So we did go to the moon?

[Scuba_Steve]

But back on topic. Thank god the mirrors were left on the moon so we can shoot lazers at them

And I know just the laser for it

Wicked Lasers' S3 Krypton. The Guinness Record-pending laser produces about 86 million lux and can be seen from up to 85 miles away, well beyond the edge of our atmosphere. Of course, at roughly 8,000-times the brightness of the Sun, serious safety precautions are needed when operating the S3.

[imdying]

You may need to reconsider how you prune quotes; you seem to be confusing yourself be removing pertinent information.

You wanted to know why you can't get high resolution images of the moon:

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn, but all the gazzilion pixel camera's on earth combined with the super telescopes we have now (and off it) can take a clear photo of a 5m high moon lander sitting on the closest rock to earth.

But now you're implying that the atmosphere can't be to blame because you can see the moon with the naked eye.

So you can't see the moon at night because the atmosphere is too thick?

Either your qualifier is being able to see a 5m high moon lander sitting on the face of the moon, or it isn't. Make up your mind.

[Pixie]

Conspiracy theorists

I'm sure the us and the ussr had no intention of ever going there...that's why they tipped billions of dollars and years of time and research just to make up some dodgy story.

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html

[willytheekid]

Pffft! of course we did!....where else did cheese come from?

[Gremlin]

Fuck the moon, I'd rather go to Uranus.

Who cares.... can't ride there yet...

[nodrog:Me]

Who cares.... can't ride there yet...

Thats not what I have heard.

[avgas]

You may need to reconsider how you prune quotes; you seem to be confusing yourself be removing pertinent information.
You wanted to know why you can't get high resolution images of the moon:
But now you're implying that the atmosphere can't be to blame because you can see the moon with the naked eye.
Either your qualifier is being able to see a 5m high moon lander sitting on the face of the moon, or it isn't. Make up your mind.

I think you'll find its the distance more than the atmosphere that stops us taking high res images of the moon. But it will happen eventually.
This is why we can actually see the moon....... but unfortunately our eyes can't zoom that far. And telescopes have a focal length that go a bit further......

These images are a bit old (so you will see where I am coming from). But OK. I was just hoping for a bit more this time.
Apollo 12

Crashed Russian Craft (1967)

Is it so much to ask that in the time it took since these were taken, and the fact that Moore's Law has been in effect this time, that we should have a photos of the same sites now but a million times better resolution than then?

but feel free to continue your rant.

[imdying]

I think you'll find its the distance more than the atmosphere that stops us taking high res images of the moon.

Nup, I sure won't.

[pzkpfw]

Is it so much to ask that in the time it took since these were taken, and the fact that Moore's Law has been in effect this time, that we should have a photos of the same sites now but a million times better resolution than then?

Yes, it is too much.

Moore's law makes for better computers. So yes, modern bikes (for example) have some advantages over old bikes - but they still don't fly and run on banana peels.

Moore's law doesn't specifically make for better optics for telescopes. Nor does it specifically make for bigger rockets to launch bigger telescopes into space.

(With better computers we can design better rockets - but we don't ride the computers into space!)

Unless you can come up with a specific reason why you think we should have a better view of what's left on the Moon, it's you who is ranting.

[Winston001]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club.

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.

[DEATH_INC.]

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html

Dammit! I knew I'd missed something....

[Banditbandit]

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html

What have you got against the Masons?

[wysper]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club.

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.

Steady on Winston, that all sounds reasonable. Are you sure you are posting on the right forum?

[ducatilover]

Daddy tells me teh moonz is candy floss.

[avgas]

Unless you can come up with a specific reason why you think we should have a better view of what's left on the Moon, it's you who is ranting.

Camera MegaPixelling is where i was heading with that.
aka A-2-D converting.......

has also followed Moore's law.......