Mythbusters

[Echnaton]

i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa,  i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.

I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.

It was  Apache Point in New Mexico.  It is affiliated with NM State U. 

[RAF]

well if they used some nasa stuff and got their own results i guess thats ok...

What do you mean...you guess.

By what criteria are you evaluating NASA, and have found them to be deceptive??

i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa...

Your thinking was wrong.

...i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.

So you are unfamiliar with the episode, yet still choose to criticise how they conducted their experiments?

Really?

[Bob B.]

i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa,  i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.

I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.

It was  Apache Point in New Mexico.  It is affiliated with NM State U. 

Thanks.  I know they also do laser ranging from McDonald, so that's what had me confused.  I've been in the observatory and seen the telescope at McDonald that they use, but it was during the day so I didn't get to see it in action.

[twik]

Totally off topic, but my company's products have shown up in the background of both Mythbusters and McGyver. Oh yeah, we're cool! 

[ka9q]

I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.

The McDonald Observatory did lunar laser ranging for many years, but I believe that site has since been shut down. The Mythbusters' episode featured the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.

[Echnaton]

I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.

The McDonald Observatory did lunar laser ranging for many years, but I believe that site has since been shut down. The Mythbusters' episode featured the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.

McDonald maintains a web page on their laser ranging program dated in October of 2012.  It appears they are still in the lunar ranging business.  http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

The McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS) is a dedicated laser ranging station capable of measuring round trip light travel times to a constellation of artificial earth satellites and lunar retro-reflectors to a precision of about 1 centimeter and time of laser firing to about 35 picoseconds. Data from this station as well as 30-40 similar satellite-capable systems and one other regularly contributing lunar-capable system around the world are used for a variety of scientific pursuits including study of the earth's gravitational field, plate tectonics, earth's orientation in space, high precision time transfer, relativity, lunar and solar system dynamics, and providing high precision orbits for GPS and ocean top mapping missions.

[Bob B.]

McDonald maintains a web page on their laser ranging program dated in October of 2012.  It appears they are still in the lunar ranging business.  http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

The telescope in the photo doesn't look like the same one that I remember seeing.  It's been years since I was there, but I recall the laser ranging telescope being inside a dome on the same mountain as the two large domes in the background.  Perhaps that telescope was shut down and the laser ranging was moved to the facility we see in the photo.  If true, that would make ka9q half right. 

Edit:
The two domes in the background are the older 82" and 107" telescopes.  The large 9.2-meter Hobby-Eberly telescope was built on an adjacent peak in the 1990s, which was under construction the last time I visited McDonald Observatory.  It looks like the telescope in the photo foreground maybe on the same peak as Hobby-Eberly.

[mikejohnson]

wow some of you guys need to relax,lol. first i didnt critisize anything,,the fact is if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it and use private sources who dont have that connection the better.  after all anybody that isnt a believer think nasa and the us government are all liars . dont you think pics of the landing sites from a private company or say japan or china who have nothing to cover up would more believable?  i really think that if there were good evidance that it didnt happen , such as the landing sites, im sure they have been seen before the nasa pics come out a few years ago, other countries would have exposed it, i dont know if russia could have tracked any of our orbiters back then but if they did and nothing orbited the moon i think they would have said something.

[Laurel]

i really think that if there were good evidance that it didnt happen , such as the landing sites, im sure they have been seen before the nasa pics come out a few years ago, other countries would have exposed it, i dont know if russia could have tracked any of our orbiters back then but if they did and nothing orbited the moon i think they would have said something.

Are you asking if the Soviets tracked Apollo? They did.

P.S. Proper spelling and punctuation would make your posts easier to read.

[Laurel]

dont you think pics of the landing sites from a private company or say japan or china who have nothing to cover up would more believable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs

[gillianren]

wow some of you guys need to relax,lol. first i didnt critisize anything,,the fact is if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it and use private sources who dont have that connection the better.

Okay, first off, I'm with Laurel--use better writing.

Second, there is this prevailing belief among some people that it's possible to "put the hoaxers to rest."  You can't.  The most outspoken of them aren't working on logic to begin with, so all the logic in the world won't change their minds.  They are missing literally tons of evidence, so a little more won't change their minds.  And there are always people gullible enough to fall for it.

Third, because of how expensive space travel is, NASA is the place in the US that has resources.  Very few other organizations need lunar dust simulant, so if you want to simulate lunar regolith, you pretty much have to go to NASA.  Most of the other resources in the US are private companies, and who's to say they'd even let the MythBusters putter around their labs for free?  Or even at all?

Fourth, if they're so steeped in conspiracism that they'd call the results fraudulent because the MythBusters got a very small amount of help from NASA, they'll call the results fraudulent simply because of what they show.

[mikejohnson]

Laural, thanks for the third party link. I never knew the soviets landed anything on the moon. And brought back samples.

[Not Myself]

Laural, thanks for the third party link. I never knew the soviets landed anything on the moon. And brought back samples.

The Soviets had the first soft landing in 1966, beating the Americans by about four months.  For the manned landings, the Americans are ahead by about 43.5 years, and counting.

[Echnaton]

if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it

There is no putting them to rest.  They are mostly politically motivated and notoriously resistant to evidence of any kind.  They believe in hoaxes for reasons that are not related to facts and evidence  and will not be dissuaded by the fact that some other government has taken a few snap shots.  For example the standard response to the fact that the Russians agree that Apollo was real is answered by the unsupported claim that the U.S. governmental bought their compliance with a grain shipment agreement that saved the USSR from starvation.  Hoax believers live in their own special world of rationalization not one of empiricism and reason.

[Trebor]

...Would their tests aboard the "vomit comet" be different if they used someone else's plane?

Are Zero G Corporation (who's flight it was) connected to NASA?