tracks on the moon

[triplepip]

if there is so much conspirecy about the trip to the moon .why dont we look at the tracks and vheicles left behind ...there must be a scope good enouhg fof that

 

[qso1]

Currently no telescope can see with enough resolution to detect something as small as the tracks left behind by the lunar rover or met cart.<br /><br />There was some talk a few years back that when the ESO telescope at Paranal becomes interferometer capable, that it may be able to see the lunar module descent stages. If thats true, we may see such imagery within a year or so from either the ESO scope or our Keck telescopes.<br /><br />But the main thing here is that the lunar conspiracy is the position of relatively few people. They get the headlines because negative news always get headlines and that translates into people who don't know the effort involved in Apollo to simply mimic the hoax believers positions because its the cool thing to do in an age of conspiracy theory and heavy government distrust.<br /><br />A hard core hoax believer won't believe a telescope image any more than they believe the televised lunar excursions anyway unless they are in the incredibly fortunate position of being the scope operator. <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>

 

[tom_hobbes]

Thanks for putting the moon hoax theories to bed. As an occasional conspiracy theorist, hand on heart I can say these guys are giving me a bad name!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

~300k <i>kilometers per second . . . .<br /><br /><br /><br /></i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I read a calculation (which was a bit beyond me, I confess) that indicated that it's beyond the theoretical limit of ANY telescope to see tracks on the Moon from Earth. Something about the angular size of the footprints being less than the width of a single lightwave. I can't vouch for it, though, as I didn't understand it.<br /><br />There may be something that can take pictures of the LMs in the near future. If Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is anything like as good as MRO is proving to be, it should be able to detect a LM, and probably rover tracks as well (assuming electrostatic forces and the weathering effect of sunlight haven't smudged them too much). <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>

 

[search]

Sorry that first post was without the corresponding link<br /><br />Found this interesting:<br /><br />http://www.inconstantmoon.com/qna_obsn.htm <br /><br />"Even the most powerful telescopes, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea, Hawaii and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope at Cerro Paranal, Chile are unable to resolve anything as small as the Apollo vehicles at the range of the Moon. Hubble's threshold, for instance, is around 85 metres across. However, in theory the long shadows cast by the landers at sunrise and sunset could be visible, though this has not yet been tried."

 

[willpittenger]

Where did you find the text you quoted? Wikipedia? <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>

 

[qso1]

CalliArcale:<br />Something about the angular size of the footprints being less than the width of a single lightwave.<br /><br />Me: I can't exactly vouch for it either but it makes sense to me. I usually always chalked this problem up as the limits of optical physics and the tracks angular size being smaller than lightwaves is certainly a good candidate for optical physics limitations. <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>

 

[Leovinus]

It seems incredible to me that one can see a galaxy billions of billions of light years away, yet cannot see something only 1 1/2 light seconds away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Something about the angular size of the footprints being less than the width of a single lightwave.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, I suspect the correct terminology would be something like "less than the angular resolution of the imaging system used." The light used would have a wavelength (and width) measured in angstroms. So unless Armstrong and the others had really tiny feet, I doubt the "width of a single lightwave" would be an issue.<br /><br />Note: Ground based telescopes are limited by the atmosphere. Adaptive optics do better, but they are still new enough that it is tough to compare them with space-based systems. Hubble, while above the atmosphere has rarely imaged the Moon due to the speed at which the target would pass through Hubble's field of view. <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>

 

[qso1]

True, then again...consider the trouble of seeing a galxy 13.6 billion ly distant. Something the size of a galaxy so hard to see at 13 billion ly. <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]

The big question then becomes, just what would telescopes like Keck and ESO be able to image on the moon. I recall years ago one of the P.Is. for the Hubble saying that it had a 50/50 chance of imaging an extrasolar planet. Seemed optimistic enough but here we are years later and no image of an extrasolar planet yet. That is, a body we can clearly say is not a brown dwarf star.<br /><br />So when it comes to this, I recall seeing specifically some commentary probably back in 2001 about the ESO might be used to spot lunar artifacts. I don't expect to see footprints, just lunar module descent stages, maybe rovers in Apollo 15-17 case. Visible in a manner similar to the recent MRO image of one of the mars rovers by the craters edge. <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>

 

[search]

Not wiki but not better. Check post again it as been edited.

