Even then, proving it does you no good. See the recent thread here about LCROSS for an example.

Even if you convince them that the equipment in question couldn't possibly take the photographs they seem to want, that just becomes more "proof" of a coverup. A very common delusion amongst HBs is that NASA gives a crap about their opinion. They seem genuinely convinced that they're on to something big and that NASA would bend over backwards to prove them wrong if only they could. That NASA has better things to do than spend billions of dollars on an argument with a few wackos seems a foreign concept to them.

But surely that is the point. If someone is aboslutely convinced in their belief that the whole thing was a hoax it doesn't matter what you say, so whether you give a scientific or simplified answer is just plain irrelevant to those people.

To others, like me, who have no problem accepting that the weight of evidence proves Apollo to have happened as advertised, but lack the scientific background to fully appreciate the technical aspects of how it was achieved and what they were up against, a simplified answer is similarly irrelevant because it sometimes really does come across as nothing more than "because it is".

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

No - not even a few pixels - perhaps you are mistaking the abilities of Hubble from Earth orbit, to the commissioning orbit images from LROC on LRO in Lunar Orbit?

Hubble can manage 200m/pixel.

LRO can manage 0.5m/pixel.

Well the Hubble did image the Appolo 17 site, and there is a single pixel of different luminance there.

However my point wasn't that it could image the landers, but that some simple comparitive algebra that every freshman in high school learns, would give people a good approximation of the size of the scope needed to actually resolve any detail from hubbles position. Without needing to understand optics, arcseconds, etc etc.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

My .02

First of all, I want to thank all of you who engaged "CONSPIRACY REALIST" in that other thread, talk about "better-than-tv" entertainment, PLUS I learned from the exchange, which is never a bad thing.

After reading through this thread, I have some burning questions I think are apropos to this subject, that I have always thought about, but never asked.

Here goes:

1) you say optics have not improved since the 60's, yet now we have crisper, higher resolution digital photography, isn't that considered better?

2) How low can something orbit the moon? I ask this because if an LRO type satellite would attain the lowest possible stable orbit, would it not then be able to resolve even better than 0.5m?

Combining question 1 & 2, would it be possible to attain the lowest stable orbit with digital resolution, then shouldn't that help create a closer, better image?

3) Forgive my ignorance on this one, but is a telescope lens any different than a microscope lens, and if so would that make any difference? I ask this one because as you all have pointed out, people are misled by these crime shows, which I don't usually watch, but I have to guess they are using electron microspoes and the like to resolve microscopic images as crystal clear.

4) Theoretically, could the Space Shuttle fly to the moon? I'm thinking, why not, as all it would need to do is attain a high enough orbit, slingshot off Earth's gravity, use a little burn to give it that extra ummph, make a few course corrections on the way there and glide into lunar orbit. The only thing I can think of would be the fuel requirement, and if this is the stopping point, then theoretically, could the payload bay be modified to include the required fuel?


Cheers.

You will have far more knowledgeable persons than I along shortly, but in the meantime ...

As I understand it, the change from analogue (film) to digital photography is irrelevant because the limiting factor is not the medium, but the lens itself. Whilst we may now take and store pictures electronically, we still do it by focussing light on the receptor using a lens.

Traditionalists would also tell you that film is still better than digital as film has no resolution whatsoever and is limited ONLY by the quality of the lens.

Provided that it had optics capable of resolving it. The LRO could, in theory, have been equipped with optics sufficient to resolve the Apollo remnants on the surface in greater detail, but this is not the goal of the mission. The optics on board LRO are sufficient for the job it is actually there to do.

See answer number 1.

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

Optics have not improved greatly since well before the 1960s. Good optics are far cheaper now, but price is not a major limiting factor for spacecraft optics, size and mass are. CAD software makes optical systems easier and cheaper to design, and automated manufacturing makes mass production of optical components of higher quality feasible. The main real advancements in optical technology have been in things like anti-reflective coatings, and perhaps new optical materials specialized for wider or different spectral ranges. Whether the camera uses digital sensors or film is irrelevant, the limitation is in the optics and is a simple physical one that can not be overcome with any amount of advancement in technology.


