Where's the buggy?

I'm not really in on the "we didn't land on the moon" debate, however, there is one question I have. Of all the moon pictures, and all the detailed pics of planets much farther away than our moon,...............

Where's the buggy?

Are there any pictures of the rover they used for the original landing, and left on site? Can you see it through your telescope? Someone have coordinates to a detailed photo?

If we did or didn't land on the moon, it doesn't matter, but how come no one ever shows the off roading our astronauts did?

I'd like to see it.

**EDIT**- sorry, I may have posted this in the wrong forum area.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Kingalbrect79]

Good question!

People have even asked the question:

"Why not focus the HUBBLE telescope towards the landing site"?

Surely a telescope, powerful enough to view the outer-most galaxies, should be able to zero-in on the lander?

Some have come forward in their answers (having knowledge about the Hubble) to state that the HUBBLE is just TOO powerful in focusing (paraphrasing) and that there was NO WAY to get the lens' to focus on something as small as a lander or American flag. The lens was not designed for that particular job at such a close range.

However, IMO, I don't buy that reasoning.

To be able to have the means of seeing 'that far out into the universe', and with the technology that we have today, and not be able to create a telescope lens to view a simple object on the moon?

How bout this then...

If our satellites can focus through the earths atmosphere and 'pinpoint' PEOPLE (within a few blocks), why not focus the satellite on the moon (no atmospheric conditions to hinder)?

Where there's a will there is a way.

For all we know, there IS telecope powerful and exact enough to see pebbles on the moon.

However, no one has come forward with VIABLE pics of proof.

That is a great question, I have yet to see thru all the pictures, detailed clear pictures of the moon the lunar rover. Where is it? They couldnt have called AAA to get a tow home and they suposedly left it up there. (kind of a waste if you ask me)

So where are the shots? What does it look like now? Is it covered in dust? This is a great question. I wonder what the rover looks like after all these years up there just sitting about.

I wonder if it has an orange flag on the antenna sorry sorry had to do it...

But a good question it is.

In some aspect, I might be able to understand the hubble being far sighted and not able to focus on the moon, it's as if you are looking through binoculars backwards. You can see things far away clearly, but up close, they are blurry. However, I am not a telescope expert, and therefor not up to date on how powerful civilian telescopes are that are up for public sale. I'm sure there are even home made versions capable of seeing the landing site, after all, the moon doesn't turn, so it won't be going anywhere. Find a clear night, and get me that pic, then i'll believe that we definetly landed.

Although you're right whatukno, it's a blatant waste of millions of dollars to just leave the damn rover sitting in the dunes. At least if we decide to go back to the moon, bring a tank of gas and a good camcorder.

The Hubble telescope doesn't have the resolution to image such a small object from so far away. Its main advantage compared to terrestrial telescopes lies in its light-gathering power, which lets it see extremely dim, far-away galaxies, and not necessarily in extreme resolution. Additionally, its main purpose is science, not in proving what we already know.

Of course, there are telescopes that are powerful enough to see the rover if they were in lunar orbit. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is one of them, and it's imaged a couple of comparatively tiny rovers/landers on the Martian surface so far. As mentioned here, Earth imaging satellites are powerful enough too. The problem is that none of these satellites are actually in lunar orbit! Thus, although we have lots of equipment that's powerful enough, we don't have anything that's in the right place. That will change in 2008, though, when the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be launched and will be able to take pictures detailed enough to distinguish the rovers and landers left in the Apollo missions.

By the way, yes, there was more than one rover. Rovers were used during Apollo 15-17. The descent stages of the lunar modules (which are actually larger than the rovers) were left on the moon by Apollo 11,12,14,15,16 and 17. For the most part, the hardware left on the moon should be as pristine as it was when it was left; there are no forces that would blow dust onto it. Of course, the pictures taken from orbit won't actually be detailed enough to see that.

cdrn basically covered everything already. The things that Hubble and other Earth based telescopes normally look at like, nebula's which can cover hundreds of light years in size or even distant Galaxies that can span 150,000 ly in diameter or even more. It doesn't take amazing amounts of magnification to see these astronomically large things.

But to resolve fine details like the Apollo artifacts left on the Moon, the best thing to do is to have a low orbiting probe, like cdrn mentioned already. It's the only way to get detailed images of the surface. It's how we do it for Earth and Mars etc. I believe the only way to see the Apollo artifacts from Earth would be to build a telescope that's 200m in diameter, if not more. (the largest currently is 10m just for reference). We'll just have to wait till 2008 for the LRO, which will be comparable in resolution to the MRO which is currently at Mars (about 1m per pixel or a bit better).

well lets pull this thread back on subject, There are planty of satalites and other telescopes completely capable of taking hi res pics of the moon...


what about john lear's pics?

That's a good point, what about his photos, if 13-17 left so much stuff on the moon, then how come we don't see it? Even an "accidently caught in the frame" shot of a wheel or something. It would seem to me that all of the hardware left on the moon, supposedly, would 1., create the universes first galactic junkyard swapmeet, 2., give us an increased propability of seeing these objects due to the fact they couldn't have all landed in the same spot, 3., been the biggest waste of money I can think of.

