Crosswords1 min ago
Man on the Moon evidence
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by RTFishall. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.There is a lot of equipment left over on the moon, including the large laser reflectors we use to measure the distance of the moon from Earth. It is what helped us show that the moon is very slowly receding from the Earth.
None of these items are large enough to be resolved by any telescope we have here on Earth from this far away. A telescope of 50 meters in diameter would be a bare minimum to be able to see any of this stuff as a featureless dot. The largest we have on Earth is about 11 or so meters. The Hubble is only 2.4 meters and it isn't really all that much closer to the moon.
None of these items are large enough to be resolved by any telescope we have here on Earth from this far away. A telescope of 50 meters in diameter would be a bare minimum to be able to see any of this stuff as a featureless dot. The largest we have on Earth is about 11 or so meters. The Hubble is only 2.4 meters and it isn't really all that much closer to the moon.
Thanks another-view
But what about lunar orbiters such as Clementine? Surely hi-res equipment on board should be able to pick up something as large as the lunar model lander base. After all, that is a lot larger than the laser reflectors.
If they can photograph the track of the Mars rovers from orbit around Mars, surely the LEM base should be easy from a Lunar orbiter?
I'm not saying that man did not go there, simply that after all this time there is still no actual (non surface) photo evidence. The existence of the laser reflectors on the surface does not prove that they were put there manually!
But what about lunar orbiters such as Clementine? Surely hi-res equipment on board should be able to pick up something as large as the lunar model lander base. After all, that is a lot larger than the laser reflectors.
If they can photograph the track of the Mars rovers from orbit around Mars, surely the LEM base should be easy from a Lunar orbiter?
I'm not saying that man did not go there, simply that after all this time there is still no actual (non surface) photo evidence. The existence of the laser reflectors on the surface does not prove that they were put there manually!
I have no hard evidence to offer you RTFishall, but I actually met an astronaut who went there years ago. He told me what it was like, things he took with him, etc and what he said was interesting and moving. Am currently reading Moondust by Andrew Smith. This is about the nine men still alive who have been there and is a very good read.
Thanks grasscarp
I also was fortunate to meet Buzz Aldrin at a British Astronomical Association meeting in the 1970's. I am not suggesting that they did not go to the Moon, purely that it seems strange about no non-surface taken photos.
I've also read Moondust, interesting book. They were brave and clever men. However, most turned out a little (by my definition) somewhat odd in later life as the book clearly reports!
I also was fortunate to meet Buzz Aldrin at a British Astronomical Association meeting in the 1970's. I am not suggesting that they did not go to the Moon, purely that it seems strange about no non-surface taken photos.
I've also read Moondust, interesting book. They were brave and clever men. However, most turned out a little (by my definition) somewhat odd in later life as the book clearly reports!
Wikipedia has a page on moon landing hoaxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landi ng_hoax_accusations
that specifically addresses David Lee Roth's radiation belt.
And we know Wikipedia is never wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landi ng_hoax_accusations
that specifically addresses David Lee Roth's radiation belt.
And we know Wikipedia is never wrong.