Hubble Telescope & our Moon??

Question

Seems to be a lot of people who think we never went to the moon. Why can't we point Hubble at the moon to verify the stuff we left there? That telescope see's things million's of light years away..

Personally I know we landed there. I watched the whole thing. Just getting tired of arguging with those "with no sence".

Answer 1

the argument that the Hubble telescope can see galaxies millions of light years away is irrelevant. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, at 2.5 million light years away.

However, no telescope could read the date on a coin 100 miles away.

Most people who come to this site, and most of the loonies who tout the moonlandings hoax, have no comprehension of scale.

The moon is 240,000 miles away, and to see the Apollo jink left there would be like reading the date on a coin from 100 miles.

On the other hand, the Andromeda Galaxy, though 2.5 million light years away, covers considerably more of the sky than the moon.

Then also, the scale of the Apollo program, involving 400,000 American technicians, scientists, IT personnel, etc, etc, was immensely too huge for anyone to get a "Hollywood" in there without all these people knowing.

Anyone who thinks that could be done must have the comprehension of a 5 year old.

Answer 2

The Hubble is in no way pointed on the Moon using fact it would fry the cameras. bear in recommendations, it could see issues as much as 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases dimmer than the Moon (40 4 magnitudes). No kidding. next, the flaws human beings left on the Moon are so tiny whilst in comparison with their distance (<=0.01 arc-sec) that they are next to impossible to ascertain. bear in recommendations, the Moon is a PLANET. it is so huge that if it have been going around the solar extremely than Earth it may be a planet. Do you ever look at a globe and picture, i can ascertain device sheds and human beings!? The Hubble can purely see such far flung galaxies using fact they have the brightness of billions upon billions of billions of stars! this is a minimum of a sextillion cases brighter than the moon. inspite of those obstacles, i think of I as quickly as observed in Sky & Telescope mag the only guy-made merchandise on Moon seen from Earth. They used a extensive telescope, and in all possibility an exceedingly short exposure, and that they had to renowned precisely the place it replaced into to even locate the dang element. in spite of the fact that it confirmed between the Apollo landers. It appears like a tiny black speck of sand which will become a fuzzy gray blob in the magnified inset. this is it, this is all you will locate. this isn't even the lander, in spite of the fact that it is long shadow in the low solar. it is so borderline in certainty that the different 5 Apollo landers are impossible to be considered. The exposure had to be particularly short (measured in microseconds) or in any different case the image may be blurry or perhaps blind the digicam. ultimately, i've got considered the Flat Earth Society internet site, whether they *ought to* take particularly advantageous photos that tutor extra desirable than a dot then each and every of the paranoid confusing-middle conspiracists will on the instant cry fake and it would do not something to cajole such deludeds. you ought to be kindof kooky already to have faith |each and every thing's| a conspiracy.

Answer 3

We don't have to. The moon has been photographed to death. Besides, the Apollo astronauts left behind laser reflectors to accurately measure the distance to the moon. After the Apollo missions you can shoot a laser to the moon and have it bounce back at you which was never possible before. Also, during Apollo17 the one astronaut dropped a hawk feather and a hammer and they both hit at the same time. That would not be possible on earth, not even in a vacuum chamber which cannot vacuate 100% of the air. If you time the drop you could figure out the gravitational constant and prove that the astronaut had to be on the moon.

Answer 4

We left any number of objects and tracking implements on the moon which have been physically verified. Most significant was a cornice mirror (a special reflecting tool developed by nasa) which was used shortly after the landing to stage some dramatic experiments.

No one with any sense doubts that we landed there.

The tragedy is that as a nation we have lacked the will and curiosity to follow up on what was one of the boldest achievements of the 20th century.

I find it a fascinating fact that the combined advertising budget of a single superbowl game would pay for another moon landing.

Priorities a little messed up down here.

Answer 5

The Hubble's best possible resolution is about 0.5 microradians of angle. To resolve 1 ft on the Moon, requires about 1000 times the resolution of the Hubble

Answer 6

Hi. No, the Moon is so bright that it would damage the Hubble's sensors.

Answer 7

No, it can't. Galaxies are a lot larger than flags and landers. However, we left transmission and receiving stuff there so you can bounce a signal up there and get a response if you are really confused.

Answer 8

just look at some arials of the Arizona desert for more answers.