Apollo artifacts visable?

[rxsid]

yeah, i know about the laser reflecting equipment left by Apollo missions.<br /><br />I'm curious about any other method that might be used for such detection, from a purely technological/scientific or non-conspiratorial perspective.<br /><br />I suppose if such technology existed, it would be used, for example, to search the nearby planets like Venus (for info on any potential remnants of Russian probes) or Mars (looking for unearthly metal objects)?

 

[billslugg]

qso1<br /><br />The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) at Paranal has a maximum baseline of 200 meters.<br /><br />From a previous post of mine to Katherine B:<br /><br />"The formula for the best resolution of a telescope is the Rayleigh resolution limit here [arc sec] = 140 / Aperture Diameter [mm] (for green light)"<br /> <br />For the VLTI: [arc sec] = 140/200 meters * 1000 mm/m<br />which equals .0007 arc sec<br /><br />At closest approach, the moon is at 360,000 km.<br /><br />At this distance, VLTI could resolve two point sources 1.2 meters apart.<br /><br />This might allow identification of the descent stage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Of course the problem is to justify valuable instrument time for such a pointless goal. Maybe as a PR exercise to show the instruments capability. But of course the hoaxers will hardlly be convinced by a couple of pixels.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't even think with 2 or 3 pixels, you could unambiguously identify any thing on the moon, except an alien pyramid. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You don't even need pixels for that! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">I don't even think with 2 or 3 pixels, you could unambiguously identify any thing on the moon, except an alien pyramid.</font><br /><br />You may be able to image a 9 x 4 x 1 monolith too. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thanks for the formulas. And as you pointed out...the descent stages might be identifiable bt VLTI. If they ever try it under optimal conditions and at the site with the leats amount of ground clutter, being able to see two point souces 1.2 meters apart should allow the descent stage of a lunar lander to be seen fairly well.<br /><br />But this won't be convincing enough for HBs. I'd just like to see it because its always been fascinating to be able to see unusual views of our various spacecraft manned and unmanned. And seeing the lunar artifacts to see what they have undergone with 40 plus years exposure on the moon would definitely be interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

portercc:<br />Just because I believe the government launches better optics before NASA or JPL???<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA and JPL are government agencies.<br /><br />DOD is the one you left out and the one with more money for space activity. Last I checked, the military space budget was over $20B dollars annually and that was probably a decade ago.<br /><br />The Hubble telescope is based on the KH-11 spacecraft chassis but the optical system is different. Being that it is used as a telescope, certain aspects of its design make it different than the optical system on the KH-11 itself. The KH-11 is looking down almost as a microscope on earth while Hubble looks at distant targets as one would expect a telescope to be designed to do.<br /><br />Can spysats actually see well enough to distinguish the color of a persons eyes. That information is classified but the best leaked out intel suggests its not too likely. One has to consider the limits of optical physics, the wavelength of light being longer than the object being observed or something like that. Then there is purpose. Does the military need to know what color someones eyes are.<br /><br />Seeing to much on TV? That comment was made probably because we get a lot of sensationalized info about military capability on TV and especially in movies. There is one movie in which the spysat data of surface activity includes real time observation of troops using infrared capability.<br /><br />There are certain operational parameters that simply make this kind of real time capability virtually impossible. Another indicator of this is what the military itself sometimes inadvertantly does when trying to protect classified info. Years ago a commercial company put an imaging satellite called spot into orbit. The DOD was vocally concerned about allowing commercial companies the ability to develop such high resolution capabilities. This led me to suspect the commercial companies were getting pretty close to milsat capability.<br /><br />By now <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

SPOT has a resolution of 2.5 m IKONOS has 1 m resolution imagery. In the 90's the Russians were selling commerical film return satellite imagery with 0.5 m resolution. I am seen or worked with all three sets of data.<br /><br />Nobody knows (who is allowed to tell) what current satellite imagery is. But you could calcuate what is possible from different apertures. Keep in mind that the largest military satellites are less than 4.5 m (based on shuttle payload bay or launch shroud diameters) which constrains the maximum optical system to about 4 m in diameter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

one thing about resolution also, the figure denotes the smallest visible object in the image IIRC. The Russian satellite images contained objects as small as .5 meters. Eyeballs are much smaller and would not be visible in those images. However, unless one has access to the classified info, we don't really know for sure what a spysat can resolve except that we can, as you pointed out, come pretty close by calculating the apertures based on the optical system sizes up to about 4 meters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[craigmac]

