Moon Hoax

[Mastercat]

I don't know if we did or didn't go to the moon. I generally think we did. However, why didn't Hubble take pictures of the land sites. Or Why don't high power telescopes take pictures of it?

[TheOncomingStorm]

Ok we did go to the moon , the reason telescopes do not look at the sites is because they can not see things that small on the surface of the moon.

[Mastercat]

Ok we did go to the moon , the reason telescopes do not look at the sites is because they can not see things that small on the surface of the moon.

The metal from the lander can't be detected?

[Grand_Lunar]

If you mean optically, no.

IIRC, the calculated size for a telescope on Earth to see the landers would be about a mile or so in diameter. I may be wrong. Needless to say, no telescope currently in service on Earth has the resolution to spot the landers.

If you mean by some sort of metal detector, it doesn't work that way.

The strongest case for Apollo is the rock samples. The quantity returned exceeds even our current unmanned sample return technology.
And geologists can tell without a doubt that the rocks did not come from Earth.

[TheOncomingStorm]

well no still too small but there a mirrored cubes on the moon that a laser from an observatory hits the cubes and bounces back. the measurements are used to detect any change in the distace to the moon.

[PhantomWolf]

IIRC, the calculated size for a telescope on Earth to see the landers would be about a mile or so in diameter

270m. The 2 mile one was for footprints.

And just for understanding, the largest scope currently compete is a mere 10m

[pzkpfw]

Did a google on "hubble moon apollo resolution".

First link returned was http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...bble_moon.html

The Apollo descent stages left on the lunar surface are too small to be seen by Hubble, which can see objects as small as 60-75 yards, about three-quarters the length of a soccer field. The left-behind descent stages are only about the size of a small truck.

Cheers,

[ineluki]

1. As explained, it can't

2. Even if the resolution was sufficient (to actually recognise the lander as more than just a dot on the surface), what's the point?
NASA has already
- almost a ton of moon rocks
- thousands of pictures
- >100 hours of movies/video
- eyewitnesses
What would be the point of adding some more pictures?

[Grand_Lunar]

A more prescise figure on the amount of moon rocks is about 900lbs, closer to half a ton.

[ineluki]

Right of course, I mixed up "lbs" and "kg"

[Grand_Lunar]

Don't feel too bad.

Even aerospace engineers have mixed up metric and Imperial units.
Result; the failure of the Mars Polar lander.

[Nowhere Man]

Correction: Mars Climate Orbiter.

Fred

[Extravoice]

Even if the resolution was sufficient ...What would be the point of adding some more pictures?

Very simply, it would be "cool."

Humans like to look at their accomplishments. We recently witnessed photos of the Sprit rover on Mars. Everyone knew that the rover was there, yet there is something very satisfying about looking at it from orbit.

Photos of the moon landing sites would probably provide very little science, and wouldn't convince anyone who isn't already convinced that the sites are real, but I'd still like to see them if the opportunity arose.

[gwiz]

Well, the last three sites were each photographed from lunar orbit using the large cameras carried in the SM on those flights, but all you see is a bright dot with a long shadow.

[Jim]

Don't feel too bad.

Even aerospace engineers have mixed up metric and Imperial units.
Result; the failure of the Mars Polar lander.

Ehhh, maybe not: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...2.html#Scene_1

Spurious signals when the trio of lander legs deployed during descent is thought to have given a false indication to onboard smarts of the spacecraft. It fooled itself into thinking it had landed, although it was high above Mars.

The result ... a premature shutdown of the spacecraft's engines and the destruction of the lander when it fell onto the planet. ...

[Jim]

Correction: Mars Climate Orbiter.

Fred

Not entirely: http://www.space.com/news/mco_report...0.html#Scene_1

While the root cause of the failure was the units mix-up between navigation teams, the real problem was a systemic failure to follow NASA procedures...

Checks and balances processes that should have caught such errors were not followed...

[Grand_Lunar]

Thanks, Jim.

I missed the rest of the story on this one.

[PhantomWolf]

Mars Polar lander

Wasn't that one renamed Mars Polar Impactor? Bit like Beagle 2 got renamed Beagle 2 million pieces.

[jt-3d]

I for one would like to see some telescope pictures of the landing sites just to see what excuse the HBs use to dismiss them. Also it would be cool.

[PhantomWolf]

I for one would like to see some telescope pictures of the landing sites just to see what excuse the HBs use to dismiss them. Also it would be cool.

me too, but mostly cause having a 270m mirror would let us do some reallllllly cool astronomy. Of course I wouldn't want to be the sucker that had to polish it into a perfect parabolic shape.

[Grand_Lunar]

Let a robot do it!

Forget seeing the landing sites, I'd just like to go there. Or anywhere else on the moon.

[TheOncomingStorm]

I think we should send I robot and leave a camera on the footsteps and leave it there and on up at the sky and have web page just for these cameras so everytime HBer shows up we send a link to that web page.

[PhantomWolf]

They'd just claim it was in a building in Area 51.

[TheOncomingStorm]

true but some of them you take to them walk them over to the footsteps and they will still deny everything.

[TheOncomingStorm]

what happened to mastercat?

[Nicolas]

Bit like Beagle 2 got renamed Beagle 2 million pieces.

SMART-1 on the other hand, got shattered into far less pieces after its heavy, intended lunar landing. I've got the SMART-1 puzzle, and it clearly states it's just 1000 pieces.

[galacsi]

A more prescise figure on the amount of moon rocks is about 900lbs, closer to half a ton.

Hi

I remember that only a very small portion has been distributed to laboratories . Remainder is keep in vault. Is it exact ?

[oldtomjoad]

Some divided opinions here, but there does not seem to be a poll so I have started one on humanopinion.org (see http://humanopinion.org/node/305)

I saw a documentary where Carl Ziess who made the cameras or at least the lens for NASA, said that the pictures taken were probably not taken by the astronauts due to the framing, quality of the shots and the etchings on the lens... Kind of a convincing argument, but who knows.

[Laguna]

I saw a documentary where Carl Ziess who made the cameras or at least the lens for NASA, said that the pictures taken were probably not taken by the astronauts due to the framing, quality of the shots and the etchings on the lens... Kind of a convincing argument, but who knows.

Can you provide the name or, even better, the source of that documentry?

What would be the purpose of that poll?

[TheOncomingStorm]

I saw a documentary where Carl Ziess who made the cameras or at least the lens for NASA, said that the pictures taken were probably not taken by the astronauts due to the framing, quality of the shots and the etchings on the lens... Kind of a convincing argument, but who knows.

actually the pictures that were good were only a small sample of all pictures taken.