'Scope on the Moon's surface

[deanm]

Many of us will remember the days when anything marked 'Made in China' pretty much guaranteed it was treated with disdain - the quality was hopeless and the useful life of the product highly doubtful.

China's technological leaps over the past 1-2 decades are simply breathtaking.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28323-china-has-had-a-telescope-on-the-moon-for-the-past-two-years/

Dean

[billdan]

Good article Dean, thanks for that-

Wouldn't it be awesome to image a galaxy or a Nebula for a dozen days straight without interruption, only a few thousand subs to stack.

Quote
"since the moon rotates 27 times more slowly than the Earth, the scope can stay fixed on the same star for a dozen days without interruption"

Regards

Bill

[AussieTrooper]

It still is rubbish.
No doubt they are quite capable of producing quality when they choose to, but they usually don’t.

[brian nordstrom]

:question:Pretty general and sweeping comment there , yes but like everything in life, whenever it is made 'You get what you pay for ' .
I have had a Chinese made ute for 5 years now and clocked over 100,000 km and it has not missed a beat .
6 months ago grabbed a Chinese CFMoto 650nk , 12,000 HARD !!! Km later , no problems , they can do it. , just look at the. SW Esprit series. .

Brian.

[deanm]

Ben - I take it you can manufacture, assemble, launch & land on the surface of the Moon a better-quality robotic probe which would also out-last the 2 years which Chang'e has accomplished?

Good onya!

Dean

[AussieTrooper]

Well obviously for you "made in China" is a mark of distinction. Enjoy.

[blindman]

Hmmmm, dust problem.
Chinese landed on wrong spot, we didn't see any dust on Apollo project, did we?

[Regulus]

I wonder if that is just a very low res image they released? They are certainly capable of better optics and electronics than this photo would indicate.

[AG Hybrid]

LOL. Somebody has a chip on their shoulder.

In regards to Telescopes and eyepieces their optics have come along way over the last 1 and a half decades. Their quality can even challenge(not surpass) some of the best optics available to consumers.

Last I checked. Isn't China where all that shiny expensive Apple products are made?

[sheeny]

Certainly did.

Al.

[LewisM]

Dust was a major problem in ALL the Apolla landings. Well documented. Better read up Blindman. They are not talking about landing blast dust, they are talking about static charged dust, that causes all kinds of mayhem.

[KenGee]

blindman your just making a fool of yourself , spouting stuff that takes seconds to show is wrong. :shrug::screwy:

For those of you following at home here are some pictures of Apollo astronauts covered in dust.:thumbsup:

[AussieTrooper]

That dust was kept and analysed too.

If they managed to get a robot to drag space suits around on the lunar surface, then that's probably a bigger achievement than astronauts going up there and getting dirty themselves.

[blindman]

Sorry guys, cannot see any dust on crucial photo, can you?

[xelasnave]

Blow dried I,d say.

[deanm]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see.."

Your eyesight might be a bit dodgy Blindman, but try to have a look at this from 13:00 minutes onward (Apollo 12 sequencing camera recording lunar module approach & landing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSa6vUix70

Pete Conrad later described the landing as in "IFR conditions".

This means the crew had to use Instruments (the 'I' part) rather than VFR ('Visual Flight Rules') because the dust was so significant that nothing could be seen outside by eye.

Dean

[AussieTrooper]

This guy is somewhat like a Collingwood supporter whose team lost by 15 goals, but claim they should have won, because a poor resolution photo shows that the ball might not have actually scraped the goalpost early in the second quarter.

[LewisM]

Oh, you DO need to see an ophthalmologist!

I have circled the dust and particles in your picture for you. Notice it is the same colour/shade/hue as the lunar soil all around the foot pad.

If you cannot see it, then truly you DO want to believe the delusional conspiracy garbage.


If English is not your first language, I am willing to write in a couple of other languages if you prefer - I can write fairly well in English (:P), Russian, French, some Suomen kieli, bad Deutsch, poor Tagalog and a very small smattering of Latvian.

[LewisM]

Added another feature in your photo - this shows the blast flaring and streaking of the lunar soil by the decent engine - circled in GREEN

[blindman]

Lewis, maybe you are right, maybe not. As we cannot prove anything, it doesn't matter - it doesn't change your life anyhow. I would expect from someone to do research on both sides. If you follow money trail and million things which could go wrong, it just does't add up.
If they were on the Moon, nothing big was achieved (maybe military, but I doubt).
By the way, first comment was just sarcasm :-)
Cheers all.

[LewisM]

Nothing big achieved?

Oh boy.

Yep, setting foot on another "world" is not a remarkable feat in human endeavour. (shakes head in disbelief).

No, you are right, nothing big was achieved. I suggest you make a rocket and go see for yourself.

[deanm]

Be sure to keep up with your meds, BM.

Dean

[RB]

And woeful Greek with the help of Google..... :P

[LewisM]

You just can't read Greek... which is shameful :P (I bet ya still don't know who the Danaan's were :D)

[RB]

Hah !
They were the first Greeks on the moon !
Named after the moon goddess Dana.

:lol:

[LewisM]

Touche pepe.

