Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

In article ,
Burt Johnson wrote:

[very cool story snipped]

By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.

Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)

The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
| You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Brian Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Burt Johnson wrote:
[very cool story snipped]
By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.

Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)

The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.

Thanks for the mention. I definitely want to see it, and just sent a web
request for recording it.

It's on at 6 PM PDT, Ch. 278, DirecTV.

OK, noonsio, I might have stock in DTV....

--
John McWilliams

Burt Johnson wrote:
angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.

Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
"magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Walter Banks" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
a
super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.

Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap

I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.

2020 is the current plan.


In the meantime, used Hasselblads are pretty cheap here on earth. US$1000 or
so will get you a nice one from KEH. Unfortunately, the lenses other than
the 80/2.8 are still astronomically pricey.

Not really. I got a very nice 120 f/4 Makro CF for CAD$1100 and a 150
f/4 (absolute great portrait lens) for much less than that (admittedly a
quite old Compur - but the optics are still great).

The "one" lens I really want is still pricey, the 40mm f/4 Distagon. I
rented one last year and it is a great lens. (Rental deposit was $5K).

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Walter Banks" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
a
super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as
disposable
cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.

Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap

I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.

2020 is the current plan.

Don't bet on it......The big spenders (of my money) are back in power......

Brian Reynolds wrote:

In article ,
Burt Johnson wrote:

[very cool story snipped]

By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.

Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)

The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.

I thought that was it, but my wife and I couldn't remember why they
would be going to the telescope, so I opted with just saying "a science
show."

I do remember the episode now that you mention it.

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Alan Browne wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.

Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
"magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.

There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
since my parents were dead broke).

And not 1 in 10 people I mention this too have any idea how it could
possibly be done.

piffle. I bet you don't even believe in Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny...

'magic' was clearly used here in the romantic sense. Sorry you don't
have any imagination. Life must be miserable to be like that.

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

"Burt Johnson" wrote in message
...

There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
since my parents were dead broke).

I thought what you said was amazing. I didn't have a clue that it could be
done let alone how to do it.

I knew Browne could be a patronising **** but ****ing hell. Dissing someone
for that then bragging in the next breath about hiring expensive lenses?

What an autistic ****.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

Burt Johnson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
"magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.

There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
since my parents were dead broke).

And not 1 in 10 people I mention this too have any idea how it could
possibly be done.

I doubt it's 1 in 30.

piffle. I bet you don't even believe in Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny...

.... just what the hell! ... you don't mean to say ... ?


'magic' was clearly used here in the romantic sense. Sorry you don't
have any imagination. Life must be miserable to be like that.

I have tons of imagination. Experience too.

When I saw what you wrote I immediately thought of radar corners,
something of which I have more than a passing knowledge. I was sure I
had seen the same for lasers as well and a few seconds Googling
confirmed that. I would see a lot of challenges in making such a
reflector for the moon, but I wouldn't apply any of the superlatives
that you did.

You maintain great bragging rights in any case.

My father was asked by NASA to bid on (as it happens a radar based)
system for the Apollo lander. For the weight budget, he (and others at
the co.) considered it too risky - another firm won by default. So he
missed out on the chance for those bragging rights.

Bill Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Walter Banks" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
a
super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as
disposable
cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.

Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap

I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.

2020 is the current plan.

Don't bet on it......The big spenders (of my money) are back in power......

No, the Republicans are OUT of power. They just like to pretend that
they don't spend money but if you look at historical records it turns
out that they spend even more.

--
Ray Fischer