 

[dragon04]

Bah... The Hoaxians will argue that the landers were unmanned, and that the mirrors were placed and the flags were planted robotically.<br /><br />Even were we to have a telescope that could resolve individual footprints on the lunar surface, trick imaging would be held responsible.<br /><br />Even if you took a Hoaxian, stuck him on a rocket and shot him to the moon, the only thing he'd admit is that <b>now</b> man has been to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

From what I have heard, some of the hoaxians believe that the Earth really is flat. Hence, they would interpet anything at all to do with space as a hoax. Forget the robotic missions. They would be claiming a much of other things. As for sending them to the moon, they would claim we faked the location.<br /><br />In truth, filming astronauts walking in apperant 1/6G gravity would be nearly impossible with 1960's technology. Most such fakes would be made by someone who thought people could walk normally on the moon. Today, we could simply use CGI, but computers were not that powerful back then. The techology was still unknown. Just look at the original Star Wars movie's depiction of the holographic Death Star -- and that was almost 10 years later. It might have been doable, but you would need to most powerful computers around -- for a decade or more. <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>

 

[qso1]

I doubt they will delete it but maybe move it to phenomenon and you and I actually discussed this months ago in phenomenon and I'd be willing to bet that discussion is still there. <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>

 

[witgenestone]

Why was it deleted? I thought phenomena was the place to discuss hoaxes.. Create a new thread!!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Do you mean this thread which has not been deleted, just buried under the huge pile of "stuff" in Phenomona. Last post 4 months ago... <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Most likely it was deleted because it was a duplicate thread in subject to the one I referenced above. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Well, I regret to say this thread will indeed be moved to Phenomena. It has achieved that point where it does not belong in a hard science forum.<br /><br />As to the missing former thread, darned if I know what happened. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[huey_pilot]

Wasn't that bigbrains thread?

 

[billslugg]

Here is an estimate of the mirror diameter that would be required to see the footprints on the Moon.<br /><br />Say the footprints are 12 inches long. In order to identify them as footprints we would probably need to be able to resolve at about the 2 inch level.<br /><br />The Moon is about 250,000 miles away. Dividing 2 inches by 250,000 miles we get 1.3x10^-10.<br /><br />Now find the angle whose tangent is this number. The angle in degrees is 7^x10-9. In radians it is 1.3x10^-10<br /><br />Now choose a wavelength at which to observe. I choose yellow light at 580 nm. This is 580x10^-9 meters.<br /><br />The formula for angular resolution (in radians) is R=wavelength/telescope diameter<br /><br />Or: Telescope diameter = wavelength/angular resolution<br /><br />Telescope diameter = 580x10^-9/1.3x10^-10 or:<br /> = 5.8x10^-7/1.3x10^-10 or:<br /> = 4.5x10^3 meters<br /><br />The telescope would have to be 4.5 kilometers wide. This means that an interferometer would need elements about 3 miles apart.<br /><br />The only optical interferometers I have read of have separations of only a few hundred feet.<br /><br />I propose that we go to the Moon to prove that we have been to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

you really believe the moon landings were hoaxes? <br /><br />i don't even believe that and i don't believe in gravity.

 

[qso1]

zarniwoop:<br />have you solved the riddle of the freshly stirred cup of hot tea yet ?....solve this and you are on your way to understanding the true physics of the universe.<br /><br />Me:<br />No but the true physics of the Universe has little to do with being able to send a vehicle to a satellite of a planet. Especially when the distance between earth and moon would be microscopic in the vast scale of the Universe.<br /><br />zarniwoop:<br />still one day the truth will be known<br /><br />Me:<br />I suspect it (Tranquility base) will be shown to lunar tourists around the year 2050 and this will include boot prints as part of the tour.<br /><br />As for the moderators, they have demonstrated enough maturity and quite a range of subjects and opinions have been discussed here before that leads me to think the post got deleted to free up server space as it was quite awhile back. Some mods may be tired of beating what has become a dead horse but I haven't seen any tendencies on their part to delete posts because they do not like different opinions. <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]

Thanks MeteorWayne. I was just about to start searching for it because I figured it had gotten buried but then I read zarniwoops reply and I recall what he said. I had challenged him to start a new thread, you didn't happen to see that one in your travels did you? <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>