Is there any possibility that the European Smart 1 probe will difinitively disprove the woo woos in regard to their claim that the lunar landings were faked? I am of course thinking of images of landing gear ect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4006293.stm

all the best
Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city

The betting money is that woo-woo's would simply claim the ESA pictures are faked. (As to why the Europeans would cooperate --- well, it's that old "Powers-that-be-Illuminati" thing --- or maybe we'll sell them wheat or something.)

It would be interesting to get a prominent HB on record to see what they expect from the Smart-1 pictures, and then see how they dodge when the pictures roll in.

No, because no matter how good the pictures - and I have no idea of SMART-1's ability to image Apollo artifacts - the woowoos would simply claim that they are fakes.

added: blast it, pghnegative! You Jayed me! :wink:

Well....rockets don't work in a vacume, so I guess the whole smart 1 probe is fake too

I suppose youre right about the woo woos #-o ... but, and were back in the real world now , are there any plans for taking such pictures.

all the best
Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city

Pixel resolution is 30-80 meters. That's not going to be good enough to register any artificial objects left on the Moon.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Thats too bad about the resolution...
However, I seem to remember something about some equipment on board the lander being used to measure the distance to earth!????? Lasers or something were involved?
Is this my imagination or what, and if it is true, why is it not mentioned more often.

All the best
Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city

Will they use this as "proof" that no landings took place since Smart 1 can't see anything? [HB]If Smart 1 can't see them then obviously we never went to the moon[/HB] #-o

Definitely not your imagination, more about this here, here, and here. The McDonald Laser Ranging Station here in Texas is one of the facilities still utilizing them on a regular basis.

I've experienced hoax believers in the past who just claim these reflector arrays could have been placed on the lunar surface robotically or by some other unmanned mission(s). It's unfortunate that some people are utterly immune to evidence, reason, and logic.

Is Smart 1 satelite the first to use an ion engine?


(Edit: 300th Post! )

No.

And congrats!

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

No, but to my knowledge it is the first to use one in a translunar trajectory.

Ion engines are optional accessories on the Boeing 701 satellite chassis, making them fully commercially available. And remember Deep Space One, the autonomous little bug that explored portions of the solar system.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Now I understand why the term ToSeeked has been employed here as a verb so often. Went to get a Coke after hitting the "preview" button in response to iFire's question... and you know the rest.

Well, in fairness, two corner-cube reflectors were placed by unmanned Russian Lunakhod missions. They tend not to be used for retro-ranging purposes however, because they are not as well aligned as the (manually aligned, of course!) Apollo LRRRs.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Oh, understood! In the above context though where trob introduced Apollo specifically, I was coming from the perspective of as if there weren't already enough other evidence to demonstrate authenticity -- I tend to think of the LRRRs as the proverbial cherry on the sundae in these sorts of discussions.

While the Russians did complete unmanned missions, I just consider it pretty silly for HBers to arbitrarily assume that's how the others were put in place. Hence my comments (and, been there done that ](*,) ).

Thanks for all your great comments lads and ladesses =D>
In general the lunar landings are such a solid part of my world view that I don't give much creedence to the nonsense being spouted from various persons and groups. It would be funny, however, if some major development could occur to move the discussion on substantially. But as you all make perfectly clear - the woo woos main strategy is one of continuous ad hoc argumentation and all the pitfalls that come with this. For them it is obviously not the content of the argument that matters, but what they do with the argument...come up with a critique of certain political situations with which they are not happy. Maybe it feeds their resentment of being politically marginalised...To be honest - they seem pretty marginal in most of their doings. Maybe a discussion af motivation is worth the time. Are there any general sociological studies of the social/psychological causes of conspiracies?

regards
Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city

I'm not aware of any published acedemic/scientific studies off the top of my head. However, IMHO, JayUtah offers some excellent insight on the subject concerning Apollo here.

Just so you know, the female form of "lad" is "lass". Plural of that can be "lasses" or "lassies".

Of course it is...I was just being silly. But thanks all the same

regards Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city