moon pictures

[BUNNY]

Why do NASA not just take pictures of the stuff Armstrong and Aldrin left on the moon and be done with hoax theories? Thehubble has taken pictures of subsequent landing sites, but not tranquility base.

[factor-fiction]

It wouldn't show up. Hubble might just about pick up something the size of a large house but not a little flagpole, footprints, golf ball and 'Buzz woz ere' graffiti.

[dr b]

This was discussed (to death) here:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n768601.html

[jake-the-peg]

Given that the theorists reckon that all the footage shot at the time was fake what do you think are the chances are of them looking at modern images and saying "Oh we were wrong, these are obviously genuine" ?

[R1Geezer]

yep as jake says, they'd just say the pics where fake. Even if you got one of these nutters and took him to the moon and showed him and brought him back, he'd believ but his mates would say it was a conspiracy!

Anyway from previous answers I think the smallest item that the hubble can resolve is about 10 meters square.

[1ARMEDBANDIT]

I saw a discovery programme once that showed satelite images of the Mars rover on the edge of a crater. You could just make out the rover and see the tracks it left behind. So it is possible.

[fo3nix]

1ARMEDBANDIT: yes, it is possible to take pictures. But check where these pictures were taken from...

[dundurn]

In the current edition of New Scientist there are a couple of articles discussing the 40 years of work and analysis performed on the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts and the laser ranging data provided by the reflectors they left behind. Apart entirely from the impossibility of keeping a cover-up under wraps for all this time, the amount of information we now have which we couldn't have obtained any way other than by lunar landing and return is just too big to ignore.