While you could conceivably pass within meters of the surface, low lunar orbits are less stable due to lunar mass concentrations, increasing propellant consumption and decreasing the lifetime of the mission while also decreasing the amount of ground covered on a given pass and increasing the risk of loss of the spacecraft if control were lost for any period of time. At low enough altitudes, the motion of the probe during an exposure may become an issue as well.


"Digital resolution" has no meaning in the way you're using it. And yes, closer approaches could give higher resolution, but would be risky and would reduce the amount of real science done. LRO wasn't sent to image the landing sites, it just has some capability to do so, and there is no need to sacrifice observations to improve imaging of those sites.


Well, they're obviously different, but they use the same laws of optics and are limited by the same effects.


Slingshot maneuvers don't help here. The moon is orbiting Earth in a near-circular orbit, and the spacecraft starts out on the ground. There is benefit in doing the initial burn as close to Earth as possible, but you start out there anyway.
And then...glide into lunar orbit on what? The wings are dead weight, there's nothing to glide on. You need more fuel to brake into a lunar orbit.

It may be technically possible to get a Shuttle into a lunar orbit by filling the cargo bay with fuel tanks, attaching external tanks (said tanks being redesigned for extended storage of deeply cryogenic hydrogen, since they can't be kept topped-off like the Shuttle is on the ground), and reworking the engines to be re-ignited in orbit, but what's the point? The wings, heat shielding, landing gear, control surfaces and machinery for driving them, etc are all useless dead weight for the trip. You'll at best have extremely limited capacity for supplies and equipment, and it would be an extraordinarily expensive undertaking. The Shuttle certainly would not be able to return: it is not built for reentry at the velocities the Apollo capsules had when they returned, and so would have to refuel a second time at the moon and do another burn to slow down on arrival.

Oh, how I have come to hate this expression.

Number one, I knew people in high school who didn't learn algebra freshman year. There were remedial math classes at my high school. (Leaving out people who took algebra in eighth grade instead.)

Number two, I don't remember freshman algebra. I mean, I probably remember more than a lot of people, but that only indicates how little a lot of people remember, and we're talking about people who took it as well and went at least as far through math as I. Probably if you walked me through it step by step, I could see where you're going. Probably. However, there's no reason to assume that the average person, one who has not taken an algebra class in ten years or more, will really know enough algebra to figure things out, and certainly not on their own.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Precisely!

And if you load them up with a formula they will side step it.

Understood, thank you.




Understood, thank you.



Again, understood, however, I was using the term digital, because it seems I errantly assumed a digitized picture can be viewed at a much higher resolution than a standard picture. However, the more I think about my scanner and its scanning resolution versus my digital camera resolution, I think as the poster above you mentioned, film images might actually be higher resolution than digital images? I am starting to confuse myself now




Understood as well. I obviously do not know much about this, I was just applying my laymens public education understanding of electron microscopes and assumed that somehow computers are used at the microscopic level to increase the resolution, which led me to wonder, if that is possible on cameras.




I understood most of this one, but what I dont understand is the "slingshot maneuver not helping here". I thought all the Apollo missions used Earth's gravity to gain velocity, no? Additionally, I thought anything we send anywhere into space uses Earth's gravity for this purpose. Again to bring it down to my level, im picturing the shuttle orbiting the Earth multiple times, gaining momentum, increasing its orbit, then when the math and angle is correct, fire the engine and shoot off to the moon.

PS-thank you for taking the time to answer me, and I know the shuttle will be retired soon, so basically these thoughts are irrelevant.

Film has a grain density that is roughly analogous to the pixel density of a CCD.

Nick

__________________
--
Nick Theodorakis

That's sensor technology, not optics. indeed - you can take brilliant pictures with a DSLR camera, using optics from an SLR that predates digital cameras all together. There is a fundamental limit to what optics can achieve in terms of resolving power. Totally unrelated to digital technology.

50km is actually the lowest of all the recent orbiters. One could go lower, but low orbits around the moon are unstable and require fuel to adjust the orbit to avoid crashing into the moon after a few days/week/months.

