Satellites with cameras are capable of reading newsprint, why can't we take a pic of the moonlanding site too?

Question

If we really landed on the moon in 1969, shouldn't the proof be easily obtainable? Just turn one of those satellite cameras towards the moon and take a picture of Tranquility Base. I am aware of the observatory that bounces a lazer off of something the astronauts left there, but a picture is worth a thousand words and conspiracy theorists would have to let it rest then so...

Answer 1

The satellites orbit at most at 275 miles from Earth and the moon orbits at 300,000 miles... The angular resolution needed to see the landing sites requires a mirror of about 100 ft. wide, and would require a special propulsion mechanism because when pinpointing an objectve that small that moves that fast while you are orbiting at thousands of miles per hour, is not an easy task at all. Aside from the fact that you'd need a special camera because you are pointing it at the second brightest object in the sky; which would have as sole purpouse to give a bunch of ignorants something else to cry and moan about because it would obviously be 'fake' since the only people qualified to design, build, position and operate that kind of hardware are part of the conspiracy. . .

Answer 2

Those satellites are in low Earth orbit. They're not far from Earth's surface (several hundred miles), but they're still very far away from the Moon (about a quarter million miles). Therefore, the satellite can resolve finer detail on nearby Earth than on the distant Moon. So the landing sites are still too far away to be resolved.

But even if you could image the landing sites, conspiracy theorists would say that it was just another facet of the conspiracy. No amount of evidence will persuade them that the landings were real because they generally don't want to hear that the government isn't lying to them. If they were even slightly open-minded and science-literate, they would be able to realize how absurd their claims are.

As you indicated, there's already a mountain of irrefutable scientific evidence that proves that we went to the Moon.

Answer 3

Use your little 10x50 binoculars to read the headline on the paper being read by the guy in the living room across the street, then turn it skeawards and try to make out the passengers on a ship on the distant horizon. Same problem with the satellites. The Moon is a HUGE distance away. There is no way to resolve objects that size at that distance with any single optical device currently in existence.

But it wouldn't matter if there were. Conspiracy theorists already dismiss thousands of pictures, hours of film and video, personal testimonies, existing hardware, piles of technical documentation and even basic scisnce to stand by their belief that it was all fake. A few extra pictures aren't going to help now.

Answer 4

This question highlights the main problem of those people believing in the conspiracy theory more than the facts.
It's simple ignorance. Lack of knowledge. Lack of interest in learning. Watching TV instead of doing mathematics.
If a spy satellite in orbit around earth at 288 km above the places of interest can make pictures with a resolution of 30cm - then you have to know that applying simple calculation we can figure out that the moon is 1'333 times as far away.
Then also the resolution of the same hi-tech camera is giving 400 meters at the lunar surface. This is simply not enough to show any of the hardware left behind by NASA.
But I know, that even if we could take a picture with 1000 times better resolution - giving us 40cm detail, the same people believing in a fake moon landing after seeing real pictures of 1969 to 1972 - they would also "find" conspiracy in the new high-tech pictures.
The problem is not the missing pictures of the left behind hardware, it's a problem of wanting to believe a lie (fake landing) more than the truth (laser mirror on the lunar surface, moon rocks on display on earth)

Answer 5

Satellites with cameras can't read news print from space, nor do we have equipment with enough resolving power to see the details of lunar landing sights. Let the conspiracy folks have fun, and the rest of us who believe in science can ignore them, which is what I have been doing all along.

Answer 6

The satellites that resolve the newspaper headline are about 30,000 miles above the earth at points called Lagrangian points. (see Wikipedia.com for more detailed descriptions) The moon is approximately 250,000 miles away, nearly 8 times the distance, so I think that it speaks for itself. We don't have the technology to see that general distance. Although the Hubble Space Telescope is the best for seeing long distances it cannot resolve things as 'close' as pluto. This imtermediate range (35,000 miles to approx. 1/2 Lightyear) has no current technology to see anything! The best hope for this distance is radio telescopes, currently used for 'seeing' the asteroid belt and the like.

Answer 7

Consider how a single frame of digital imagery from above Mars has led to the "Face On Mars" belief system, and how subsequent shots from different angles of the very same rock formation have failed to convince some people that the former image is just a fluke lighting effect. Some people only believe what they want to believe.

Answer 8

the moon is much farther than any satellite orbiting earth.

Answer 9

Now that's sound hard to do considering they never set foot on the moon then there would be no lading site to see.
You can view, that what was never there.

Answer 10

Would you really believe it?