Why cant someone point the hubbletelescope at the moon and prove that is wasnt a hoax the flag is still there?

Question

If we did land on the moon would it not be easy to just point the hubble at it or an earthbound scope cause the flag is still there as well as the rovers. That would end the discussion would it not.

Answer 1

Because I think scientist have much better things to do then prove kiddie conspiracy theorist wrong.

Answer 2

While Hubble can certainly be aimed at the Moon, it can't resolve the objects left there any more than you can see an ant a mile away using binoculars.

But I never fail to be amused by people who think a couple more pictures will end the argument. People who think it was faked already disregard the 20,000 photos that were taken on the Moon, as well as the hours and hours of film and video, the vast piles of documents supporting the landing, the personal testimonies of the hundreds of thousands involved, even the lunar rock and soil samples. How are a few more pictures going to tip the balance?

It is even more unlikely when you consider that the Apollo pictures were taken on film. That is, a physical medium was exposed to the scene and a chemical reaction took place to change that physical medium. The developed film still exists and can be handled. Any picture from Hubble (or any other space probe these days) will be purely digital. There will be no physical photographic medium you can hold in your hand. It will have been digitised, processed, manipulated. Who among those who don't accept 'real' photos on film as genuine is going to accept new digital images in these days of photoshop and the like?

The evidence for Apollo is abundant. No new evidence is required to decide if it really happened or not, just a decent ability to analyse what is there already.

Answer 3

You have no conception of the distances involved and the size of the objects. Even Hubble cannot do it.

And why would any astronomer or scientist want to do it. Anyone with a cent's worth of intelligence does not doubt the moon landings at all.

The same ones who do doubt it are the same ones that ask stupid questions like:

1. Yours
2. Do you believe in aliens?
3. What is that bright star in the west?
4. What causes the phases of the moon? (and the people who answer it by saying it is the earht's shadow)
5. Why do stars fall?

Do you really want to rank with these?

PS And for those who point out what satellites can picture on Earth - how ridiculous. They are filming from a couple hundred kms above Earth. The moon is 380,000 kms.

Answer 4

1) Hubble can't resolve anything smaller than the size of a football field on the Moon.

2) Only conspiracy nuts doubt that we landed on the Moon, and NASA doesn't need to prove itself any more than it did back in 1969.

3) Of course that wouldn't shut them up. They already know the evidence shows conclusively that we DID land on the Moon. They wouldn't accept any other form of evidence; that's why they are called conspiracy theorists.

4) If we have time up for grabs on Hubble, I could use it. We're not wasting the precious time we have left on the nuts.

Answer 5

Why not? Most likely because the Hubble Telescope is a DELICATE scientific instrument.

It was designed to pick up EXTREMELY faint light sources from BILLIONS of light years away - so pointing it at the moon might pick up enough light to overload/damage its equipment. Since it has a limited lifespan anyway, there's NO justifiable reason to shorten it any further...

Edit Note: the Hubble site confirms it's still working - and that a Shuttle mission to service the Telescope has been approved - which is good news on that front!

Answer 6

1) Resolution - the Hubble (when it was working correctly) was set to resolve the pin point stars billions of light years away.
2) Sensitivity - The Hubble (etc) is designed to work with very low light sources; even if 1) was resolved, the light from the moon would burn out the sensors on the Hubble.

Answer 7

Why should we. If people are so skeptic that the USa landed on moon is the truth? Then taking images of the site that the appols missions landed on wouldn't make them believe US landed there. They still wouldn't believe even if we took pictures with the hubble of the landing by appollos. WHy should we?
Skeptics are skeptics they remaine skeptics.

Answer 8

"Resolution, Watson...Resolution" No scope we have can resolve the small area to be able to see the flag, module bases or rovers. They would need to be much larger in size for a scope to see them.

And to answer Lady Mim, the Earth satellites are closer to earth than the moon so the resolving capibility is different.

Answer 9

i heard a month ago the hubble actually broke down and is not working anymore

Answer 10

I asked that question of an astronomer and he told me the moon is too close.

Excuse me, we can map the earth down to a leaf on a tree with orbiter photography but not see our tracks on the moon. What is wrong with this picture?