Is it possible to see the gear left on the moon telescopically?

I hear over and over about "they" can read a license plate from geostationary orbit @ 22,500 miles up or can see a nickel from there- etc. If this is true- and apparently it is, then why have there never been any images taken of all the supposed junk left on the moon? If they can image from 22,500 miles up a license plate- then it follows that they could also see something 10x that size from 10x the distance.I understand that a lot of "spy" sattelites are in low earth orbit- but the Hubble is in Geostationary orbit- and I have read NASA boasting that the Hubble could see a nickel in your hand if they pointed it at you. Am i supposed to believe that NASA -the most "look at me" federal outfit ever created could resist tooting their own horn by taking a few shots of lunar buggies and American flags from their biggest acheivement? That would certainly go a long way towards dispelling the doubts people have about the lunar misions. I suspect I know the answer to this question, but I would like to hear your opinion about this!

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]

hubble could resolve object only 10 metres or bigger so it would not be able to see the apollo stuff. In any case they didnt build hubble to satisfy a few moon conspiracy oddballs and wouldnt waste precious observation time in doing so.

Originally posted by yeti101
hubble could resolve object only 10 metres or bigger so it would not be able to see the apollo stuff. In any case they didnt build hubble to satisfy a few moon conspiracy oddballs and wouldnt waste precious observation time in doing so.

Cmon folks- *snip* the piece of junk Landsats from which Google earth gets ther images are able to get resolutions 100x times better than that- and they cost a few millions- not the Billions that Hubble did. I can see the inividual shingles on my house from Google earth- but Hubble- with many times the power of Landsat can only resolve "10 meters" *snip*

Mod Note: Civility and Decorum are Required - Please Review This Link

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Jbird]

Ya, I would have thought that with all the amateur scopesmen out there, that someone would have been able to create a powerful enough one to view such things.
Add that I've never seen any pics from the gov of them is definitely curious. As you said, you'd think someone what want to revive some of their past great achievements.

I'm just starting to learn about making my own telescopes, so would be curious to find out what magnification would be required. Perhaps I can be the one....yeah right.

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
I can see the inividual shingles on my house from Google earth- but Hubble- with many times the power of Landsat can only resolve "10 meters" LMAO this guy is an idiot or a Troll/spook- lets get some better replies here folks....

Don't call him an idiot, he's right, and only trying to help you out by answering your question. The Hubble was made to focus on things millions of light years away, not our own moon.

You can't see microscopic things with binaculars, because they weren't made for that. You can't see the moon with a microscope because it wasn't made for that. Same principal applies here.

A few months back I met Col. Robert Bowman after an inspiring speech he gave(It was incredible- the biggest lift to my spirits in quite some time). He was shaking hands and answering questions afterwards, and someone asked him about his years as the head of the Space Defense Initiative Program (before it was actually called that) and what exactly he knew about as far as spook weapons we had in orbit. I jokingly asked "And what exactly were we putting up there with all those big Saturn V's during Apollo anyways?" To my surprise- he answered "I cannot talk about that" I thought this was a very curious answer indeed. He didnt say " Why Lunar Landers and Moon Buggies stupid". This coming from a man who minutes before was openly calling for the arrest, trial ,conviction , and EXECUTION of officials at the very top of our government for planning and carrying out the treasonous attacks on 9/11 2001 - yet he still was duty bound to maintain secrets from 30 years ago, many of which, if revealed , would blow the lid off of what is going on behind the scenes in our country that allows the likes of the criminals of 9/11 to operate. If we really did go to the moon in '69 then why cant we see the stuff they left behind? I suspect that the Apollo program was used to get a blank check for the executive branch to get the upper hand and total power over our government- If you have missiles hanging over everyones head - your in charge- period. I am anxious to hear some of you here on ATS give your opinions on this long standing debate.

P.S. I was going to name this thread "If we can put a man on the moon, then why cant we put a man on the moon!"

OK- I guess I have to dig everything up myself . here is a little primer on Optical Telescopes
en.wikipedia.org...

In the first paragragh you will see as the description of a telescope that "they increase the apparent angular size of a distant object"also known as MAGNIFICATION.So I can enlarge the moons of Jupiter with a telescope- but i cant enlarge earths moon eh?Slight logic flaw there-these knuckleheads telling me that Hubble is a microscope- not a telescope- really should have at least some knowledge before running their traps.

No logic flaw actually. You can magnify the moon just as much as you can magnify any other moon, the point is you simply dont have enough magnification power to see objects as small as a moon buggy.

If you want to see anything left behind on the moon you will need a satellite in orbit around the moon and unfortunately all the ones powerful enough are either around Mars or around Earth.

Heres a link to the Wiki for the Hubble Space Telescope
en.wikipedia.org...
And here is an excerpt from that-

"The mirror and optical systems of the telescope were the most crucial and complex part, and were designed to exacting specifications. Telescopes typically have mirrors polished to an accuracy of about a tenth of the wavelength of visible light, but because the Space Telescope was to be used for observations ranging from ultraviolet to near-infrared with ten times better resolution than the best previous telescopes, its mirror needed to be polished to an accuracy of 1/20 of the wavelength of visible light, or about 30 nanometres"

- Accoring to this- Hubble has TEN TIMES the resolution of previous telescopes-not to mention that there is no disturbance from the atmosphere- the bane of all earthbound telescopes. Her is another excerpt- seems NASA does not agree with the assumption stated in a previous post about "wasting time" on the big scope "Anyone can apply for time on the telescope; there are no restrictions on nationality or academic affiliation. Competition for time on the telescope is extremely intense, and the ratio of time requested to time available (the oversubscription ratio) typically ranges between 6 and 9." Is there anyone here well versed in these matters that can clarify any of this- please respond.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by Jbird]

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Here you'll find some explainations why focusing the hubble on the moon is not possible. Hope this helps.

You should be able to see the old Apollo gear from an orbiting sattelite.

A few years ago, NASA lost a lander on Mars. It fell into a big crack, and they were able to find it with a camera on a Mars orbiter.

So, if they can not spot that stuff, on the Moon, now, it is because it is just not there.

or better yet.. JAXA will clear the whole thing up.....

maybe... if we ever see some more pictures...

I read a discussion about this subject some years ago- and the argument was made that- yes indeed the gear up there would be visible to a telescope- except that its coloration makes it blend in too closely with the background. Anybody see a logic flaw here? SHADOWS The objects would make very large shadows- many times larger than the objects themselves and easily contrasting with the backgound. Also- the color argument is false- the bottom part of the lander that was left behind is COATED WITH GOLD FOIL- not painted white.

The Hubble has an angular resolution of about .03 arc seconds. In order to the see the moon landing equipment from Earth, you'd need an angular resolution of about .003 arc seconds. In other words, something with 10 times the resolution of Hubble. A ground-based scope with this resolution would have a primary mirror some 30 meters in diameter. The largest telescope currently operating has a primary mirror of 10.4 meters in diameter.

ItsHumanNature-

Please take a break and review the Terms & Conditions Of Use – of this site,
to which you agreed to abide by when registering, before continuing to post.

and while you're at it check out this thread for a crash course on All things ATS.

Index of Important Website Related Threads *Read First*

Click here for more information.

I will have to find it, an astronomer that frequents another board I'm on just addressed this. I believe the figure he came up with was that in order to resolve the base of a lunar lander on the Moon from the Earth would require a primary mirror 178 meters in diameter.

Good luck grinding that sucker

It's not voodoo - I'm no expert on optics, but the math is apparently fairly straightforward and not something you could "fudge" for disinfo purposes very well.

[edit on 1/26/08 by xmotex]

Theirs to mcuh distortion in our atmosphere, for observing at ground level.... i love astronomy, and have been into it, since i was 11, im 32 now. For any backyard telescope pwner, the largets yuo shold go, is 14 inches... reflector. Because anyting over that, is only really meant for distant objects hat are HUGE like gallxies, globula clusters, nebulae, ect.
Anyting manmae ont he moon would be too small or invisible to see form here on earth. Ontop a mountain i dont know, but unlikely...
youde most liekly, have to have a satellite inorbit around the moon. even with a huge telecope, on earth we can only see objects to down to 10 miles ie say, anyting under hat would not be detectable.

I have been into astronomy for over 25 years. The whole point of a telescope is to gather light,in order to see very dim objects, not so much to magnify objects. When you see a telescope at Walmart that says “650x” you should know it’s junk and will never give you even 1/4 that “power” at a decent resolution. So it’s not just a simple matter of having a big telescope and popping in the 100,000 magnification Eye piece. Telescopes don't work like that.

As stated already the hubble is made to look at distant objects, some of them are billions of light years away. It would be like trying to use a pair of binoculars to look at an ameba.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Verhasst]

I guess bouncing the lasers off the mirrors they left behind for measuring the moon orbit for consistency doesn't count.

science.nasa.gov...

I always thought the moon was too bright for these types of observations. The brightness would hurt the optics, kind of like pointing the Hubble at the sun for sunspots.