kdubya Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Is that the same moon rover that is still on the moon? Did the BBC really spend that much of our licence money on sending James May to the moon to film an episode of Top Gear? That moon rover which is the size of a combine harvester and weighs four tonnes and yet they manged to get it to the moon in a module made from Bamboo canes and bacofoil? Or did he drive it on the set of the moon landings in area 51? I see the "care in the community" element is back on the trype writer the rover they put on the moon weighed 216 kg's not four tonnes ( dont let facts spoil your denialist mentality KW Edited March 1, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I have a laser that measures distances, it doesn't need a reflector. Yes it does, it's just that in its operating range there's enough light reflected from whatever you're measuring. If you put a mirror on it you'd probably vastly extend the operating range. Why should the one on the moon be needed? To compensate for the distance and the attenuation of travelling through the earths atmosphere twice. Also if the refelctor was left in sight of the earth then why isn't that landing site and the vehicles etc left there visible? Maybe they parked the landing module in an alleyway to hide it from view and then crept out under the cover of darkness to place the reflector? There are only a few 10's of photons returned from the high powered laser shots. There won't be enough light to resolve images from reflected sunlight. You're pulling our collective chain MC, aren't you? Nial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I see the "care in the community" element is back on the trype writer the rover they put on the moon weighed 216 kg's not four tonnes ( dont let facts spoil your denialist mentality KW Don't remember bringing up the fact about it being four tonnes, but then don't let the facts stop you being your usual obnoxious self Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yes it does, it's just that in its operating range there's enough light reflected from whatever you're measuring. If you put a mirror on it you'd probably vastly extend the operating range. To compensate for the distance and the attenuation of travelling through the earths atmosphere twice. There are only a few 10's of photons returned from the high powered laser shots. There won't be enough light to resolve images from reflected sunlight. You're pulling our collective chain MC, aren't you? Nial No it doesn't, it may well reflect of the surface being measured but it doesn't need a "Reflector" as in a seperate piece of equipment. The mirror would only work if it was placed exactly 90 degrees to the laser otherwise the "eye" wouldn't see it. I don't need to yank your chain, you are pulling it yourself. If you honestly believe that 40 odd years ago they manage to fly a heap of bamboo canes and bacofoil with a buggy strapped to the side and land it on the moon where convenintly it could be seen from Earth with little more computing power than a calculator then I really do not need to even attempt to yank your chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) It's not an actual mirror... It's like a bike reflector and when the laser hits it the reflector sends laser beams out all over the place. I remember watching a programme where they tried to get a reading and it wasn't a case of 'point and shoot' they tried load of times before getting a successful returned signal. out of 100,0000,000,000,000,000 photons aimed at the reflector, only one will be received back on Earth every few seconds Edited March 1, 2011 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 the problem is obvious billy, its full of holes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenix Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 the problem is obvious billy, its full of holes No its full of retroflectors http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Don't remember bringing up the fact about it being four tonnes, but then don't let the facts stop you being your usual obnoxious self you posted this did you not? looks like all the faculties are on there way out :unsure: KW That moon rover which is the size of a combine harvester and weighs four tonnes and yet they manged to get it to the moon in a module made from Bamboo canes and bacofoil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 To those who still think the moon landing was a hoax, do you not think that Russia, China, India and everyone else on this planet would have found 100% proof by now and exposed the hated USA? Hundreds of people were involved in the moon landing, are you saying all the bods we see on film footage were just actors? If so do you really think not one of them would have sold their hoax story for an unlimited amount of money? It was an amazing, and VERY lucky feat to acheive back then, Armstrong and co. were facing certain death several times yet just managed to get through: to suggest they are all lying is ridiculous and an insult to those who have succeeded, and even more to those who have lost their lives in space exploration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stiv24 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yes it does, it's just that in its operating range there's enough light reflected from whatever you're measuring. If you put a mirror on it you'd probably vastly extend the operating range. To compensate for the distance and the attenuation of travelling through the earths atmosphere twice. There are only a few 10's of photons returned from the high powered laser shots. There won't be enough light to resolve images from reflected sunlight. You're pulling our collective chain MC, aren't you? Nial Does that mean that if I put a mirror at a 45 degree angle and shoot my laser tape measure at it I can measure around corners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XD2 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Does that mean that if I put a mirror at a 45 degree angle and shoot my laser tape measure at it I can measure around corners? I am almost certain that WILL actually work, but you could try it and let us know :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agjm Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I am almost certain that WILL actually work, but you could try it and let us know :-) I agree that it should work. You will get the ditance from the tape to the mirror plus the distance from the mirror to whatever the beam then hits. I often use surveying equipment and we use single reflectors very similar to the panel of reflectors shown in the photo above. They contain a prysm which ensures that any waves (eg light, laser, rf) hitting the reflector, even at quite an angle, are reflected back on a parallel couse to the origional beam. The maximum ofset of the