Why cant we point hubble at the moon and see the rover, or flag or launch platform, etc.....
That way we could prove the apollo landings...
Or am i just dumb..............

Michael Bailey

We can, and have, pointed it at the moon. Thing is, it's designed for deep-sky imaging, not fine resolution. These things are just too small to see.

Added:

Welcome to the board, BTW.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Hello,

The resolution of Hubble is not great enough; the smallest objects Hubble can image on the Moon are about 600 feet or larger. We'll have to wait for spacecraft or telescopes with better resolutions.

Of course, the laser stations set up by the astronauts are still working today...

Truth takes time.

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

Why not send up a rover and view the flag and rover, etc that way...
How about that....
Michael Bailey

That would work. If NASA could convince Congress to fund such a mission. They're having funding troubles as is, there isn't interest in the moon (by the public), and there would have to be a valid scientific reason to send a rover (it wouldn't be sent just to prove that they had sent people there).

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Besides, these are folks inclined to believing in a massive conspiracy and cover-up by NASA. The odds of them accepting new NASA pictures as proof is near zero.

Even if SMART-1 gets a good picture of the landing sites, that won't convince the true conspiracy hacks. Heck, I'd venture that sending them up to the moon to personally inspect the sites wouldn't even do it.

__________________
http://cleardarksky.com/c/Vancouvercs0.gif

But as the evidence builds, even if the hoax-believers are not convinced, they become marginalized. The public would eventually become convinced (for the most part) by the overwhelming independent evidence provided.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

a) The telescopes we have can't resolve that small.

b) NASA doesn't want to waste money on regoing to the moon when they have already been there, unless they have a good reason, and proving they have been there isn't one since they already know they did it.

c) The flags wouldn't exist any more, the nylon would have well and truly disintergrated in the sunlight years ago.

d) Those that truly believe in the Hoax do so for mostly political and phillosphical reasons rather then through scientific, reasoned and logical reasons. Because of that they will always claim that the photos were doctored or that NASA did something or bribed someone to further cover up the real hoax. This was shown by Rense (I believe it was) who always claimed that independant images of the sites would convince him he was wrong, but when told that a mission was heading to do that, changed his mind to say that nothing could convince him it wasn't a hoax. This is how most HB's work, they make up their minds according to their bias, and then try and fit the facts about their theories rather than reaching a conculsion based on facts. This means that new facts are simply dismissed, ignored, or twisted to met their already pre-determined conculsion.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Welcome to the BABB, electroconvulsive!

You're not being dumb. It's a legitimate question. Unfortunately, Hubble doesn't have the resolution needed to see these artifacts. Have a look at this page for more explanation and some math to back it up.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

I sent an e-mail into a radio station once(BBC radio5) once when they had a couple of astronomers on the program talking about such things asking whether or not they could point Hubble at the moon to see if it could see the landing site and I got the reply that "it would make a lot of the scientists very cross...." if this happened because apparently the Hubble telescope is designed for very deep space observations and the light entering the telescope are very low intensity.
Apparently the moon is too bright and would burn out the system(where the light focused).


I wished I'd asked, and this would have been a far better question, why cant they focus a military satellite upon the moon. They ARE designed for that level of light intensity plus they have very high resolution.


.

Nope. Hubble has imaged the moon:

http://www.mufor.org/moon/hubblemoonl.jpg

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

But was that from Hubble?


Could that not have been taken from a very good observatory or I suppose that it could have been taken from one of the space shuttles(I don't know, perhaps it was just visiting Hubble at the time)

If you think about it, the arc(number of degrees between the 'top' and 'bottom' of a picture) that the Hubble telescope can observe would give a far higher definition picture of the moon than that.

can you see this,


from your garden at night?
If you could it would only look like a small star, which gives you some idea about the size of thing that it can take high definition pictures of.

Anyway the guy on the radio seemed to be dead certain and he WAS an anti-hoaxer.



I'd have to read it on the Newscientist website or a BBC website or something, the radio guy was quite convincing.

Why not on a future mission the install filters so that the moon could be viewed.. It seems that if hubble can view objects light years away it could see a rover and such..........

Michael Bailey

................It's All Earth................

OK, I have just looked it up.


Hubble did take pictures of the moon but it was with something called ,Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, which I had never heared of.

http://www.stsci.edu/instruments/wfpc2/wfpc2_top.html

I suppose it must be a camera they incorperated into the telescope to take pictures of just such things as the moon and Jupiter etc.

But it isn't the same as being able to point Hubble's main telescope at the moon.


I think that this is what the man on the radio meant, and if you could point the main telescope at the moon then you COULD see the Apollo landing site and all the junk that they left behind..

wouldn't it be easier to get the military to point one of their spy satellites at the moon?



.

OK, I give up.....


http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/nut...ruments/wfpc2/


the guy on the radio must have been a nutcase!!!!!!!!



..

It reads that it ca observe just about everything, recording razor-sharp images of faraway objects in relatively broad views. Its 48 filters allow scientists to study precise wavelengths of light and to sense a range of wavelengths from ultraviolet to near-infrared light.

So is that a yes or no?, i sure would like to know....


Michael Bailey

...........It's All Earth............

I'd email Dr, Karl, about this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/aboutkk.htm

he was on the same radio station as the other guy plus he mentioned the BadAstronomy website!





.

I sent him a email, let ya know....
Thanks!


MichaelBailey

Frog March,

The hubble can only resolve to about 90' n the moon's surface, that is each pixal equals 90 feet. The largest Apollo equipment is only 10-15' about a 1/9th of what is needed.

Spy Satelites aren't any use either as they are designed to look at things that are relatively close to them, only a matter of 100-200 miles, not the 200,000 to the moon.

We'll have to wait to see what Smart-1 delivers, and if nothing much, then NASA is planning a mission with a probe that will have resolusion of about 4 feet as it looks for new landing sites for the planned future missions in 2025. Odds are they'll run it past the old sites and get some snaps to see how the equipment has handled the past 30 years of exposure to space. Until then there is always the Clemintine images of the Apollo 15 landing site, though it's merely a black dot on the surface.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

By the way, the image I linked to is from Hubble. Notice the HST in the bottom right corner. HST