I heared someone say once that spy satelites could read someones newspaper but that cant be true anyway as there would be too much air convection..



.

__________________
Brian's mother: He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!

If you could focus the telescope image on a very sensitive and very large photoelectric grid(retina equivelent) then you could get higher resolutions.


.

__________________
Brian's mother: He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!

I don't think that's right. Hubble's resolution is limited by the optics, not by the detectors.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yea, i never did understand why the size of the lens determined resolution........


But never the less, you CAN cram in more Photo-cells if you can spread them out over a large area, it stands to reason, or is this just my theory.


.

__________________
Brian's mother: He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!

First, define what you mean by resolution. Do you mean the number of pixels in the final image, or do you mean the size of the smallest details visible in the final image?

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

It's because of diffraction effects. Here's a bit of a discussion about how this limits the resolution, and here's a brief explanation of how the diffraction effects are caused in the first place.

Also, Hubble does not use a lens. It uses a mirror. A lens would simply be too big, too heavy, and too fragile to use.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

And you'd have chromatic aberration, of course.

Of course. I didn't say that because I, uh, couldn't remember the name of the effect. ops:

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Alas, if I've worked out the numbers correctly, to have, say, millimeter resolution on the moon, you'd need a main objective for your telescope of about 500 kilometers! At that point, if you want to read newspapers on the moon, it might actually be easier to just go there yourself. Of course, I'd imagine that we could find a few other uses for such a telescope if we could figure out how to build it.

That's actually not that unreasonable. A big, thin, reflective sheet of plastic might do the trick. Obviously you'd need to support it, and you'd need to stop it from being used as a solar sail, but other than that...

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

IMO, those of the Woo Squared persuasion will never accept _ANY_ evidence that contradicts their favorite conspiracy theory.

Every bit of evidence that supports their paranoia is fact. Everything else is proof of a conspiracy of silence.

They'll quote (e.g.) NASA when it supports them, and condemn this same source every other time.

The best you can hope for is to present the facts for those with a modicum of education who haven't made up their mind, and have a laugh at the fear-mongers when you can.

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.

I'm wondering if a hundred years from now we won't have space telescopes with objectives measured in kilometers. They won't just be spotting extrasolar planets, they'll be mapping them....

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yes. My numbers suggest HST could resolve an object ~86m in diameter at the mean lunar distance under ideal conditions. This is nothing to do with the detectors aboard and everything to do with the physics of light.

Although the images that HST provides are quite breathtaking, the objects being imaged are vast.

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

Then, of course, there is the problem of making the surface accurate to a fraction of the wavelength being imaged. And keeping it like that.

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

That's the thing, isn't it?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Actually I believe that there's a thread somewhere but the idea of using a massive sheet-like panel hundreds of kilometres in length with a hole in the centre of it a few kilometres across to focus the light onto a huge telescope. The idea is to be able to see exo-solar planets. I'll let ToSeek find it.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16642

(Scroll down a bit.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

So, if I could just sum up the thread:

1) Hubble *has* taken pictures of the Moon
2) Hubble does *not* have the resolution needed to see objects as small as the lunar landers
3) NASA will not send a mission for the sole purpose of "proving" that they went to moon 50 years ago. People who believed they faked it then will belive they are faking it now. So, NASA would be wasting money doing this.
4) Smart I may eventually take pictures of the landing sites, but this will not end the controversy. People who believed NASA faked it will also believe the ESA is faking the pictures (as was said of Huygens)

HOWEVER: There are pictures of the landers. Take a look at this:
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/a...ar_lander.html

I think that some people don't understand how big the Moon really is. Take a look at this site:
http://www.merzo.net/

I realize those are science fiction ships, but I think it gives you a good impression of how big the Moon is.

.........Thanks tofu for the photos.........

That is great!
Michael Bailey

No problem! Welcome to the forum!

Do you just think it's cool to put periods around everything? Whats the deal with that?