Model Forum / General / Rockets / February 2006

KECK is actually not just an instrument that's limited to being stuck
in the KECK rut, whereas it's been upgraded as 2X KECK plus entirely
capable of having accommodated what most any good projection optics can
provide as per improving the imaging transfer as capably magnified onto
the latest of tightly populated CCDs.  Meaning that while KECK-I is
capable of focusing a substantial 532 nm or even that of a near-UV 407
nm laser beam as having spread of less than 2 km (possibly as tight as
1 km), at the same moment(1.25~2.5) sec later KECK-II can be recording
the reflected results within as good as 0.105 m/pixel.

Projection optics or perhaps the serious microscope class of such
optics has always been the alternative to the generally low
magnification and less quality of what the traditional Barlow optics
can offer, thereby easily providing a crystal clear and minimal
distorted 10X, 50x or 100x as a conventional all-in-one multi-element
extension, and/or affording most any combination of such 10x plus 10x =
100x, 10x plus 20x = 200x or even 10x plus 50x = 500x.  Such magnified
projection optics do not even have to be all that special ordered,
unless you desired having such as a direct telescope fit to CCD camera
mount, which probably doesn't quite exist as a standard off-the-shelf
product.

Since the old 24 micron CCDs are of what's been recently upgraded with
their newest of the KECK CCDs that's offering terrific low noise and of
a bit wider UV spectrum and a whole lot more IR capability, however
still that's limited to 15 micron/pixel, whereas the 1.75 micron CCD
that's down from their 15 micron format should represent yet another
8.57:1 factor, getting the direct mirror to CCD resolution of our moon
that was supposedly limited as currently being 90 meters down to 10.5
meters/pixel, and that's without such efforts involving any optical
projection as added magnification boost.

Therefore, where exactly is their naysay argument as to our not having
a look-see at the supposedly soft landed remains and even a perfectly
good enough gander at the extra shine coming off those supposed
retroreflectors, that witch should seriously shine off more than their
fair share of laser photons like a raw diamond that's laying in the sun
on top of a bed of coal dust.  Even the original 90 meter/pixel as
capably 100X magnified to becoming 0.9 meter/pixel would have been more
than good enough as of nearly a decade ago, especially impressive if
that were based upon an improvement from the old 24 micron/pixel that
has just recently shifted to their 15 micron CCD format that's got to
be 162.5% or 1.6 fold better off than before, plus there's always image
stacking and PhotoShop being good for an extra boost that'll only
improve upon whatever there is to being seen.
-
Brad Guth

Congratulations.  You have just constructed the single most bizarre
conspiracy theory I have *ever* seen.

KECK is actually not just an instrument that's limited to being stuck
within the KECK rut of 24 nm or even their 15 nm CCDs, whereas it's
been upgraded as 2X KECK plus entirely capable of having accommodated
what most any good projection optics can provide as per improving the
imaging transfer as capably magnified onto the latest of tightly
populated CCDs.  Meaning that while KECK-I is capable of focusing a
substantial 532 nm or even that of a near-UV 407 nm laser beam as
having spread of less than 2 km (possibly as tight as 1 km), at the
same moment(1.25~2.5) sec later KECK-II can be recording the reflected
results within as good as 0.105 m/pixel.

Projection optics or perhaps the serious microscope class of such
optics has always been the alternative to the generally low
magnification and less quality of what the traditional Barlow optics
can offer, thereby easily providing a crystal clear and minimal
distorted 10X, 50x or 100x as a conventional all-in-one multi-element
extension, and/or affording most any combination of such 10x plus 10x =
100x, 10x plus 20x = 200x or even 10x plus 50x = 500x.  Such magnified
projection optics do not even have to be all that special ordered,
unless you desired having such as a direct telescope fit to CCD camera
mount, which probably doesn't quite exist as a standard off-the-shelf
product.

Since the old 24 micron CCDs are of what's been recently upgraded with
their newest of the KECK CCDs that's offering terrific low noise and of
a bit wider UV spectrum plus a whole lot more IR capability, however
still even that's limited to 15 micron/pixel, whereas the 1.75 micron
CCD that's down from their 15 micron format should represent yet
another 8.57:1 factor, getting the direct mirror to CCD resolution of
our moon that was supposedly limited as currently being 90 meters down
to 10.5 meters/pixel, and that's without such efforts involving any
optical projection as added magnification boost.