50cm is what they need to do they job they need to do. Is it the very best that's possible? No. You could take a camera like HiRISE, theoretically, and get better resolution of the Moons surface. But it would require a bigger spacecraft, a HUGE increase in downlink speed etc. Not to mention more cash etc.


No. x1000. Google it. How are you expecting the Shuttle to gain velocity in orbit around the Earth, exactly?

Let me Google that for you.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Asking why they can't send the Shuttle to the moon is like asking why the USAF doesn't use the Boeing 747 as a jet fighter...

If they can compute a percentage based on a/b = x/100 then they can do most compartive algebra. I have yet to meet a person that had made it through high school that couldn't compute a percentage based on two numbers. Even some under-educated farmers I know can do this sort of math.

If they want to be proponets of some sort of scientific hoax, then 'I don't remember how' isn't really an acceptable answer when it comes to math as simple as compartive algebra. If they truely don't remember how, then they have no bussiness sounding off on the scientific hoax in the first place.

Pointedly, if someone working at a job 'Forgot' how to do some things, they would no longer be employed in that field. Science is the same way, of people want to poke thier nose into it, they need the appropriate minimumn background. Which in almost most scientific fields, is Algebra.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

According to post #37, the answer is yes. x1000. I would expect the shuttle to gain velocity, the same way I expect any orbiting object that has mass and plans on leaving Earth's orbit to gain velocity.

It was nothing more than a theoretical question. I was just wondering about the possibility of it all, nothing more and before this reply the answer was already attained, but thank you anyway.

Thanks, but post #37 was much more informative than any of those google results.

Agreed. Who asked why we can not send the shuttle to the moon?

You did.

I thought you did? And how are the Google results not helpful?

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I have to tell you, I also find it irksome to come across the belief that everyone who believes in the hoax is of necessity a proponent per se. (Oh, and that half the people who use the expression spell it wrong, but that's a different issue.) I'm perfectly aware that "I'm just asking questions" is about the most common dodge we ever experience, and that's not likely to change any time soon. But a lot of people who are led into believing this are because they don't remember their algebra, never learned physics, and so forth. Being smug about their ignorance does not help any more than being insulting at true proponents does. Evidence is what matters, and if you have to walk people through step-by-step, well, that's teaching for you.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Not quite. My answer was that if it's at all possible, it'd be both extremely difficult and pointless. It is not at all certain that it's possible, even with the cargo bay full of fuel tanks, external fuel tanks bolted on, special tanks for long-term fuel storage, and new engines that can be ignited in orbit, but these things are the minimum of what would be needed, and the mission would essentially be crippled by the need to haul a mostly useless Shuttle along to the moon.

Basically, if it's not impossible, by using the Shuttle for this purpose you only avoid doing the things that are relatively easy to do, and you still have to do all the hard things, which are just made harder by the fact you're trying to do them with the Shuttle.


Digital cameras are used instead of analog electronic cameras because they allow images to be acquired and stored with very predictable amounts and types of loss, and transmitted efficiently with no further loss. They are used instead of film cameras because they avoid the need for developing and scanning equipment on the spacecraft or the need to return film canisters to Earth's surface. In consumer gear, they have taken over due to the same reasons, mostly convenience. They are not fundamentally higher resolution, and in fact, spacecraft cameras are often rather low resolution as a result of compromises to achieve the required sensitivity, noise levels, predictability, etc, and we must take many images and stitch them together to build up a high resolution image.


No computers are necessarily involved in electron microscopy. Electron microscopes literally use beams of electrons to distinguish details too fine to resolve optically...the first ones did not use computers at all, but displayed the result on a CRT screen.


Objects in orbit don't just gain momentum, if they did they wouldn't stay in orbit. A typical "flyby" involves approaching a planet "from the side" and using its gravity to bend a spacecraft's trajectory in the direction of the planet's motion. The spacecraft will leave the planet at the same velocity relative to the planet it arrived at, but the change in direction means it added the planet's solar system-relative velocity to its own. In this case, the Shuttle is originating from the Earth's surface, and traveling to the moon, which is orbiting along with Earth. All three already have the same orbital motion relative to the solar system, so there's simply nothing to gain.

Orbital mechanics still work out so that a burn to reach the moon is better done close to the Earth. This can be used in a powered fly-by maneuver, but since the Shuttle in your proposal is originating from the Earth, it's a stretch to call it any sort of flyby.

"Asking why they can't send the Shuttle to the moon......"


versus


"Theoretically, could the Space Shuttle fly to the moon?"


IMHO are two different questions entirely.

In any event, as I mentioned before, post #37 succintly answered my question as it was intended, whereas the google results were too broad.

For example:

Google result #1 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question.../q0083.shtml):

Space Shuttle and the Moon


My question is about the endurance of the Space Shuttle in terms of distance. I have been cruising NASA sites and they reveal that a return to the Moon is planned for around 2015, but a Shuttle replacement is still a ways away. So I would like to know could the Shuttle go to the Moon, land a lander from its cargo bay, make lunar orbits, and then return to Earth after gathering the cargo? Could the Shuttle go to the Moon?
- question from Colin

Simply put, the Shuttle was never designed to go to the Moon. Its original purpose was a means to an end--a transport vehicle to a permanent station in space. But as history has played out, the Shuttle ended up being its own laboratory in space--for 12 days at a crack--and the permanent station is only now being built twenty years after the first Shuttle launch.
Setting all that aside, the Shuttle simply doesn't have the delta-v (a measure of how much "energy" the vehicle can produce) needed to get into a trans-lunar orbit. That's what was so amazing about the Saturn V. It had all that power in its various stages, and yet it could only send a lander, command module, and service module to the Moon. Those three vehicles together probably don't take up half of the Shuttle's cargo bay, let alone the rest of the vehicle.

So while the Shuttle certainly has the cargo space to carry the necessary equipment and can remain in space for about two weeks, which was the length of the Apollo missions, it simply doesn't have the propulsive force needed to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. I suppose it might be possible to design some kind of large booster rocket to give the Shuttle the impulse needed to make that kind of trip, but it isn't really practical.

Practicality aside, the bold was the only part of this article that I feel addressed my original question as intended. I was not concerned with the other extraneous information, as it was not related to my original question.

Google result #2 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5141736AAlN8jj)

Could the Space Shuttle go to the moon?
In the movie "Armageddon", the space shuttle is shown doing a sling-shot around the moon, to catch up with an asteroid. But the shuttle is primarily used to carry payloads into Earth orbit.

If needed, could the Space Shuttle go to the moon, or is this just a Hollywood fantasy?

by The Walking Verb
I second the answer provided - it would be impossible (or nearly so) for the shuttle to land on the Moon's surface.

To begin with, the trajectory of the Moon would influence the gravity pull on the shuttle on approach. It would cause the shuttle to approach at faster and faster speeds; even with the use of retarding devices the shuttle itself would be too heavy to simply land on the Moon's soft surfaces and except to move. It would sink into the dust and remain incapacitated. Take off would be impossible after that, unless NASA is willing to waste a shuttle and prepare a little Lunar Module to leave the shuttle itself and return to Earth.

Armageddon is a horrible example for anything spacewise; it's a movie.

The shuttles on that film are not something we have yet, technologically. The shuttle may be able to withstand a trip to the Moon, but not a trip ON the Moon. There are various spots to land on the Moon (Maritas Tranquilitas, for one) but for landers with light padding and even lighter payloads. A huge shuttle would basically be like throwing a brand new BMW into a quicksand pile and expecting nothing to go wrong.

My question had nothing to do with a landing.

• by John W
The shuttle is not designed for travel to the moon, even if you carried extra fuel instead of cargo, the main thrusters are designed for the upper atmosphere and the nozzles do not work efficiently in the vacuum of space. It would be difficult to say if enough excess fuel could be carried to offset the design inefficiencies.

As it stands, the shuttle can only rendezvous with the Hubble telescope because the orbit for the telescope was chosen to be low enough for the shuttle to reach. Other space based telescopes that have cost less than a fifth that of the Hubble orbited much further out in order to be clear of the debris in low Earth orbit.

On this last trip, the concern was that should there be significant damage to the heat shield, they would not have been able to reach safe harbour at the space station because of the fuel expended to get to the Hubble. I think that had it been possible to put a large enough spare tank of gas in the cargo bay for this last trip, they would've.

The response in bold interests me, nothing more, as I know in laymen’s terms “As it stands…” what the shuttle is capable of.

• by g6ypk
Member since:
September 24, 2007
Total points:
16658 (Level 6)
No, there is not enough Delta V. The shuttle cannot and is not designed to travel through the atmosphere at the velocities required to reach escape velocity (25,000 Mph). The size of the booster is rather too small to carry the weight of the orbiter,and the drag coefficient is far too great, too. The orbiter (shuttle) could not land, and is not designed to land on the Moon. The orbiter needs an atmosphere and airflow to glide to earth. Also has not the fuel, nor the variable control rockets fitted to land or take off from the lunar surface, as did the Apollo Lunar Modules (LM's).
Kind regards
Dr Antony

Again, not relevant, I can accept the shuttles current design and the intentions for all shuttle missions, but that was not my original question.

Google result #3
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/...le_faq.html#15

a NASA faq that answers the question; “Can the Space Shuttle fly to the Moon?”
A. No, the Space Shuttle is designed to travel in low-Earth orbit (within a few hundred miles of the Earth's surface). It does not carry enough propellant to leave Earth's orbit and travel to the Moon. The Space Shuttle also is not designed to land on the Moon since it lands like an airplane and the Moon has no atmosphere. The Shuttle could be used to carry pieces of Moon or Mars vehicles to low-Earth orbit, where they could be assembled prior to beginning their mission.

Again, I know that “It does not carry enough propellant to leave Earth's orbit and travel to the Moon.” Or “The Space Shuttle also is not designed to land on the Moon since it lands like an airplane and the Moon has no atmosphere.”

Thank you for the Google results, but post #37 is clearer and more direct than the Google results.

Understood. I have no intention of making claims that the Shuttle should have been flying to the Moon for the last 3 decades. I understand that it is pointless, inefficient, and difficult, if not near unattainable to try to accomplish that task. Again it was nothing more than a hypothetical. I just feel that there are very few "impossibles" in this universe, and greatly appreciate professional wisdom on the subject.

That answer is unconvincing. Why introduce the demand that the instrument be able to "see the stars on the flags"? do CTers usually want to see stars on flags? I'm sure the cost of obtaining reasonable images of the residual Apollo hardware would be about the cost of putting a satellite into low lunar orbit. What would be the point? Soon you would need to send another mission to take photos of the first satellite.

My response to CTers is to silently edit my ignore list.

If we're talking about a Moon mission involving the Shuttle, I can think of an "impossible" right now...getting the crew safely back to Earth.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

It would probably be cheaper to build Ares V/Orion than try and use the shuttle to go to the moon. The point of the 747 analogy was to illustrate the ridiculousness of the notion of sending the shuttle to the moon. Yeah maybe, maybe, you could make a 747 into a supersonic fighter but its probably easier to build the F-16...

Either that or get the Russians to rig something up with a Soyuz capsule.

This topic came up in another thread the other day, and the only plausible (even hypothetically speaking) reason I can concoct for trying this would be as a rescue mission for astronauts stuck there with a malfunctioning ascent stage. Even then, if the agency that sent them didn't have the ability to mount a rescue effort, it's pointless anyway since manufacturing the required lander would take longer than the astronauts would survive.

(Which brings up another question. What is that absolute, bare minimum time to get a shuttle ready for an emergency launch? Assume a life or death scenario, but still inline with the shuttle's intended purpose. Say a complete loss of life support aboard ISS.)

I thought there was always a Soyuz "lifeboat" docked to the ISS at all times.

Nick

__________________
--
Nick Theodorakis

It exploded, that's what knocked life support out.