Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
The Hubble Space Telescope lacks the resolution necessary to see objects left by astronauts on the surface of the Moon. I don't think you're going to do better than that in your back yard. :)
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/9/2009 12:16:25 PM
They're still super-fun. I got to watch Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter with my 8-inch Celestron, even in the light-pollution that is Somerville, Massachusetts. It looked like a vampire bit the planet, with two (later 3) clearly-visible black spots near the pole...
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/9/2009 3:01:55 PM
Eventually, we'll have Luna-orbiting satellites (with dozens of "moons" in the Solar System, I think we need to call ours by its proper name) and you can look up "Tranquility Base" on Google Luna.
I think we should return to Luna before venturing to Mars.

With availability of minerals and access to virtually unlimited solar power, that's where we need to relocate our factories.
 CerebralRomantic
Joined: 3/2/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/9/2009 5:16:11 PM
I believe that the answer is in fact yes. . . If you were an average person with millions of dollars.

Store bought telescopes would not have the ability to resolve the surface of the moon that closely to pick out something as miniscule in scale as the remnants of the moon landings.

Also several of the landings were on the side of the moon that is tidally locked facing away from us, and the only way to see those sites is to go to the backside of the moon which you could only do from space.

I think you've already hit on another main point which is the reflected light, but the bigger one is the sheer size of the moon itself.
 notregme
Joined: 5/26/2005
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/9/2009 9:47:19 PM
my d100 nikon can pick up some great pics on the highes resolution.With a 300 mil lense .you can zoom into stuff the size of lake suprior.so I dont see why you couldnt if you had the $$$$$$$$ but it would have to be a space bound camera to get that res.lol
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/9/2009 11:03:21 PM
twdfx, you'd be wrong. The Hubble has taken quite amazing pictures of the moon. They just can't resolve anything as small as 3-4 meters at 380,000,000 meters distant. Though I don't think it's been tried with the WFC3. Hmm...
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/10/2009 10:40:15 PM

I wonder if early Europeans had conspiracy theorists who thought this way when they discovered the new world.
Yes.
It's called the Roman Catholic Church.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 3/14/2009 3:12:36 AM

Unlike us or any other planet that rotates to give us day/night.


Surely you realize the moon rotates on it's axis once every 29.5 days? When you see a half moon, or cresent moon, the dark portion is in 'night' while the light portion extends around to what we call 'the dark side of the moon'.

To show yourself experimentally how the moon orbits the earth and we see only one side, take your fist and have it face your eyes and now move your fist 'revolve' around your head. In order to see the same side of your fist you have to rotate it.

If you've done that, try rotating your right foot in a clockwise direction and 'draw' the number 6 - starting at the top of the 6- in the air with your right hand. You'll find you can't do both. Unrelated I know, but still fun to try.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:09:56 PM
as the moon is moving further away all the time, when is going to pick up speed?

 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 26
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:17:46 PM
The moon is NOT coming closer to us - it is moving away at a rate of about an inch per year. As it does so, its orbital speed slows. The rotation of the Earth is also slowing, until eventually it will complete one rotation in the same amount of time that it takes the Moon to make one orbit.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:24:24 PM
OK, is that all to do with decay of energy?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:52:35 PM
whats the long picture going to look like?
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/17/2009 9:23:39 PM
I would guess that the Apollo objects could be "seen" if a specialized telescope were built that took a large number of images over time and then these images digitally overlaid to extract a resolution higher than the telescope and imaging device could deliver alone. When looking at far away stars instead of local planets, the distance is so great, the star remains a tiny dot. Planets are detected around these stars by detecting a very small wobble in the star position at a frequency that corresponds to an orbiting mass. This wobble is detected by looking at the relative location to other stars as our telescopes don't have near the mechanical resolution to detect such a tiny wobble. Pictures over time are repeatedly overlaid and processed to see wobble frequencies using Fourier techniques. In short, its lots of number crunching by computers. These kind of projects lend themselves to using massive arrays of computers to crunch the numbers. One novel approach is to use idle time on thousands of PCs coordinated through an internet application.

