
“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
9 posted on
10/09/2009 7:23:30 AM PDT by
AlexW
(Now in the Philippines . Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
To: djf
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.
10 posted on
10/09/2009 7:28:54 AM PDT by
frankenMonkey
("Natural Born Citizen" - US Constitution, 1787; "Words have meaning" - Barack Obama, 2009)
To: djf
Reading this post is like watching a Paulie Shore movie.
12 posted on
10/09/2009 7:40:55 AM PDT by
LanaTurnerOverdrive
("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
To: djf
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?
13 posted on
10/10/2009 4:18:16 PM PDT by
Brett66
(Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson