Why can't we direct a telescope to see if we actually did land on the moon?

Question

I recall hearing so much debate saying the moon missions were faked. Why can't we just direct a telescope toward the moon to actually see if we did land on the moon? It seems we could use one of our telescopes in space to take a look toward the moon and see our stuuf. Why hasn't this been done??

Answer 1

if you have a good enough telescope - you can see some stuff.
you can also see the robotic tractor that was left on Mars. (though you need more than a standard telescope for that)
It has been done by many people

Answer 2

Acutely you can there is a observatory in Arizona that shots a laser (green) at the moon every other day, The laser hits a mirror on the surface of the moon, (which Apollo 10 placed there), the beam is then reflected back and tells use how far the moon is from use what it's current stellar drift is and any one can go to this observatory and witness this. This is not fiction it's fact and there can be no other explanation for how a man made mirror with nothing else around it but a u.s. flag and some foot prints got there. Believe me when I say some people just cant except fact it has to be a conspiracy if it where the Russians would have called us out on it already, remember this was all going on during the cold war and the great space race.

Answer 3

I have run the numbers on this several times in the past -- can't believe this question comes up every day, and each now poster thinks he or she is the first.

The Hubble telescope has a resolution of 0.1 arc-second. At the range to the moon (roughly a quarter million miles), one arc second is a spot with a diameter of about 15 meters (~50 feet).

The largest piece of equipment we left behind on the moon was the bottom portion of the LEM, which was about 4 meters across.

So even with the Hubble, the best telescope running, the LEM would cover an area less than one pixel on the CCD cameras used to record the picture.

Trying to see the flag left on the moon with the Hubble would be like trying to determine the sex of a fruit fly a mile away with a pair of binoculars. Can't be done.

Answer 4

The problem with observing something n the moon, is the resolving power of the telescope. I'm not sure of the exact resoling power of the Hubble, I believe it to be 6 metres - meaning that anything under 6 metres would not be detectable.

The problems of using earth bound telescopes, is our own atmosphere which causes distortion, thereby decreasing the telescopes resolving power.

One other factor that should be kept in mind, is that most telescopes that would be sufficiently powerful - would find the luminosity of the moon too bright which could ruin the telescope by overheating and introducing aberrations (warps) into the mirror.

Answer 5

It is possible to locate and observe the Apollo landing "sites," but it is *not* possible with current equipment to see the hardware left there, since their sizes are far too small to be resolved successfully. For example, a common backyard 6 inch aperture telescope can only resolve craters on the moon which are about 1.5 miles or so across. Even telescopes with a resolution comparable to that of the Hubble Space Telescope can only resolve details about 100 meters across (the size of a football or soccer field). Lasers fired from Earth are bounced off special retro-reflectors left at these sites by the astronauts, and the faint return pulse is then detected by Earth-based telescopes equipped with special instruments to measure the Earth-moon distance, but otherwise, we can't see any man-made equipment left at the landing sites. If you wish to see the sites through a telescope for yourself, here are the approximate locations of the Apollo landing sites

Answer 6

In the debates that you've heard, did anyone mention the 400,000 scientists, technicians and subcontractors involved in the 12 moon missions....how were their lips sealed when the Watergate and Enron cases leaked to the public and only a handful of people know about those coverups?

Answer 7

Because no one is going to pay to prove something most people agree happened. Why don't we spend the money on hard science and progressing space travel instead of trying to disprove a mission made over 30 years ago.

Answer 8

Nobody with a telescope powerful enough to do it is going to waste their time because its only important to the lunatic fringe.

Answer 9

Been done.

Really, what good did it do?

The paranoid conspiracy theorists would only point out that this is a hologram being transmitted by lasers from a secret government laboratory located behind Lincoln's left nostril on Mt. Rushmore - and then they would prove it with website and op-blog links and URLs.

They're hopeless.

Answer 10

Because you fruitcakes would undoubtedly claim that the telescope pictures were faked.