The space shuttle has a cargo bay for a reason, if you drop S**T off, bring it back!! How else do you expect us to pay for it, raise taxes again, claiming a 5,000 dollar toilet seat???

OH wait, they already did that.

Originally posted by whatukno
well lets pull this thread back on subject, There are planty of satalites and other telescopes completely capable of taking hi res pics of the moon...


what about john lear's pics?

Which other satellites could take images of the Moon? There are none orbiting the Moon at the moment. No Earth orbiting satellite can get photos of the Moon detailed enough to see the Apollo artifacts.

I haven't looked at John's Moon thread in a while, but last I saw. He was using images taken from the Lunar Orbiters (pre Apollo) and from Clementine. Clementine mapped the Moon back in '94. It didn't have high enough resolution to make out any detail of the Apollo equipment.

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
if 13-17 left so much stuff on the moon, then how come we don't see it? Even an "accidently caught in the frame" shot of a wheel or something.

A wheel? Not likely to get close to that kind of resolution. I don't think you fully understand the size and distances we're talking about here.

It would seem to me that all of the hardware left on the moon, supposedly, would 1., create the universes first galactic junkyard swapmeet, 2., give us an increased propability of seeing these objects due to the fact they couldn't have all landed in the same spot

They did indeed landed in various spots all over the Moon. But that still won't help. The stuff left there is too small to be seen from Earth, be it from either ground and/or orbiting telescopes. Only a high resolution telescope in Lunar orbit will be able to see the Apollo artifacts.

The space shuttle has a cargo bay for a reason, if you drop S**T off, bring it back!! How else do you expect us to pay for it, raise taxes again, claiming a 5,000 dollar toilet seat???

OH wait, they already did that.

This comment made no sense to me. What does the Shuttles cargo bay have to do with this? I'm confused, sorry.

I think he's asking why the rovers were just left on the Moon instead of being brought back to Earth.

Carrying more mass requires more fuel, which in turn requires more fuel to carry that fuel, which in turn requires a larger spacecraft to hold that fuel, which in turn requires more fuel to move that spacecraft, etc. The payload that is actually put into orbit by a rocket is tiny in comparison to the rocket itself. Similarly, the spacecraft that the astronauts used to leave the moon (the ascent stage of the lunar module) was pretty small in comparison to the what they used to land on it (ascent stage + descent stage). The ability to carry as little mass as possible is what made the lunar landings possible in the first place. Carrying a rover along with the ascent stage back to Earth would give it a highly nontrivial mass to haul, and it proved to be a lot cheaper just to build three rovers in the first place. I mean, it's not like the rovers could be used on Earth either.

Just to add to what cdrn already daid in regards to why we did'nt bring the rovers back, and teh shuttle.


The Space Shuttle did not exist during any of the Apollo missions.
Also, the Space Shuttle is not meant to go to the moon, it simply
does'nt have the fuel capacity to do that.

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
Where's the buggy?

I'd like to see it.

Kingalbrect79 , you may get your chance, soon.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter(LRO) is scheduled for launch
October 31, 2008.

Among it's mission parameters is a year long mapping of the moon
at an average altitude of 30 miles.

The LRO payload, comprised of six instruments and one technology demonstration will provide key data sets
to enable a human to return to the Moon.

LRO's instrument suite will provide the highest resolution data,
and the most comprehensive data set ever returned from the moon.
Some of the data includes :

...Provide the first highly accurate 3D lunar cartographic maps...

lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov...

LRO artist rendering

On board will be the
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)
with "identification of meter-scale hazards."

Imaging and resolution are very well defined and known quantities and bump up against something call the "diffraction limit". Remember HS physics and interference patterns, same thing.

There comes a point where diffraction takes over to limit what you can resolve. For scopes, this number is translated into arc seconds (circle, seconds - same HS physics) and when taken at distances will tell you what size object you can theoretically resolve. Actual resolution will be less because of errors in the glass/mirrors/lenses and whatever atmosphere you will be looking through.

That said, there is nothing on Earth or in Earth orbit that can resolve items as small as the flag, lander or other crud on the Moon to anything more than a blurry spec. We make great stuff but not better than the physics allows at this point....

Search away as this stuff is explained by experts all over the net....

Some of you might find this interesting:

Wikipedia has a complete list of all the man made junk we've left behind on the moon, complete with a description and location.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's about 170,000 Kg worth of stuff.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Some of you might find this interesting:

Wikipedia has a complete list of all the man made junk we've left behind on the moon, complete with a description and location.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's about 170,000 Kg worth of stuff.

I thought Andy Griffith salvaged all that stuff using his cement-truck-container-turned-into-a-spacecraft. Or are you all too young to remember the 1970's TV show "Salvage 1"?

Here's a reminder: www.imdb.com...


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]