Quake3World

geoff and menkent are on the sauce today

i actually know what i'm talking about, i just didn't realize how not-postworthy this thread was until it was too late.

MidnightQ4 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:As I've told you dinks before, it would take a telescope with a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror to resolve something the size of the moon rover. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sorry but I call bullshit :icon32: . Where is the math to back this up? Most mirrors today are around 7-9 feet across if I'm not mistaken, and these can see object billions of lightyears away. I'd say their resolving power is quite high. I did however read an article recently about a new system using many smaller mirrors together all refocused continuously, which will be something like 35 meters across, and should be able to see things all the way back to the beginning of time (aka the big bang). In other words it should be able to observe the most distant objects in the universe.

++

and pete, check wiki or summat. theres a big article somewhere that explains why the hubble cant see objects that tiny on the moon's surface.

it also cant spot people on the earth so what does that tell you

MidnightQ4 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:As I've told you dinks before, it would take a telescope with a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror to resolve something the size of the moon rover. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sorry but I call bullshit :icon32: . Where is the math to back this up? Most mirrors today are around 7-9 feet across if I'm not mistaken, and these can see object billions of lightyears away. I'd say their resolving power is quite high. I did however read an article recently about a new system using many smaller mirrors together all refocused continuously, which will be something like 35 meters across, and should be able to see things all the way back to the beginning of time (aka the big bang). In other words it should be able to observe the most distant objects in the universe.

That's fine, call bullshit if you like being wrong. I don't have the equation handy, I'm just repeating what one of the optical engineers here at work calculated when we had this same discussion a few months ago. And as menkent said, what the Hubble sees are objects that are massive on a celestial scale, not something the size of a Pinto.

...I bet it'd be much easier to put a satelite in the moon's orbit anyway.

word ryoki

Nightshade wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:As I've told you dinks before, it would take a telescope with a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror to resolve something the size of the moon rover. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sorry but I call bullshit :icon32: . Where is the math to back this up? Most mirrors today are around 7-9 feet across if I'm not mistaken, and these can see object billions of lightyears away. I'd say their resolving power is quite high. I did however read an article recently about a new system using many smaller mirrors together all refocused continuously, which will be something like 35 meters across, and should be able to see things all the way back to the beginning of time (aka the big bang). In other words it should be able to observe the most distant objects in the universe.

That's fine, call bullshit if you like being wrong. I don't have the equation handy, I'm just repeating what one of the optical engineers here at work calculated when we had this same discussion a few months ago. And as menkent said, what the Hubble sees are objects that are massive on a celestial scale, not something the size of a Pinto.

That's right. The minimal focal range is well over one million miles, with the moon being half a million miles away all you would see is an out of focus blob. HAHA GET FUCKED

Ryoki wrote:...I bet it'd be much easier to put a satelite in the moon's orbit anyway.

Yes, dead easy...

Doombrain wrote:

Ryoki wrote:...I bet it'd be much easier to put a satelite in the moon's orbit anyway.

Yes, dead easy...

easiER, not easy

as long as they check to see if they're using inches or centimeters... :sigh:

lol - do you know why we KNOW as fact that the tidal drag is making the moon slowly move AWAY from the earth at about 1 cm a year?

becuase they fire a laser at the mirrors the appollo astronauts left on the surface and time how long it takes to come back ..

any questions?

or is this all part of the global conspiracy that all astrohpyhisicists currently alive everywhere are complicit in?

Wait a minute...we really went to the moon?

lol..what kind of moron believes that kind of shit..hoax alert??

no - people blew themselves up on the launch pad for the shear drama of the whole hoax O_o - it was all a big scam - it really bares to resemblence to any other scientific endevour that never really happened ever -

all that modern stuff you see lying around you is all just an equally elaborate hoax

in fact that computer you just posted from is purley a figment of my imagination ..

fucking hell - ITS A COLD HARD FACT FFS - WHAT IS WITH NORTH AMERICANS AND WANTON PARANOIA

I alreday post this one in one of my threads but just in case you missed it.

And do you believe it was this computer that was on it's mission?

Well, if any of you would like to build one or just
look at the specs of that piece of equipment that
helped men landing on the moon in 1969.

Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC)
How to build one in your basement
John Pultorak
December, 2004
Original AGC:
Designed by M.I.T. in 1964
World's first microchip computer
Prototype computer for Apollo moon landing
Memory: 12K fixed (ROM), 1K eraseable (RAM)
Clock: 1.024 MHz
Computing: 11 instructions, 16 bit word
Logic: ~5000 ICs (3-input NOR gates, RTL logic)
My AGC:
Built from original M.I.T. design documents
Started November 2000, completed October 2004
~15K hand-wrapped wire connections; ~3500 feet of wire
Cost (parts only): $2,980.
Labor: ~2500 hours
Logic: ~500 ICs (LSTTL logic)
Runs flight software (1969 program name: COLOSSUS 249)
http://starfish.osfn.org/AGCreplica

Can you believe this computer was the "summum"of its kind.
They actually landed on the moon with less than what you can
actually have in your dishwasher today.[/quote]

Wait a minute here dumbos..can we prove there's even a moon out there?

smells like gvt propaganda to me..and I'm always right

neh wrote:lol - do you know why we KNOW as fact that the tidal drag is making the moon slowly move AWAY from the earth at about 1 cm a year?

becuase they fire a laser at the mirrors the appollo astronauts left on the surface and time how long it takes to come back ..

any questions?

or is this all part of the global conspiracy that all astrohpyhisicists currently alive everywhere are complicit in?

My doubt isn't wether we've been to the moon. I do believe we've been to the moon, I just don't believe we first landed when we said we did.

i assume your argument is that we'd landed earlier and the live broadcast wasn't live, but recorded previously so there wouldn't be a potential tragedy/embarassment on live tv? interesting, but it serves no practical purpose and you have no evidence for it. at that point you're just wearing a foil hat as a retarded fashion statement.

In any ways, I always thought that if we can go to the moon and send robots to mars and satellites all over the galaxies, we might be better off exploring our oceans instead to save them ( the oceans ) and find a future way for nutrition for our planet.

menkent wrote:i assume your argument is that we'd landed earlier and the live broadcast wasn't live, but recorded previously so there wouldn't be a potential tragedy/embarassment on live tv? interesting, but it serves no practical purpose and you have no evidence for it. at that point you're just wearing a foil hat as a retarded fashion statement.

No, I believe that the American government needed to win the space race so badly that they were willing to fake it just so as to not cause the kind of panic that would have swept through the nation had the russians been the first with a foothold in the new frontier.


Also yes, you wouldn't have shown something like that to the public unless you knew it was going to go completly right.

once again you dumbos are just pretending there's a moon out there..but I'd bet my entire Syntoil supply that there's no fucking moon up there..time to wake up nerdos, things were happening on this planet even before you were born..13 years ago..

Mr.Magnetichead wrote: No, I believe that the American government needed to win the space race so badly that they were willing to fake it just so as to not cause the kind of panic that would have swept through the nation had the russians been the first with a foothold in the new frontier.


Also yes, you wouldn't have shown something like that to the public unless you knew it was going to go completly right.

had it gone wrong they would have just spun it into the american mythology of heroic sacrifice.. a la 9/11

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:

menkent wrote:i assume your argument is that we'd landed earlier and the live broadcast wasn't live, but recorded previously so there wouldn't be a potential tragedy/embarassment on live tv? interesting, but it serves no practical purpose and you have no evidence for it. at that point you're just wearing a foil hat as a retarded fashion statement.

No, I believe that the American government needed to win the space race so badly that they were willing to fake it just so as to not cause the kind of panic that would have swept through the nation had the russians been the first with a foothold in the new frontier.


Also yes, you wouldn't have shown something like that to the public unless you knew it was going to go completly right.

A nice Wag the Dog thing going on right there

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:
No, I believe that the American government needed to win the space race so badly that they were willing to fake it just so as to not cause the kind of panic that would have swept through the nation had the russians been the first with a foothold in the new frontier.

Also yes, you wouldn't have shown something like that to the public unless you knew it was going to go completly right.

I've heard this theory before, but surely the Russians had the means to verify whether someting actually landed on the moon or not. I don't know, by triangulating radio signals or something?

Ryoki wrote:

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:
No, I believe that the American government needed to win the space race so badly that they were willing to fake it just so as to not cause the kind of panic that would have swept through the nation had the russians been the first with a foothold in the new frontier.

Also yes, you wouldn't have shown something like that to the public unless you knew it was going to go completly right.

I've heard this theory before, but surely the Russians had the means to verify whether someting actually landed on the moon or not. I don't know, by triangulating radio signals or something?

It depends. They may very well have but the world media back then wasn't the same as it is today.

Who knows what kind of information was filtered out during that period.

MidnightQ4 wrote:This can be settled quite easily.

All we need to do is just point one of our super duper telescopes at the moon landing site and get some footage of the flag, rover, etc that are still there on the moon.

Case closed.

Telescopes don't work that way, look it up.