MOON landing sites

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

caper

Guest
Did anyone on earth have a powerful telescope exactly see the stuff left on Moon and prove it or is it just a conspiracy until now???
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Well they bounce lasers off the corner reflectors the astronauts left up there, if that’s not direct observation what is?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
an optical telescope powerful enough to resolve the landing section as a dot would be over a kilometer accross...so no.<br /><br />However, there are moon rock samples from the apollo missions, and a russion robotic probe.<br /><br />Not to mention amatuers were able to track the missions to the moon via radio and other techniques.<br /><br />And there is no evidence that we didn't go to the moon. All the problems and issues people bring up are easily explained by a little investigation and knowledge of the physics and instruments available. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I have seen imagery from amateur telescopes (such as a 12" reflector) that showed (as a dot) the spacecraft on its way to the moon, before it got too far away to be resolved. One image was particularily nice: it showed the four panels that covered the spacecraft spinning away in a neat, symmetrical pattern. <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>
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
Why not point the Hubble Telescope at our own moon (Luna) and zoom in on all 6 landing sites from Apollo. There would be no doubt that we landed and left behind 6 flags, 3 lunar rovers and numerous footprints and tire tracks leading back to where the LEM's landed between 1969-72. Too bad Nixon nixed Apollo 18, 19, and 20 that was to land or explore the Capernicus crater.
 
S

summoner

Guest
I believe that there was a post about this pre-crash. As saiph mentioned that not even Hubble can resolve something that small on the moon. It'd probably be cheaper to go there than build a scope large enough to see the sites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
Hubble can't detect and map Apollo landing sites and hardware left on the moon when it can capture images in deep space? Why not? Is the moon too close or are we focused on things too far away..........<br /><br />Daniel Wingsand Reed
 
S

spacechump

Guest
Its focal point is too far out. It's not meant to see things on the Moon so its resolution is limited to distance targets. Besides its mirror size wouldn't be able to see it anyhow. You'd need a rather large telescope.
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
It would then seem that we have a telescope strong enough to view the moon's surface from earth and show these landing sites to the world to gain interest in the space program once again. If not the earth then onboard the ISS where atmosphere will not be a problem from LEO. Am I wrong with either of these statements?
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"It would then seem that we have a telescope strong enough to view the moon's surface from earth and show these landing sites"<br /><br />No, we actually don't.<br /><br />http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
I have no doubt that we landed on the moon between 1969 and 1972 but this new generation needs further proof. It took me until DVD's were created to get a copy of the moon landings thru actual NASA footage. They remember Apollo 11 and 13 but have not seen footage from Apollo 15 and 16 when the lunar rovers were seen driving around on the moon.....This footage is incredible to view yet none of the major networks will show it to this new generation of non-believers. It would seem NASA needs a public relations department to dispell the unbelievers and give our children some inspiration to believe again in our space program.<br /><br />I was 10 years old when they wheeled in the color TV to watch and listen to the astronauts as they departed and landed on the moon. I wanted to be an astronaut then but now we are confined to LEO and my dreams are fading as I turn 43 without another moon landing to give us hope to boldly go where we once went before....Lets inspire the young with vision and truth from our glorious past!<br /><br />Reedyreed
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
Stange that we have created a Hubble Telescope that is too powerful to view Apollo objects on the moon with clarity..........and we don't seem to have a telescope on Earth that is powerful enough to view the moon's surface from our own planet. Why are we leaving Luna all alone as we bicker over money?<br /><br />What the hell is going on here? Can't we invent a telescope that can view the 6 lunar landing sites from Apollo and future missions to our closest neighbor in the sky......250.000 miles away and still we wonder.........Let's get our creative minds together and make this happen NASA......or someone in the private sector.<br /><br />Daniel Wingsand Reed
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Reedyreed,<br /><br />You can't view the landing sites from earth without a massive telescope, get over it. It would be cheaper to send a probe to look but I don't see why we need to, surely the evidence already available is enough.<br /><br />Oh and crazyeddie, there was a documentary here on channel five (from what I can gather the closest the UK gets to foxes style of TV) that sold its self as describing how the moon landings were faked but actually did a good job of explaining away the objections of the conspiracy theorists.<br /><br />From the times online:<font color="yellow"><br /><i>June 2,</i><br /><b>THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MOON LANDINGS: STRANGER THAN FICTION</b><br /><i>Five, 9pm</i><br />Apparently, there are people — notably, one in five Americans — who believe that man has never landed on the Moon and that Buzz Aldrin actually planted his flag somewhere in the Nevada desert. If you’re one of them and you want to keep your conspiracy theories alive, better not watch this. Neil Morrissey’s narration explains why Aldrin’s flag fluttered when there is no wind on the Moon, why you can’t see any stars in the famous film footage and why the astronauts looked as if they were running in slow-motion. </font><br /><br />You may be able to find a bittorrent or something to show your friend.
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
Anything is possible if we were able to land and return from the moon 6 times.......no I won't give up on this idea..........I'll agree we can't see the dark side from Earth but where there is earthshine we should be able to view it from Earth........how about it you junior scientists.......can we view the moon's surface from earth or from the ISS?
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
If you think we didn't land on the moon..........find the NASA film of Apollo 15 and 16 and watch the EVA's in 1/6th gravity and the experiments the astronauts performed on gravity on the moon and Dave Scott trying to drill in the moon's crust.....and the discovery of the "Genesis rock".......what ever happened to bag 196?
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">can we view the moon's surface from earth or from the ISS?</font><br /><br />Yes, Hubble or even the ISS can see the moon however the Hubble does not have the resolving power to see the landing sites in detail.<br /><br />From www.hubblesite.org I get this more detailed explanation.<br /><font color="yellow"><br /><b>Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?</b><br /><br />No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.<br /><br />An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.<br /><br />Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:<br />http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/14/<br /></font><br />
 