I find it hard to believe w/ all the millions of military/commercial communication satellites floating around in space that not one of them has the resolution to take the picture of an eagle lunar lander, or rover…

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, whether you find it hard to believe or not, the physics says it's true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[portercc]

QSO - I realize NASA and JPL are government agencies.<br />NASA was designed as an explicitly civilian agency to pursue peaceful space activities. Overseeing the military applications of space technology was left to the Department of Defense - which is why I mentioned Vandenberg in an earlier post. I consider civilian and military agencies different animals that live under different rules.<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

I thought it was interesting that DOD's space budget is larger than NASA's entire budget.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Bear in mind, that includes a great deal other than launching and operating spacecraft. For instance, the funding for US Space Command comes out of that, and their biggest task is passive -- tracking objects in Earth orbit, mainly by radar. They can track tools dropped by spacewalkers, which is pretty impressed since they're sensing those tools at a range of 200 miles or more. Their original objective was to detect ICBMs early enough to launch a counterstrike.<br /><br />Operation and maintenance of the GPS constellation also falls under this umbrella. Same for the DMSP constellation, and a host of comsats. ICBM defense would probably also come from this budget, and the operation of launch sites such as Vandenburg and Cape Canveral. If those numbers are old enough, it might also include the money used to incentivize the EELV program.<br /><br />NOAA's fleet of weather satellites might also be in this budget, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />One caveat, though: in the past year, there's been a big shakeup in DoD space procurement. Overspending was most definitely an issue, mainly because of underlying problems in program management, especially in the area of requirements. A lot of programs got the axe as a result, and there's a lot that's still up in the air. I find it very likely that DoD space spending will be cut back, at least in the short term, while the underlying management issues get sorted out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

CraigMac:<br />I find it hard to believe w/ all the millions of military/commercial communication satellites floating around in space that not one of them has the resolution to take the picture of an eagle lunar lander,<br /><br />Me:<br />First off, there is nowhere near a million satellites in orbit. Milsats are suprisingly small in number depending on the satellite type and purpose. And, just as telescopes on earth cannot resolve objects as small as LEM descents stages on the moon. Neither can milsats which are typically only a few hundred miles closer to the moon by being a few hundred miles above earth.<br /><br />Telescopes on earth are much larger as well and were still taliking the ESO may be able to image lunar artifacts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes it is too much to ask, as you can see from this thread. The landers, and other stuff left is too small to see with a telescope, and we have no spacecraft orbiting the moon to take pictures yet. We will in a few years.<br /><br />If you have a few million dollars to spare, feel free to build your own rocket and send a camera to photograph the sites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Which, unfortunately, will prove nothing to the die-hard sceptic, who will insist that *your* photos are doctored, or that the equpment that it shows is a fake put there after the fact.<br /><br />Big <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

So how big would the Apollo 11 lander be to LRO in pixels? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[chode]

The LRO narrow-angle camera is planned to have about 0.5 m per pixel resolution, and the LM stage on the moon is about 4.3m diameter, so it should be about 9 pixels across, and easily resolved as something "man-made".<br /><br />Regards

 

[dreada5]

http://www.space.com/news/ap_070409_moon_hoax_refuted.html

 

[holmec]

Smart-1 from ESA was probably the latest probe of the moon that took pictures. It caught the Apollo 11 landing site:<br />http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=SMART-1&single=y&start=41<br /><br />As you can see you cannot see the artifacts. But in the text there is data on where it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"We have telescope pointed at earth that can read a newspaper."<br /><br />OK, lets go with that example. Suppose we did have such a telescope. (We don't, but imagine we did)<br /><br />Now, ask yourself this question. How much further is the moon from the telescope that the Earth is? Hint - spy sattelites are only a couple of humdred miles up when doing photography)<br /><br />The range is important, because the linear dimension that you can resolve is basically a linear function of range.<br /><br />So what I can resolve on Earth (if we ignore for a moment effect like the atmosphere which can make Earth resolution harder), you will need to make bigger by a factor of about 1000 on the moon. (i.e. if you assume you can resolve something a cm big on Earth - that turns into 10 meters on the moon)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's nice to have a mix of people that are having good and bad days <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Or are bipolar, like me.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>