returning beam is equal to the diameter of the reflector so it is fairly easy to "capture" the returning beam. Edited March 1, 2011 by agjm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 my last rangefinder was only 600 yards...bit far for me.... shaun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesbach Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 To those who still think the moon landing was a hoax, do you not think that Russia, China, India and everyone else on this planet would have found 100% proof by now and exposed the hated USA? Hundreds of people were involved in the moon landing, are you saying all the bods we see on film footage were just actors? If so do you really think not one of them would have sold their hoax story for an unlimited amount of money? It was an amazing, and VERY lucky feat to acheive back then, Armstrong and co. were facing certain death several times yet just managed to get through: to suggest they are all lying is ridiculous and an insult to those who have succeeded, and even more to those who have lost their lives in space exploration thats because some actually go to space...! Im with the non believers. How come we aint been there since with much more advanced technology?!?!? And lets be honest..what are we wasting so much money trying to get somewhere we cant live/survive!? Surely the x billion spent on these 'ventures' would be better spent in the real world....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Im with the non believers. How come we aint been there since with much more advanced technology?!?!? And lets be honest..what are we wasting so much money trying to get somewhere we cant live/survive!? Surely the x billion spent on these 'ventures' would be better spent in the real world....! What more is there to gain by sending man to the moon again. If you've not noticed, they're trying to put a man on Mars now. I also find the latter comment extremely ignorant. The solar system contains an awful lot of stuff everything that we may need in the future, including a new home, should ours come to an end. Edited March 1, 2011 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Bloody hell Billy, I bet you really believe that the Millenium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs as well. Seeing as though Mars is possibly the only place in our solar system that could possibly be used to live on and they are having enough problems getting one person there let alone a world full. If this planet comes to an end I doubt I will be around to see it, and if I am then so be it. If the universe contains everything we need then maybe the money should be spent on finding all the stuff we need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) You don't need a population of a million people to start a new colony of life elsewhere... You'd have some very strange family trees, but a dozen people would suffice to repopulate a planet. Personally I think the world will come to an end pretty soon. Not because of asteroids or stuff like that, but because the global population will outgrow the total output of food. This, in my opinion will be when oil supplies begin to dry up/become too expensive. Edited March 1, 2011 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 By pretty soon I assume you don't mean before thursday next week? I have an appointment at a Brewery :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 By pretty soon I assume you don't mean before thursday next week? I have an appointment at a Brewery :lol: no no, I mean over the next hundred years. Your trip to the brewery is reasonably safe, dependant on what Gadafi does next... :yp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twitchynik Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Seeing as though Mars is possibly the only place in our solar system that could possibly be used to live on and they are having enough problems getting one person there let alone a world full. Just because something can't be done now doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. Not long ago people were shoving lead balls and black powder down an unrifled barrel and lobbing rocks at castles. Go back further and we were but monkeys swinging in the trees. But I doubt we'll make enough progress before we melt down or outstrip the resources we're able to manipulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docholiday Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Billy in view of the somewhat bizarre e mails you have sent me recently I have to wonder about your ability to reason this one, :unsure: There are photos of the landing sights from earth, have a look at the last time this thread was tossed about doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Billy in view of the somewhat bizarre e mails you have sent me recently I have to wonder about your ability to reason this one, :unsure: There are photos of the landing sights from earth, have a look at the last time this thread was tossed about doc I meant to get back to you, sorry..! It wasn't anything concerning me, or the mentality of anyone, so fear not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docholiday Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I meant to get back to you, sorry..! It wasn't anything concerning me, or the mentality of anyone, so fear not! LOL no probs Billy, you know how to contact me if you need to doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Just because something can't be done now doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. Its only 60 years since the first nuclear submarine was launched (the Nautilus ). You take that back in time only double that (120 years) and (1890) and people would think that it was an Alien vessel. Now go forward only 60 years, where do you think we will be? They did go to the moon...on a wing and a prair most of the time, you did not need major computing power...that is only needed now for Windows etc. The reason for going to the moon, was purley political between America and Russia, no other reason. And finaly if it was a hoax Russia, China etc etc etc would have said somthing. As for the Top gear moon buggy, one issue think about the air in the tyres? And why they used metal mesh on the true moon buggy that is still up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Talking about did they or they did not go to the Moon one thing that accurred to me was with all of the electronic gizmo's that there are now if they did ever get a photograph of a bona fida Aeolian how on earth could you ever prove that it was the real thing the problem is seeing something is no longer proof that it really exists just look at Star Trek how could you prove it apart from actually catching one and bringing it back for us to see but even then it could be a machine made by the sony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.