Yes, the best surveillance satellite resolution I've heard anyone admit to was 15cm (which is just on 6 inches): this figure was current in the literature in the early 90s and I haven't read anything since then admitting to a higher resolution. I have seen a de-classified SR-71 image looking down into Red Square, in which it was possible to discern the Pravda bannerhead on the newspaper one guy was reading! Of course, that's from around 70,000 ft or thereabouts, not a few hundred miles.

__________________
The meek shall inherit the Earth: the rest of us are going into Space!

I have to question that SR-71 photo of Red Square. After Powers was shot down in his U-2 on May 1, 1960, we decided not to directly overfly the Soviet Union. The A-12 Oxcart (single seat version of the Blackbird built for the overflight mission) was phased out of service in 1968 due to that. Besides, our reconnaissance satellites were coming online at the time making those overflights unnecessary. There was no use risking a pilot (or a war) to get the same data.

I can't say what the current resolution of our imagery satellites is even though I have the necessary clearances for that information. I do have a good handle on the current number and it's nowhere near good enough to read a license plate from orbit. It's good, but not that good. It sounds like too many people are taking shows like "24" (where there's almost always an imagery satellite available to track cars in LA) and "Enemy of the State" (a dreadful piece of dreck) as documentaries.

I think I worked out that the main mirror for a scope able to see and show, recognisably, the Apollo's junk, would have to have to be somewhere in the range of having an area around the same as four football fields.

__________________
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

True.

Even if some aliens came down to earth (a highly significant event in itself) and would take people to the moon to view the litter that was left, I'd expect the HBers to claim that NASA put the aliens up to taking Apollo gear and scattering it around beforehand.

"Oh, no, my hubby said he believes in the Moon Hoax!"

Bah, never mind all these knuckleheads. I have the solution for you, its simple -- just serve him with divorce papers on the grounds of certain "incompatibilities". Then let him know you'll take the house, half his money, the car, the dog, cat, plants, his favorite pillow etc, unless of course he wises up. No need for all of that scientific mumbo-jumbo...

Larry, I saw the photo-along with several other declassified images-in 1985, when it was shown to our remote sensing class at university as an example of the capabilities of surveillance imagery. It's a long time ago, and I might be mis-remembering: maybe it was an image from a U-2 rather than a SR-71, though I'm pretty sure the lecturer identified it as from the latter (he might have been in error himself, after all). But there was no mistaking that you could make out the Pravda bannerhead on the newpaper. I was gobsmacked that you could get such resolution!

Cheers.

__________________
The meek shall inherit the Earth: the rest of us are going into Space!

Hi Endeavour,

Haven't seen you 'round these parts recently! I hope you have been keeping well.

(Sorry to hijack thread - old acquaintance & fellow coastie. Please resume normal service... )

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

If that were true, and let's assume for argument's sake resolution is now 10 times better. That's 1.5cm at around 12 miles (saying 12 miles makes the maths easier) which works out at 300metres at 240000 mles. The largest hardware left on the moon is the base of the LM, which I think was of the order of 4 to 5 metres in diameter (well, it was kind of octagonal really...).

So even asuming a bigger and better camera (say, the Hubble Space telescope), you are still not going to get the resolution good enough to image any such hardware on the moon, from low earth orbit. However, if you can get something in orbit around the moon, with the type of resolution mentioned above, then you would have a chance!

But then, we know what any CT arguments would be, ...."faked photos" ... "they secretly flew stuff up there" .... (launched on what, exactly??) .... "aliens put it there" .... etc... etc...

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Welcome to America, where you can ruin another person's life easily by court process, just by loving them and saying "I do" at one point of time.

You should give relationship advice on radio. You'd be a hit.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

One of my coworkers was an SR-71 RSO for 5 years. I'll ask him when he comes back from a business trip. U-2s flew over the Soviet Union many times until Powers was shot down.

From this source (considered as reliable by my coworker):

The A-12 is the forerunner of the SR-71 and has nearly the same shape and dimensions as its replacement. Designed to replace the U-2, the A-12 flew higher and four times as fast to outrun enemy defenses and gather intelligence. The A-12 is primarily an over flight vehicle unlike the SR-71. Its major advantages in capabilities to the SR-71 include its higher-resolution photography and its ability to go marginally faster (Mach 3.3) than the SR-71. However, the SR-71 was chosen as successor to the A-12 due to its side-looking radar and cameras, allowing it to gather important reconnaissance data without penetrating enemy airspace.

...

On 26 January 1960, the CIA ordered twelve A-12 aircraft. The next month, Lockheed began to search for 24 pilots for the A-12. Soon after in May of 1960, Francis Gary Powers was shot down in a U-2 over the Soviet Union. This event resulted in the United States and the Soviet Union signing an agreement not to fly manned vehicles over the Soviet Union again, a treaty that was undermined even before the SR-71 was built.

...

The A-12 was primarily an over-flight vehicle that was configured to fly over a target at a very high speed and high altitude. It got all of the coverage that it could and then made it back to the base. Now that the United States signed the treaty with the Soviet Union, the A-12 could never fly over the target that it was designed for. Therefore, the United States Air Force needed something more, the SR-71. The SR-71 was configured to use cameras that were for peripheral coverage. The aircraft did not need to go into enemy airspace. On 13 June 1962, the SR-71 mock-up was reviewed by the Air Force. A month later, the J58, the turbojet engine that is used in the SR-71 and A-12 completed its pre-flight testing. At this point in time, the A-12 still was going through flight-testing. When the A-12 made its first flight, it was with two J75 engines since Pratt & Whittney did not have the powerful J58 completed. On 5 October 1962, with the J58 testing complete, the A-12 flew with a J75 in the left nacelle and the new J58 on the right nacelle.

When you're at 80,000 feet, a lateral scanning camera or radar can see a long way into hostile territory without crossing the border.

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is difficult to explain without a moon landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...ing_Experiment

[HB]Delivered by robot[/HB]

What robot? Who built it?

[HB]How should I know, it was all covered up as part of the hoax[/HB]

There is no way a true HB cannot explain something away.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Ack, sorry, a bit before my time.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Awesome, gwiz. You may have captured the quintessential essence of CT's.

Sorry if it appeared like I posted and ran. I did come back and read the replies twice and tried to clear up some of hubby's doubts (things he'd said to look up) using some of your very helpful comments.

Thankyou, Jason Thompson, for your comprehensive and thoughtful response. Thanks also to Nowhere Man, and Count Zero, and everyone who replied.

I'm afraid he still thinks it's my word against his, and I was a bit depressed about replying. No, he won't look things up for himself, which in a way is a good thing, because he might end up just reading HB (Hoax Believer?) sites.

He says not to get worked up about it, it's just a difference of opinion. Hmmmm.

When I tried using the information given here, he came back with - how did they send the video footage all that way, they didn't have digital tv?
I said I didn't think it was digital, and how long have they had satellite tv anyway? (I later looked it up, and it seems private use of it began in ~1976.) I asked him how long had Sky TV in England been going (he's from there) and he said, oh, not very long. (Sky Channel began in 1982).

I finally asked him what it would take to prove to him that they've been to the moon. He said he'd believe it if they went back there.

Well, I've only got ten years, minimum, to wait. Maybe...

Again, thanks for all your help.

Tell him that opinion is not fact. If he proclaims that the moon landings were a hoax, then it's not a statement of opinion, but rather a fact that can be reviewed. Also, tell him that if he's not willing to back up his claim, then he has no right to claim it. There are various other tactics, of course.

Yeah... I doubt he'll change his mind if we go there again. He'll probably say, "Well, we obviously have powerful digital effects today. They used that."

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

The term used is 'First Surface Mirror', where the metallic coating (usually aluminum) is directly on top of the substrate material. A bathroom mirror is what is called a second surface mirror, which loses light from relfections and causes ghost images. No problem for brushing your teeth, but poor for imaging purposes.

Cleaning a telescope mirror is a careful process. Special lens cleaner and tissue is what is most often used.

On the other hand, satellite TV relay between TV companies, as opposed to direct-to-home, began with Telstar in 1962.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett