|
SlowModem
|
 |
« on: July 30, 2012, 09:02:52 AM » |
|
Here is an interesting article about the flags left on the moon. Story here |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Garth Bock
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2012, 11:54:25 AM » |
|
Really cool article. However, no matter how much proof there is from Lunar orbit there are those who believe it never happened. When one of those tin foil hat wearing folks asks me "So why do we see the flag waving when there is no air on the moon ?" I usually reply with "...duuuhhh.....it's because of the 'solar wind'" and quickly walk away.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Davis VPro2,VWS,WL,VVP,WD,WDL,Cumulus,WV32,VPLive |
|
|
|
Dr Obbins
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2012, 01:30:12 PM » |
|
I found the pictures to be fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2012, 12:48:50 AM » |
|
Thanks Greg, some interesting reading. Also near the top of the newspaper I see a countdown for the next Mars rover landing, showing only 6 more days. This one I'd like to see come off without a hitch. Seems like there are too many things that can go wrong and if they pull this one off it will be nothing short of spectacular.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SlowModem
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2012, 10:34:10 AM » |
|
Seems like there are too many things that can go wrong and if they pull this one off it will be nothing short of spectacular. They do great if they can land the craft ok. It's that pesky landing that's the big problem.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2012, 05:42:06 AM » |
|
Unbelievable, it made it! Wow!  edit: apologize for the thread hi-jackin' Greg.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 06:35:57 AM by DanS »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
belfryboy
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2012, 06:39:26 AM » |
|
I think XKCD.com sum it up quite niceley;  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Buy your own clone logger  |
|
|
|
SlowModem
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2012, 08:14:14 AM » |
|
I'm glad they made it. If I didn't have to get up at 3:30 this morning, I would have stayed up and watched it.  I guess they'll have to change that 15 to a 16! Edit: resized picture |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 09:34:34 PM by Not-As-Slow Modem »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2012, 08:57:58 AM » |
|
We'll just ask Mark / Ohio, oops I mean Agent Spiff, to update that score on his next trip over there.  Maybe he could also swing by the moon and set back up Apollo 11's flag that blew over.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 12:55:22 AM by DanS »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PaulMy
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2012, 06:25:59 PM » |
|
(sorry about the picture size) Just getting even after all these years of Not-As-Slow Modem  Paul |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 06:29:00 PM by PaulMy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SlowModem
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2012, 09:36:19 PM » |
|
(sorry about the picture size) Just getting even after all these years of Not-As-Slow Modem Paul I was at work and didn't have any editing software. I have since remedied that.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mackbig
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2012, 09:31:27 AM » |
|
Cool pictures. However, I am surprised at the lack of detail/low quality. You would think that a $400 million vehicle could provide some better, closer up images. It was only 15 miles (80k feet). 10+ years ago, my digital camera got better pictures of the Grand Canyon from 45k feet through a triple pane frosty airplane window. I would hope the optics in the LRO would be better than my old 1MP canon... Andrew
ps: although maybe the lack of quality was intentional to hide the little green men preparing for invasion of the blue planet, or.... to hide the Hollywood sign at the back of the set built back in the 60's to fake the landing.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Andrew - Davis VP2+ 6163, serial weatherlink, wireless anemometer, running Weather Display. Boltek PCI Stormtracker, Astrogenic Nexstorm, Strikestar - UNI, CWOP CW8618, GrLevel3, (Station 2 OS WMR968, VWS 13.01p09), Windows 7-64 |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2012, 09:58:58 AM » |
|
Cool pictures. However, I am surprised at the lack of detail/low quality. You would think that a $400 million vehicle could provide some better, closer up images. It was only 15 miles (80k feet). 10+ years ago, my digital camera got better pictures of the Grand Canyon from 45k feet through a triple pane frosty airplane window. I would hope the optics in the LRO would be better than my old 1MP canon... Andrew
ps: although maybe the lack of quality was intentional to hide the little green men preparing for invasion of the blue planet, or.... to hide the Hollywood sign at the back of the set built back in the 60's to fake the landing. ... and shot through no atmosphere that would effect it too. I was wondering the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KeithBC
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2012, 01:32:36 PM » |
|
Cool pictures. However, I am surprised at the lack of detail/low quality. You would think that a $400 million vehicle could provide some better, closer up images. It was only 15 miles (80k feet). 10+ years ago, my digital camera got better pictures of the Grand Canyon from 45k feet through a triple pane frosty airplane window. I would hope the optics in the LRO would be better than my old 1MP canon... Andrew
ps: although maybe the lack of quality was intentional to hide the little green men preparing for invasion of the blue planet, or.... to hide the Hollywood sign at the back of the set built back in the 60's to fake the landing. ... and shot through no atmosphere that would effect it too. I was wondering the same thing. You guys do realize I hope that they haven't turned on the main cameras or opened the high-gain antenna yet. Those images are just thumbnails from the navigation cameras. The good stuff will come later once the rover is fully operational. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Garth Bock
|
|
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2012, 05:22:13 PM » |
|
Actually they had the clear lens caps on which were left on during landing and after because of the dust kicked up by the skycrane. Since then the dust has settled (think thin atmosphere with flour like dust) and they have jettisoned the lens caps and raised the main mast with its high res cameras and 3D imagers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Davis VPro2,VWS,WL,VVP,WD,WDL,Cumulus,WV32,VPLive |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2012, 08:21:30 PM » |
|
Cool pictures. However, I am surprised at the lack of detail/low quality. You would think that a $400 million vehicle could provide some better, closer up images. It was only 15 miles (80k feet). 10+ years ago, my digital camera got better pictures of the Grand Canyon from 45k feet through a triple pane frosty airplane window. I would hope the optics in the LRO would be better than my old 1MP canon... Andrew
ps: although maybe the lack of quality was intentional to hide the little green men preparing for invasion of the blue planet, or.... to hide the Hollywood sign at the back of the set built back in the 60's to fake the landing. ... and shot through no atmosphere that would effect it too. I was wondering the same thing. You guys do realize I hope that they haven't turned on the main cameras or opened the high-gain antenna yet. Those images are just thumbnails from the navigation cameras. The good stuff will come later once the rover is fully operational. I was referring to (and believe Andrew was also) the orbiting lunar imager's resolution for the 'Flags on the moon' images. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 08:52:01 PM by DanS »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mark / Ohio
|
|
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2012, 10:58:33 PM » |
|
We'll just ask Mark / Ohio, oops I mean Agent Spiff, to update that score on his next trip over there. Maybe he could also swing by the moon and set back up Apollo 11's flag that blew over. Buzz is paying me to leave that flag alone.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mark 2002 Davis VP I Wireless, WeatherLink (Serial), VWS, ImageSalsa, GRLevel3, VirtualVP, VPLive, StartWatch, Windows XP (SP3)
|
|
|
|
mackbig
|
|
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2012, 05:44:22 PM » |
|
Yes, I / we were talking about the LRO pics that were being discussed and is the subject of the thread. Not about the mars mission (that one is a $2.5 billion mission) Andrew Cool pictures. However, I am surprised at the lack of detail/low quality. You would think that a $400 million vehicle could provide some better, closer up images. It was only 15 miles (80k feet). 10+ years ago, my digital camera got better pictures of the Grand Canyon from 45k feet through a triple pane frosty airplane window. I would hope the optics in the LRO would be better than my old 1MP canon... Andrew
ps: although maybe the lack of quality was intentional to hide the little green men preparing for invasion of the blue planet, or.... to hide the Hollywood sign at the back of the set built back in the 60's to fake the landing. ... and shot through no atmosphere that would effect it too. I was wondering the same thing. You guys do realize I hope that they haven't turned on the main cameras or opened the high-gain antenna yet. Those images are just thumbnails from the navigation cameras. The good stuff will come later once the rover is fully operational. I was referring to (and believe Andrew was also) the orbiting lunar imager's resolution for the 'Flags on the moon' images. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Andrew - Davis VP2+ 6163, serial weatherlink, wireless anemometer, running Weather Display. Boltek PCI Stormtracker, Astrogenic Nexstorm, Strikestar - UNI, CWOP CW8618, GrLevel3, (Station 2 OS WMR968, VWS 13.01p09), Windows 7-64 |
|
|
|
Garth Bock
|
|
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2012, 10:09:20 AM » |
|
I remember something from the Coneheads....
Connie (daughter): I think I'll have some Tang.
Prymatt Conehead: Ah Tang, the drink astronauts took to the moon.
Beldar Conehead: Astronauts to the moon?
Both laughing......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Davis VPro2,VWS,WL,VVP,WD,WDL,Cumulus,WV32,VPLive |
|
|
|
