Mystery rocket' that crashed into the Moon baffles NASA scientists

[miketx]

.

Yes but that stuff could not have been in earth orbit. To leave earth orbit you have to be propelled around 25000 mph.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With the advances in HD technology, all photographic technology has been updated to HD format...................except for the 1960 cameras still being used to take pictures of the moon, BigFoot, and UFO's.

I don't see any rocket debris. I just see two dark grey areas.

Never
A
Straight
Answer
___________
NASA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NASA has discovered the crash site of a "mystery rocket body" that collided with the Moon's surface earlier this year. The impact left behind a widespread "double crater," meaning it wasn't the average rocket.
However, since its crash landing, none of Earth's space-exploring nations have claimed responsibility for the mysterious projectile, leaving NASA scientists baffled as to who was behind its launch. New images shared on June 24 by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the unusual impact site.

'Mystery rocket' that crashed into the Moon baffles NASA scientists

So far, no space exploring nations have claimed responsibility for the rocket.

www.chron.com

That's almost comical. Nobody wants to fess up.

Can the Hubble even see something as far away as our Moon?

 

[miketx]

Can the Hubble even see something as far away as our Moon?

No it's too far.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No it's too far.

Same for Mt. Palomar too...the Moon is too far away to get a clear picture

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can the Hubble even see something as far away as our Moon?

No it's too far.

Same for Mt. Palomar too...the Moon is too far away to get a clear picture

I think that was in jest, but the reality might be that it cannot focus on anything that close.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think that was in jest, but the reality might be that it cannot focus on anything that close.

With a bit of research, I find tha the Hubble can, in fact, focus on the Moon.

Interestingly, it cannot take usable pictures of anything on Earth. The issue, it seems, isn't focus range, but speed and time. The shortest exposure time of any device on Hubble is 1⁄10 of a second, and at the speed that it is moving in orbit around the Earth, anything on Earth would be badly blurred in that time. As a photographer, I know that even with a handheld camera, held by someone standing on Earth's surface, as opposed to moving in a very fast orbit around Earth, it is challenging to take a sharp picture at so slow a shutter speed. I can do it (I've taken a sharp handheld picture with as much as a full second of exposure time), but for most people, 1⁄25 to 1⁄50 is generally considered to be the slowest shutter speed to get a sharp handheld shot.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Ok, we now have the video..........................

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is this settled science at its best? I say it's from a space shuttle that came back in time to help us with climate change and the death of hump back wales...

That would make sense, in a world where zombie kings exist and people can live inside whales.

But it doesn't make sense in this world.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[ReinyDays]

With a bit of research, I find tha the Hubble can, in fact, focus on the Moon.

Interestingly, it cannot take usable pictures of anything on Earth. The issue, it seems, isn't focus range, but speed and time. The shortest exposure time of any device on Hubble is 1⁄10 of a second, and at the speed that it is moving in orbit around the Earth, anything on Earth would be badly blurred in that time. As a photographer, I know that even with a handheld camera, held by someone standing on Earth's surface, as opposed to moving in a very fast orbit around Earth, it is challenging to take a sharp picture at so slow a shutter speed. I can do it (I've taken a sharp handheld picture with as much as a full second of exposure time), but for most people, 1⁄25 to 1⁄50 is generally considered to be the slowest shutter speed to get a sharp handheld shot.

Thank you for looking this up ...

The longest exposure I was involved with was about 6 hours as I remember ... clock drives weren't very good back then so someone had to stay at the eyepiece and make corrections ... and we working in shifts ... this same group did a 10 hours exposure one night, and then 10 more hours the next night for a total of 20 hours ... one exposure ... they thought they were clever ...

Deep space objects ... not the Moon or anything bright ...

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

You can't get to the moon by accident. Reaching earth's escape velocity ain't easy. Objects orbiting the earth don't get "knocked" to the moon

They are able to exit the earths pull if they swing out far enough. Their orbit degrades.
More stuff is "sucked in" to earths pull and burns up in the atmosphere, true......but plenty of it exits earths pull and either float off into space or gets pulled into the moons gravity.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

With a bit of research, I find tha the Hubble can, in fact, focus on the Moon.

Interestingly, it cannot take usable pictures of anything on Earth. The issue, it seems, isn't focus range, but speed and time. The shortest exposure time of any device on Hubble is 1⁄10 of a second, and at the speed that it is moving in orbit around the Earth, anything on Earth would be badly blurred in that time. As a photographer, I know that even with a handheld camera, held by someone standing on Earth's surface, as opposed to moving in a very fast orbit around Earth, it is challenging to take a sharp picture at so slow a shutter speed. I can do it (I've taken a sharp handheld picture with as much as a full second of exposure time), but for most people, 1⁄25 to 1⁄50 is generally considered to be the slowest shutter speed to get a sharp handheld shot.

The Hubble was not designed for earth shots or moon shots........it was designed for deep space shots.
The Hubble did get a few clear shots of the moon, but they were large sectional shots, not closeup ones.
The few closeup shots they did get were fuzzy/blurry, as you commented about.

I don't know why they haven't put an orbiting satellite around the moon, equipped with cameras, video equipment, night vision, and all the other fun gadgets that will get them the info we all want. I would have thought this would have been the first "interspace" machine they would have built, so they could test out the long range ones.

Could it be they actually ARE hiding something on the dark side of the moon???

 

[Cougarbear]

Ok, we now have the video..........................

That was a UFO crashing on the moon. We have to go get it.

 

[Cougarbear]

View attachment 670692
View attachment 670693
View attachment 670694

~S~

This debris looks like a lot. But, when in context with the size of the universe, it's very, very tiny...

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

NASA has discovered the crash site of a "mystery rocket body" that collided with the Moon's surface earlier this year. The impact left behind a widespread "double crater," meaning it wasn't the average rocket.
However, since its crash landing, none of Earth's space-exploring nations have claimed responsibility for the mysterious projectile, leaving NASA scientists baffled as to who was behind its launch. New images shared on June 24 by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the unusual impact site.

'Mystery rocket' that crashed into the Moon baffles NASA scientists

So far, no space exploring nations have claimed responsibility for the rocket.

www.chron.com

That's almost comical. Nobody wants to fess up.

I call bullshit on no one knowing where it came from if they knew it was going to hit the Moon they can trace it back to when it was launched. It's either a Military black budget rocket or a Soviet Union one and nobody wants to claim it.

 

[fncceo]

Ours “space junk” is nearly all between about 100 and 22,000 miles above Earth. The Moon is about 220,000 miles away from Earth—about ten times as far as the farthest artificial satellites.

I have to admit that there is much to know about the relevant physics, beyond that which I do know, but I know enough to know this much:

• It takes more energy to send anything to the Moon than it does to put it into the orbits were we have been putting artificial satellites. A lot more.
• It takes very precise calculations to send something to the moon.
• By existing technology, to intentionally put anything on the Moon is a fairly major undertaking.
• Thus, it seems extremely unlikely that anything that we meant to put up as a normal satellite would wind up on the Moon.

In order for a piece of orbital space junk to get to the lunar surface, it would have to have a Delta V (change in accelerated velocity) sufficient to go from low earth orbit to trans-lunar injection orbit or an increase of 6 km/sec faster than their orbital speed of 10 km/sec. A post-orbital insertion burn would have had to take place.

What I suggest is that whatever impacted The Moon, if it is indeed part of a spacecraft, would be a part lost off one of the many Soviet lunar probes (there were 32 known lunar missions during The Cold) War) that achieved a semi-stable orbit around The Moon.

The Soviets were not always very transparent about their space program failures.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I call bullshit on no one knowing where it came from if they knew it was going to hit the Moon they can trace it back to when it was launched. It's either a Military black budget rocket or a Soviet Union one and nobody wants to claim it.

They can't do that. Too many possible perturbations and even relativistic effects. That's why they have to constantly make trajectory adjustments to orbiting vehicles, for example.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A post-orbital insertion burn would have had to take place.

Or simply the ejection thrust of a rocket stage being ejected. Spin inplace and hold a rope with a bowling ball on one end. Now let go.

Now, attach thrusters to it and do the same.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

They can't do that. Too many possible perturbations and even relativistic effects. That's why they have to constantly make trajectory adjustments to orbiting vehicles, for example.

If that where true we wouldn't have been able to send thing out to places like Pluto. I've read things like this before. I remember a piece of space junk popped up out of no where and NASA was able to trace it back to a launch from the 60's.