[AussieTrooper]

So you've decided the whole thing was a fake, because a photo "can't be proven either way."
I sure hope you aren't employed in the legal system.

[blindman]

Guys, you really cannot forgive anyone who doesn't believe in NASA, can you?
Maybe you should read We Never Went to Moon and some other sources.
I bet you are certain about big bang as well.
Cheers and have a good fun.

[AussieTrooper]

Wrong again. The big bang is still a theory. Evidence for it is good, but to say it has been proven would be an overstatement.

There's no such thing as 'believing in NASA'.
However, there is such a thing as seeing overwhelming evidence of an event, and coming to the logical conclusion that it is legitimate.

When the Chinese do eventually get to the moon, will you be posting conspiracy theories about that too?

[blindman]

I did not post any conspiracy theory. Just hate lies.

[KenGee]

I don't believe in Blindman, I mean there is no evidence that he is a real poster. The moderators are just faking posts that look like they come from a foolish troll.
Real people join this site to talk about and share their interest in Astronomy.
Because the moderators are Masons they have to tell the truth so they have left hints in the posts that Blindman isn't real.

[RB]

Actually, Blindman is Hiram Abiff, and he's copping the third degree.... :lol:

[LewisM]

Are you saying Blindman rode the goat?

[blindman]

30% of americans hate lies as well

[N1]

No.

[AussieTrooper]

The other 70% like lies do they?

[KenGee]

Blindman thinks the diskworld novels are documentaries.

[blindman]

NO, other 70% are naive and blindly believe NASA.
Reading, reading, guys (1 language quite enough :-)

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
Frank Zappa
via Save a Quote <http://www.saveaquote.com/quotes/wisdom/quote-255600?f=a:2420>

NB: no links, we do not want iceinspace server down :-)

[LewisM]

Zappa quotes now....

I wonder if by moon, you mean Zappa's daughter? Could be...

[xelasnave]

Mmmm Frank Zappa was a scientist or philosopher worthy of seeking some sort of authority to indulge in nonsense.
No he was a musician.
Nevertheless keep an open mind that NASA may just be what all scientist see them as..and that is they perform and there is ample evidence of such that you could also review with an open mind...

[AussieTrooper]

You said that 30% hate lies. So by pure mathematics alone, your claim necessitates that the other 70% must not hate lies.

[blindman]

I hope you are not a teacher :-)
30% of americans are not believing "scientists", that is what I meant.

[N1]

"Believing" - that's excatly what's wrong with this whole discussion. There isn't anything or anybody to be "believed". There is only evidence, from which conclusions can be drawn as to what the facts are likely to be. Importantly, those conclusions are subject to change when the evidence changes. There is no place in this process for "believing".

The fact that you are alive, Neven, derives from decisions you have made based on evidence and experience you had, in favour of your most likely survival scenario. Think about it next time you cross a road.

[AussieTrooper]

Then perhaps that is what you should have said.

Since you decided to bring up the subject of teaching, a few pointers for you.

americans: Ensure you capitalise all proper nouns.

"scientists": You are using quotation marks. Who are you quoting?

...are not believing scientists: You sentence refers to scientists who don't believe something, when it's clear from your posting history that you are trying to say that it is the scientists who are not being believed.

Sourcing: You have used unsourced statistics in your statement.

Your hope that I am not a teacher is well founded indeed. I would have given you an F.

[graham.hobart]

[/COLOR]
:lol::lol::rofl::rofl::thumbsup:

Dr Graz McLune !!

[blindman]

I won't mentioned your name (because that what is used in marketing calls on which I am allergic), but that is what I am trying to explain to you - there is many contradictories in "evidence" and evidence. Try to google Dr. Howind videos and you will maybe think about word evidence.
Cheers

[blindman]

Sorry, it is more than 1 source for 30% of americans non believing NASA scientists, so I just used it here.
Why F? I hope it is not your Ego?
Cheers

[AussieTrooper]

You get an F because your post fails on all pre-requisites for persuasive writing.
Even when the premise is false, a student will usually receive a good grade if they submit a well written, correctly sourced paper. You fail on both counts.
Based on the fact that you repeated your mistakes in your next post, don't expect a better mark in the future either.

[blindman]

Ha, it was deliberately.
If you do not have contra arguments, do not jump one someone's back
(i.e. negative approach) ;)

[AussieTrooper]

If it was 'deliberately,' then you must be psychic, as you have been spamming this forum with that crap for weeks now.

[blindman]

It is not spamming - just different approach.
We are all trying to get some research (main drive in Astronomy, right?)
If not, it would be easier just to hang on NASA website, isn't that true?

[AussieTrooper]

You've dragged this rubbish over several threads on different topics. That is spamming.

[KenGee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTbeUe83NFk

[KenGee]

or
That Mitchell and Webb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Chris85]

Do you mean Dr Hovind, the young earth creationist?

[blindman]

Yes Chris, (that's why I didn't enter finale of Spelling Bee)

[KenGee]

ha ha a young earth creationist?

[blindman]

So you are for Big Bang Theory?

[sjastro]

Wow the fallacy of relative privation at work.