Therefore, where exactly is their naysay argument as to our having a
look-see at the supposedly soft landed remains and even taking a
perfectly good enough gander at the extra shine coming off those
supposed retroreflectors, that which should seriously shine off with
more than their fair share of laser photons like a raw diamond that's
laying in the sun on top of a bed of coal dust.  Even the original 90
meter/pixel as capably 100X magnified to becoming 0.9 meter/pixel would
have been more than good enough as of nearly a decade ago, especially
impressive if that were based upon an improvement from the old 24
micron/pixel that has just recently shifted to their 15 micron CCD
format that's got to be 162.5% or 1.6 fold better off than before, plus
there's always image stacking and PhotoShop being good for an extra
boost that'll only improve upon whatever there is to being seen.
-
Brad Guth

How absolutely pathetic of such typically wossy topic contributions,
that are way over the line of being nothing but another sorry butt load
of the usual intellectual incest.  At least Laurence Doering had
accomplished the expected task of feeding us their NASA/Apollo
certified infomercial, that's suggesting either of the KECK primary
instruments was not capable of better than 90 meter resolution under
the absolute best of conditions, which makes perfectly good sense if
based upon their old 24 micron/pixel format and of not using any
projection magnification factor.  Of course the old positive film plate
that could be digital scanned is still capable of sharing tighter than
one micron per many grains of emulsion, and via the solar illuminated
moon there's certainly sufficient numbers of photons to spare that
should permit the projection magnification factor with photons to
spare.

However, as long as there's to be no honest topic contributions as to
what such a fine telescopic instrument and projection magnification can
deliver, in that case we might as well shift this topic into
considering upon the electrostatic and joule potential of our moon.

In addition to all of the flak over creating that station-keeping
platform and best ever orbiting fuel depot, or perhaps in place of
folks sharing something that's potentially MIB enforced to the point of
being lethal, such as in regard to any topic that has been and remains
taboo/nondisclosure that involves whatever's related to LL-1.  How
about our mutually sharing upon a little honest respect as to the
energy polarity or whatever basis you'd care to impose as to what
mother Earth and that of our moon represents, whereas it seems that in
spite of our pagan NASA/Apollo fiasco we still don't seem to honestly
know squat, as to what is the energy polarity and thereby of what the
available voltage and amperage differential (aka megajoule, gigajoule
or perhaps terajoule) is the worth of our nearby moon.

Firsstly; What's the voltage polarity of our moon?

Secondly; How many joules does our moon represent?

In other words, if excluding the daunting imposition of how gravity is
always getting in the way of weird-science creating the most fun, and
that such a hard-wired situation can't actually exist, but simply to
ponder if we'd managed to connect a cross sectional area of 1 A/m2
aluminum conductor between Earth and our moon, whereas if we then had
ourselves an extremely big switch somewhere along the line (say located
within LL-1).  The question is;  how much voltage and amperage
differential and thereby available joules of energy are we talking
about?

As much as we think we know about our moon, it seems that we don't even
realize the average drag coefficient of our salty moon, and there's
next to nothing that's formalized as to the tidal energy that's also
having to take something extra into consideration for the required 3.8
cm/year worth of recession applied energy, of what's obviously pushing
(aka accelerating) our extremely salty and once upon a time icy
proto-moon along, that's taking place in spite of the considerable drag
coefficient and continual pull of gravity.

With a lower terrestrial albedo and subsequent global warming factor
that's ongoing in addition to the vast amounts of erosion contributed
as another ocean displacement factor, plus that of the thermal
expansion coefficient of our oceans, in all should be of what's
increasing upon the tidal energy that's driving our moon.  In other
silly words of my limited wisdom, a more frozen Earth and thus
subsequently offering less tidal energy should reduce and might even
reverse the lunar rate of recession.

If energy-in has to equal energy-out (or else), then where's the
possible taboo/nondisclosure harm in our appreciating what this
represents in terms of available joules?

Might yourself or by way of anyone you know of have a clue as to this
total energy budget?

If so, might you and your best available SWAG care as to be sharing
that knowledge?

Considering the resistance factor of a metallic conductor, especially
that of aluminum being what it is, and of the vast sums of having to
use up far more aluminum than is within Earth and our moon combined,
whereas actually a few good laser cannons would represent a more energy
transfer efficient and a whole lot safer alternative than involving any
metallic conductor that obviously can ever be mechanically in physical
contact with Earth, not to mention that IR photons are going to be
least affected by factors of gravity.  But that's an entirely different
topic that's just as likely going to remain as taboo/nondisclosure
because of having involved our moon, plus most likely having something
to do with involving the LL-1 zone and of the LSE-CM/ISS as having a
tether dipole element reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth (25,000 km
if you care to live a bit on the edge).
-
Brad Guth

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Art Deco, lord Bookman and the whole damn lot (aka NASA's incest peas
in a pod),
Notice that within this topic or within that of most any other similar
topic, it seems they've got absolutely nothing to say, that is nothing
to contribute on behalf of the technical aspects of their Third Reich
engineered Saturn-V, as well as zilch on those unproven fly-by-rocket
landers and not so much as one believable EVA/moonsuit obtained Kodak
moment to boot.

Not even sharing a specific number associated as to the horrific
surface amount of lunar sodium atmosphere that apparently didn't exist
at the time of those supposed Apollo missions, or any other science
upon you name it.  There's just MOS Jewish save thy sorry Christ on a
stick butt, as their LLPOF buttology of incest crapolla continues, and
as always MOS scripted infomercials of disinformation arrives on behalf
of butt-licking their pagan NASA that sucks and blows almost as bad as
our resident pagan born-again warlord(GW Bush).

BTW;  It's simply amazing how dead slow to nonexistent my
internet/usenet interface from hell gets these days.  All I can say is
thanks once again to all of these warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/Usenet teams of
MI6/NSA~CIA fuckology spooks, and hugs and kisses out to all of their
warm and fuzzy incest of malware/fuckware, as having remotely taken my
PC down for the forth time today.  I don't suppose that any of you and
of your pagan naysayism of your Skull and Bones collective of expertise
would care to suggest otherwise?
-
Brad Guth

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Very good to know, in that what you're saying is stipulating that a
highly pixelated 1000 micron CCD sensor element is every bit as good as
those of a 1.75 micron/pixel, and that regardless of the quality and
magnification factor that most any good projection optic might
otherwise suggest, that it's all hocus-pocus and thereby none better
off than capable of depicting 90 meters at the distance of 384,000 km.

Is that because the gold plated secondary mirror has all of those nasty
ruts?

Or, is it because the human eye of 2.25 micron format simply has way
too many of those pesky rods and cones per mm2 for our own damn good?

Or, is that of what NASA/Apollo's (aka MIB) nondisclosure stipulates,
or else?

For all of KECK's otherwise perfectly good points, it doesn't seem as
though KECK (much less two of them spendy and tax avoidance suckers) is
worth our keeping, much less worth improving it's CCD pixel density if
the optical magnification isn't worth squat.  That's really too bad
because, I believe the 4-layer and thus full visual color plus a bit of
IR and UV spectrum per scan, as a composite worth of 1.0 micron CCD
populated pixels, offering way more than sufficient lunar viewing DR,
are just around the corner.

-

Perhaps the pixel resolution of KECK and the likes of so many other
similar instruments would dramatically improve overnight if their tax
exempt (aka tax avoidance) status were to be retroactively taken back,
all the way back to their very get-go unless they can demonstrate
something/anything that directly benefited the lower 99.9% of humanity
to at least the 1:1 worth of that amount of tax avoidance.  Doesn't
that seem fair?

Of course, this supposed 90 meter of whatever's their pixel-perfect
limitation of what team KECK claims as being their absolute best it'll
ever get, as such this pertains greatly to their undistorted resolution
capability, and not otherwise per say of what's potentially there to
behold and/or humanly interpret if whatever factors of distortions
and/or of those pesky defractions are summarily tossed out the window.

Of course, team KECK has to stick with whatever those MIB have to say,
and much less never allow the likes of any go-between projection optics
to get involved, as that would seriously impact their ongoing ruse
that's supposedly limited their best possible lunar resolution to that
of 90 meters.  Certainly their 24 micron/pixel as well as for the
aperture of KECK's primary mirror can be reduced in order to suit
whatever, especially with the rather enormous surplus of photons coming
off the 7% (coal and soot like) reflective lunar surface that's
offering better than 33% in IR albedo, thus is why having so much extra
photons to work with is the reason why a smaller primary mirror and
having an equal focal length is actually capable of delivering better
resolution, and obviously better yet if that focal length were made ten
fold extended and/or as having been projection optic (aka reimage)
enhanced.

The reported KECK resolution limitation is oddly performing almost
exactly the same as our cloak and dagger NIMA.MIL that claims at best
30 meters of SAR resolution upon their having imaged Earth via their
shuttle accommodated radar imaging instrument, whereas the German team
stuck with exactly the same instrument and even the very same image
data somehow managed to extract 1.5 meter/pixel.  How can there be such
a 20:1 factor?

KECK-I and KECK-II are primarily spendy light gathering telescopes,
whereas their countless millions upon millions invested plus the more
than countless hundreds of thousands, if not millions of combined
observer plus vast community of souls related to their having been
involved with establishing their investment of those hours to date, are
rather meaningless to all but the upper most 0.1% of humanity that
financially benefit in more ways than you'd care to think.

What's more important at extreme magnification and worse yet upon a
moving target is image stabilisation, in that the more required
exposure time per CCD obtained image is why there's obviously the
introduction of more time for the atmospheric distortions as well as
the jitter of mother Earth or rather most likely those inert quakes of
the telescope installation and local site itself to cause the most fuzz
related problems.  A sufficiently sensitive CCD is certainly going to
minimise the amount of required exposure time, thus minimize the image
fuzz or blur factor, of which the human 2.25 micron eye and of the
attached brain typically processes such info on the fly rather than
having to depend upon the PhotoShop efforts by which the typical CCD
image or even via whatever the digitally scanned photographic plate
have to contribute.

A laser cannon illuminated moon would obviously be best, especially if
that cannon pulse can be sustained as providing a sufficient duration
in order to enhance upon the otherwise earthshine illuminated moon (say
10~100 ms ott to do the trick, though creating many seconds worth
shouldn't be all that difficult).  Using the ABL of 100 megawatt and of
their original 5 milliradian beam that I believe has been upgraded to a
tighter divergence of 0.5 mr might get downright interesting,
especially if that instrument that's cruising along at 40,000' were
modified for getting into a bit of the visual spectrum instead of their
lethal intended IR spectrum.  Of course there are existing options
better off than Hubble IR resolutions (especially since Hubble's
reaction wheels couldn't sufficiently track our moon), of those being
terrestrial offering 0.04 arcsec should do the trick as is.  Even the
KECK f40 secondary mirror isn't without merit, especially in the IR
spectrum.

Keck Telescope and Facility Instrument Guide
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/observing/kecktelgde/ktelinstupdate.pdf
0.15 arcsec/pixel (0.02 arcsec/pixel with reimager).
The f40 secondary mirror at 395 meter focal length is best suited for
the IR spectrum, however the moon is actually offering a fairly good
source of such IR photons.  Unfortunately, due to potentially harsh
X-rays (especially of those coming off our solar illuminated moon),
these secondary mirrors are not exactly whole, meaning they have a good
sized hole in their center, which obviously takes another bite out of
their potential resolution.

Another instrument worth it's salt:  Canada-France-Hawaii telescope
(CFHT)
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/AOB/best_pictures.html
The CFHT Adaptive Optics Bonnette : Best Pictures Gallery
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/AOB/Images/ngc7469_blue_notext.gif
The field of view is 10x10 arc seconds.  The so-called angular
resolution is 0.13 arcsec in the left-hand image: NGC7469

I'm fairly certain that other optics and of their better imaging
detectors are soon if not currently outperforming KECK.  Even amateurs
should soon be exceeding the KECK/moon resolution.
-
Brad Guth