No Comment from NASA on Moon Landing sites.?

Question

Really easy to prove. Once and for all.
The super expensive SPACE TELESCOPE can point at the lunar landing sites and photograph the lunar buggy, the American Flag, all the footprints and the remains of the lunar module, including the camera and tri pod that filmed the take off without getting blown over............
Why do no such photos exist?.........I did put this question to the space agency who have been soaking up funds for donkeys years but perhaps NASA are too busy to explain.

I really would love to belive armstrong was THE MAN, but hey, I am not a sucker and I am having NONE of it.

Answer 1

Wow.

Ok, so most people here have already said it. The Hubble Telescope (you "super expensive space telescope") is not capable of resolving something as small as a flag pole on the Moon. In fact, at that distance the Hubble could only resolve an object about 60 meters across, badly that is.

If your knowledge of optics is anything like your knowledge of spaceflight, I'd say nothing I say will make any difference so I'll keep this simple.

The Hubble was built to resolve star systems and galaxies that are 10s to 1000s of light-years away. If you pointed the Hubble at the Moon to see the flag, it would be like trying to see a bacteria on your skin with a pair of binoculars.

You say NASA didn't answer your question... well, guess what, I just did. I am an aerospace engineer for a NASA contractor (To make it clear, I am neither a NASA spokesperson, nor authorized to speak on their behalf). However, I work on both the Shuttle and Ares (return to the Moon) program, and I would thank you to not undermine the work that my hundreds of thousands of fellow NASA employees and contract employees do everyday.

All you need to do is say thank you to Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Gus Grissom (Apollo 1) along with the 14 others who have given their lives to the NASA program in the hopes that someday mankind will someday be able to find its place in the vastness of the Universe.

The sad, pathetic thing about you moon hoax believers is that you are so unimaginative and impossibly naiive.

You want a picture of the Moon landing sites, you will get no better than those that were taken AT the Moon landing sites. See nasa.gov or the thousands of other sites that contain the photographs from Apollo's 11-17.

Answer 2

Sorry, even the Hubble does not have enough resolution to pick out such (relatively) small objects from that distance. However, in 2008, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission will be able to provide the photographic proof you seek.

Of course, there will be no way to prove to you that these photos aren't fakes, any more than if the Hubble WAS able to provide images of the lunar landing sites. The problem with trying to disprove a conspiracy theory is that the theorist will reject the proof as phony, and thus reinforcing the belief that there is a conspiracy. I suspect that, even if you were to travel to Tranquility Base and see for yourself, you'd still think that someone tried to trick you into thinking that you'd made a lunar journey when it's all just special effects and movie sets.

Answer 3

The "super expensive SPACE TELESCOPE" can do no such thing.

The angular resolution of a mirror the size of the Hubble telescope is about 0.043 arc-seconds (an arc-second is one 3600th of a degree). At the moon's distance from earth (an average of about 240,000 miles) , that means the smallest feature on the moon that the Hubble can resolve is around 285 feet. The "lunar buggy" left on the moon is about 10 feet long, still 28 times too small for the Hubble to resolve it.

NASA wouldn't respond to your question because any high-schooler who can do simple math can figure out that the Hubble can't resolve such small features on the moon.

Given that you accept things with no evidence, and don't accept things that have tons of evidence to show they're correct...I think you *are* a sucker :)
Peace.

Answer 4

As good as it is, the Hubble SPACE TELESCOPE does *not* have the resolving power to see the individual Apollo landers, much less a camera tripod. It's physics, girl, and you can't change the laws of physics. The *best* Hubble can see on the moon's surface is boulders that are 20 to 50 feet in diameter, with a resolution of 0.1 arc-second. The landers are smaller than that -- they would show up as single-pixel blobs.

Even if there were a telescope powerful enough to see the landers, and the equipment, the HOAXers would simply say they were landed there without astronauts, and robots placed the equipment around, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

But, you go on believing the lies, girl. I'll believe what's true, that we did land men on the moon -- several times.

Answer 5

The Hubble Space telescope is far too small to show anything as small as a flag on the Moon. And even if NASA did build a new, even bigger telescope and showed you a picture taken by it that showed the flag, would you accept it as real? If so, why to you not accept all the OTHER pictures, the ones taken by the astronauts while they were on the Moon, as real?

Answer 6

Of course the moon landings were faked. NASA has thousands of employees and spends billions of dollars to do nothing but fake things in a movie studio.

I'll just bet you thought those pictures from

Hubble were real.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/

Or the ones of Saturn from Cassini.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/index.cfm

Sucker.

"Sarcasm is a form of irony that is widely used in English especially when people are being humorous. Generally the sarcastic speaker or writer means the exact opposite of the words they use"

Answer 7

Righhhhhht... and if someone showed you such a photo, you'd then just claim that it'd been photoshopped. Perhaps NASA are just one step ahead of your paranoia.

Answer 8

And you really think conspiracy theorists who believe NASA faked the whole thing are gonna believe a few pictures?
Please.

Answer 9

I find it difficult to believe in this day and age, there are still people as incredibly stupid as you.

Answer 10

If you arent gullible, why do you believe these conspiracy theories?