R

reedyreed

Guest
With clarity and resolution........On a clear night you can see forever........Onboard the ISS there is no atmosphere to get a "milky" view. Am I correct or making an improper assumption?......Too powerful or not being used with the proper resolution features?
 
A

arobie

Guest
All those conspiracy believers will feel very stupid when we return to the moon and all our Apollo stuff is still there.
 
S

spacechump

Guest
To see an object of .002 arcseconds you'd need a telescope with a diameter of a little over 200 ft. across.<br /><br />
 
A

alexblackwell

Guest
<i>All those conspiracy believers will feel very stupid when we return to the moon and all our Apollo stuff is still there.</i><br /><br />If you really believe that, then you're naive. The True Believers in the Great Lunar Landing Hoax will undoubtedly say that any "return missions" were faked too.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
that's why we strap them all to a rocket for a little ride.<br /><br /><br /><br />Reed: Let me give you an example of the limitation here. If you zoom in on a computer image, what do you get? Finer detail? Sometimes, yes. But rather quickly you're presented with a big, square pixel of uniform color. The better the resolution in an image, the smaller this pixel is (compared to the whole image). Any detail that is smaller than that pixel, is unobservable, it gets blured out. <br /><br />Light has the same deal. When it enters a telescope, it diffracts, it spreads and deforms (this is unavoidable). The amount it deforms is based on the size of the telescope, the bigger the scope the less it deforms.<br /><br />If a detail is smaller than the "deformed" photon of light, it'll be blurred and obscured. It is completely unobservable (no tricks can get the information out afterwards either).<br /><br />The lunar equipment is far to small for the hubble. It order to percieve it as individual objects, you need a bigger mirror (~200 ft) than Hubble's 2m scope.<br /><br />This is the same reason why your eyes can't see individual blades of grass several hundred feet away. They become to "small" to resolve seperately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Too powerful or not being used with the proper resolution features?<br /><br />Neither. It is limited by mother nature. There is a little thing called the diffraction limit. You can think of it as the resolution limit of an optical system. What it means is this - point sources will be blurred to to circular diffraction from the aperture of the optical system.<br /><br />A first order approximation of this limit is<br /><br />minimum resolvable angle ~ wavelength/(aperture diameter)<br /><br />To resolve something as small in angular space as a lander requires an aperture that is quite large.<br /><br />This is a physical limit on optical performance - atmosphere just makes it worse...<br /><br />So, simply put, Hubble is not big enough to resolve the landers. The eyes of astronauts are nowhere near big enough.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
There are tricks that you can use to by factors of 2 here and there with respect to the diffraction limit, but you are not going to buy several factors of 10.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
A

arobie

Guest
<font color="yellow">"If you really believe that, then you're naive. The True Believers in the Great Lunar Landing Hoax will undoubtedly say that any "return missions" were faked too."</font><br /><br />I will admit, I am naive, but not because I believe that we can prove to them we went. I realized that they still wouldn't believe after I made my post. They are just to damn stubborn. However, I am naive enough to believe that <i>some</i> of them will start to believe that we actually can go to the moon once we do it again. Once they see it for themselves.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Note that once we can go to the moon again, the conspiracy does not need to end there.<br /><br />It can be claimed that the "artifacts" from Apollo were placed there in more modern times, cleverly aged to appear to be from the 60's and 70's<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS