Man on the Moon evidence

[RTFishall]

After all these years, are there any photographs taken from telescopes on Earth, Lunar orbiting satellites or Hubble that actually show any artefacts from the Moon landings? If not, why not?

[jake-the-peg]

The minimum possible resolution of an object is given by the Rayleigh Criterion.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phy opt/Raylei.html

Sinθ=1.22λ/d

If you take the moon at a quarter of a million miles away and that the lander is 5 meters across I make the figures that you'd need a telescope with a diameter of nearly 50 meters across to make out the lander from Earth

(Then certain people would still tell you the smudgy picture was faked)

The laser reflectors are pretty damn firm evidence that man went to the moon.

Hundreds of scientists have used these to bounce lasers off of the moon (although getting the beam in just the right spot is very difficult)

People couldn't do this before Apollo and they could after.

[No,Knowledge]

If man didn't land on the moon how do we know it's made of cheese then????


well?

[another-view]

And how did they film The Clangers?

[No,Knowledge]

there you go .............solid undeniable evidence.

[fo3nix]

My answer was going to be very much like jake's above.

The question is really about how well our telescopes (or indeed eyes, or anything else) can resolve objects.

The Hubble for example can see many great dust clouds, that look great in pictures (I'm sure you've seen many of them). However, it can only see all these great details, because these details are monumentally big. Thousands of times the size of the Moon. Larger than that. Bigger than many can really comprehend.

If you then point the Hubble at the Moon, you'll find that you won't see much. That's because it can only resolve objects larger than a few metres across. So the Moon landing equipment and other stuff that was left there simply won't show up in any photos.

As jake says, with standard optics, you'll need a telescope with a huge diameter, many times larger than Hubble's, to resolve these kinds of objects.

The Moon is a lot father away than most people might think.

[R1Geezer]

Read what jake said above that's the true story about the objects on the surface, even the hubble cannot see to enough resolution.

Jayne, please don't make me put you into the numpty list, you really think that the US can keep 200,000 people quiet?

The evidence is overwealming. But I'll explain any of yours and fellow conspiracy theorists, "anomolies" if you like, or you can read all aboiut it here.

http://www.clavius.org/

Laser reflectors, how did they get there, 800lbs of Moon rock? tested by every serious lab in the world, no doubts ever expressed that they are moon rock.

[RTFishall]

My question seems to have degenerated into a debate on whether or not men went to the Moon. Thanks for the response guys, but please look at the original question!

[LazyGun]

RT, your original question centred around spotting artefacts left on the moon by man using Earth, Hubble and Lunar Orbital Satellites ; I think several posters have more than adequately answered the question with respect to Earth based telescopes and Hubble.

The question surrounding the perceived difference in image quality between those taken by Clementine in the mid 90s mapping the lunar surface, and those taken by the Mars Orbiter in the mid 2000s does appear at first glance to raise more questions - but as far as I understand it, the cameras on board clementine were only able to resolve down to between 7-20m across per pixel at 400KM approach - insufficient to define debris or artefacts left on the moons surface. The Mars Orbiter has a higher def camera (1-10m across per pixel) and is orbiting closer to the surface of mars.

So essentially you are comparing apples with clementines - The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, due to be launched very soon, will orbit at a distance of 50KM from the Moons surface, will pass over the apollo missions landing sites, and should be able to show the larger pieces of equipment left on the surface.

[another-view]

The sooner, the better. Then perhaps finally we will silence the conspiracy theorists.

[R1Geezer]

You'll never silence these nutters mate, they just say that the pictures where fabricated by NASA!

[rov1200]

I thought they landed on the dark side of the moon which never faces us?

[bobthebandit]

What about the Coke can that was spotted by Australian viewers in 1969, when the "live" feed of Neil Armstrong allegedly stepping on the moon was being shown?!
Also why has Armstrong continuously refuse to publicly speak about the "landing"?

[dr b]

Wikipedia's article addresses this as follows:

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald", said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

* No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. "Una Ronald"'s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.[51]

[bobthebandit]

Thanks for that answer Dr B. I am 95% sure that the moon landings did take place, but with all the conspiracy theories abounding, there is always that nagging doubt.
For instance, when the lunar module first landed on the hard surface there was no sign of moon dust. However we see often the famous photos of prints made by the astronauts boots outlined by the heavy dust.

[LazyGun]

The LRO ( and another satellite, designed to test for water at the lunar poles) were launched today using an Atlas rocket.

One of the sites the LRO is tasked to study in particular detail is the Apollo 15 Landing site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8107197.st m

[dundurn]

Apart from Apollo 12 (to be addressed on a later pass) all Apoolo sites have now been viewed by LRO and the descent stages of the LMs have been identified. In the case of Apollo 14 tracks have also been seen.