The mirror array left on the moon was not a simple mirror that is aimed but an array of small sets of three mirrors each arraigned at 90 degree angles to each other. Light from any angle above the array will reflect back in the direction it came. If you have some reflector for a bicycle or car you can examine, you will see this three sided pyramid like structure usually on the back side. If a headlight shines on the reflector, light will bounce between all three mirror surfaces to return back where it came from in three dimensions. Laser beams shined on the lunar reflector are not a small dot by the time they reach the moon so only the very small amount that hits the mirror array is reflected back. To detect this reflection, it still takes a decent telescope collecting as much light as possible for a very sensitive detector.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:18:44 AM
Stargazer, the point was to use oversampling to increase the resolution of a single telescope, not use arrays or an unworkable size instrument. The technique is a refined statistical process where image noise ahead of the sampling system actually allows resolution and dynamic range beyond the limits of the hardware. In some quiet systems, noise is actually added before sampling to acheive the resolution but when this is done, the noise is usually well defined and controlled so it is subtracted after initial processing. It may require millions of images but the effective pixel size would be reduced by orders of magnetude.

As I understand it, the Hubble is a modified spy sat design that was already in service. The spy sat resolution aimed at Earth is on the order of inches.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:44:45 PM

Dave, do you have an example of this technique in action?

Variations of the technique are used in high end radio and TV receivers as well as seizmograph processing for oil eploration etc. A couple of my patents use a similar algorithm for analysis of complex impedance where the noise levels are several orders of magnetude higher than the signal being analyzed. As a basic signal dimensional example of the math, an FFT of 1024 points will typically increase dynamic range 20dB over the resolution of the sampling hardware. This process accounts for a portion of the high volume of digital signal processing electronics in products from cell phones to stereos.

If you listen to digital music, chances are that 16+ bit resolution music was recorded with analog to digital converters with only 1 bit of resolution. The converter itself would likely have the digital signal processing to take the oversampled 1 bit data and convert it the 16 bit data. Less precision front end electronics are needed. Other advantages to such process are that well defined and controlled filters can be implemented to eliminate pwoer line noise etc.

Why did someone not apply it to telescopes? Why not. The reason I was granted patents was because I applied the math to areas where others either tried and failed, didn't try, or simply didn't get around to it. Such opportunities to advance technology are everywhere but the knowledge and skills to do it are usually beyond the typical garage shop inventor.

I would suspect there is little to no budget priority to "prove" anything to such conspiracy junkies. Since the "proof" is only at the end of a lot of data processing of pictures that show nothing going in, it is very doubtful such a "proof" would mean anything to the conspiracy junkies.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:04:25 PM
One way to think of the concept is like using film with an extremely long exposure, possible years, made up of millions of short exposures. The enhancement is that digital processing of each short exposure corrects for its movement and distortions using the bulk of the other exposures to make the adjustment. Multiple passes at the data array eventually resolve the fine detail in the total that each individual exposure cannot discern.

Far away comets and other moving objects are generally discovered in a primitive version of the process by examining photos taken at different times and looking for differences when overlaid. Comets and other moving objects stand out from the background because they change relative location from one frame to another. I have used this technique to find very small differences in semiconductor masks by projecting complementing light colors through each mask and projecting them together. One mask may make a blue on black while the other a red on black but when they are the same, they make white and black. The differences appear as blue or red on an otherwise black and white combined projection. Semiconductor masks may have hundreds of thousands of components in their image but the color projection can find differences in fractions of individual component images. Kind of like a laser pointer on football field in the dark.

Its seems to me the only thing that outnumbers the stars themselves are the inventions yet to be made.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:23:19 PM
I believe that digital cameras already do this via their "enhanced digital resolution". The lens only achieves so much, but the process averages adjacent pixels to create artificial detail. A similar but better result could be achieved by collecting images which overlap by fractions of a pixel. Four images out by 1/4 pixel on each axis could then be recombined and statistically corrected. I don't think that's a far cry from exoplanet detection methods, except that those compare the same pixel repeatedly.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:37:44 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 42
Just Curious about the Moon.
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:53:39 PM
If the earth's gravitational pull can and has affected the rotation of the moon , can a time come when this would alter things in a way that would affect us , us earthlings ? Science was not something I was allowed to study but , if the moon really slowed down or if the earth's gravitational pull increased , then what would the situation be ? I understand that firstly I would have to know what could possibly increase or decrease the earth's gravitational pull ..... but would such a scenario be possible ?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >