I dont think the moon landings were a hoax.... but if it did really happen, cant we point the hubble or some other telescope at the site and see the proof?
The "moon car" is still up there, and the base of the lunar lander is still there. Where are these pictures?
2006-11-02 01:53:03 · 9 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yes, there is quite a bit of equipment on the moon that was left behind during the six moon landings. This inclues the "moon car", the descent stages of the Lunar Modules, and numerous experiments.
And, there are several crash sites where the Saturn IV-B boosters were crashed intentionally onto the moon in order to produce seismic vibrations for the seismometers left on the moon by the astronauts.
The problem is that none of the equipment is large enough to be seen by telescopes. At that distance, even the Hubble Space Telescope cannot resolve objects less that three or four meters in size. Nothing we've left behind is large enough.
P.S. I think "spacejohn77" was referring to the article linked below.
2006-11-02 02:03:41 · answer #1 · answered by Otis F 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The resolution of Hubble is .05 arcseconds.
The Lunar Module is 14 feet in diameter, but its legs are about 30 feet wide. From a distance of 225,000 miles, it subtends an arc of .005 arcseconds. So the Lunar Module is at least ten times too small to be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope.
And even if we did have such photos, people would just say that the Hubble is a hoax too!
2006-11-02 02:13:01 · answer #2 · answered by Keith P 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is an array of retro prisms that were left on the moon that laser equipment can use to determine the distance from the earth to the moon. A laser can be pointed at the array and will be reflected back to the origin. We know that all that stuff is there. NASA probably doesn't see the point in pointing the Hubble telescope at the moon just to verify it.
2006-11-02 01:59:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
All apertures cause diffraction - so all lenses project no perfect sharp images but images with tiny diffraction lines around them. The bigger the lens the narrower the lines and the closer together two object can be and still be distinguished. The distance apart that two objects can be distinguished by a lens is its resolution - it is measured as an angle correspding to the angle between two incoming rays that cam be distinguished. Obviously the closer the objects are the nearer they can be to each other and still be distinguished.
Given the size of Hubble and its distance from the moon, it could at the very best distinguish two objects about 125 metres apart. Physics does not allow it to do better. We did not leave anything behind as large as 125 m.
2006-11-02 03:44:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because the best telescope we have, the Hubble, can only see objects more than about 10 meters in diameter at the distance of the moon -- anything else is less than one pixel.
Since the largest stuff we left behind -- the bases of the LEM -- are only about 3-4 meters in diameter, they take up less than one pixel!
QED!
2006-11-02 05:10:13 · answer #5 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Moon doesn't have as many powerful orbiting cameras and probes as Mars; that's why you can see the Mars rover in pictures taken recently.
But, there was a European lunar satellite launched late last year or early this, I can't remember which. In any case, I believe it actually took a few shots of one of the landing sites (Not Apollo 11).
You can search for it, I think.
2006-11-02 01:58:32 · answer #6 · answered by spacejohn77 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As powerful as the Hubble is, I don't beleive it has the magnification to see the landing sites on the moon.
2006-11-02 02:02:01 · answer #7 · answered by shake_um 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
oo what conspiracy will you dream up next. Oh guess what, there replaced into no coloration interior the international lower back interior the early days of photographs, as you spot each little thing replaced into meant to be black and white. yet yet yet, the business revolution extra alongside poisonous chemical components that have been put in the ambience which had the area consequence of producing coloration and this replaced into of course a scheme by skill of the rothschilds THERE I mentioned ROTHSCHILDS. i can work out alex jones going ape **** over this.
2016-11-26 23:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the moon's face does not change sides relative to the earth, a telescope couldn't see the landing sites because they landed out of view, towards the dark side of the moon. Probably to avoid receiving tremendous amounts of solar radiation. Remember, there is no atmosphere to protect people in space.
2006-11-02 02:44:42 · answer #9 · answered by David K 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