It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Give me one good answer... Attempt to disprove this.
page: 2share:
The best answer I have read so far was originally posted by Zzub.
(From cornell.edu website...
Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!
Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.
Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.
More details for the mathematically inclined: How did I calculate this stuff? Well, here's the procedure. Let's take the case of Hubble and find out what the smallest thing it can see on the surface of the Moon is.
1. Resolution (in radians) = (wavelength)/(telescope diameter) or R= w/D. This is a formula from optics.
2. So for Hubble we know that the telescope diameter is 2.4 meters (it's not very big - it had to fit into the Shuttle.) Also, we know that visible wavelength light is in the range 400-700 nanometers. I'll use 600 nm, because it's somewhere in the middle and I've used it before for this calculation.
3. If you use all units of meters and do R= (600e-9)/(2.4) = 2.5e-7. Well, that gives us the resolution of Hubble in radians which isn't too intuitive, but we can convert to meters on the surface of the Moon.
4. To find the spatial extent that 2.5e-7 radians is at the distance of the moon, set up a triangle between Earth and the Moon, where R is the angle in radians that we calculated, x is the side opposite angle R which corresponds to the object on the moon, and the adjacent side is the Earth-Moon distance. Then you have Tangent(R)=x/(distance Moon). The distance to the moon is 384,400 km. So converting to meters again and plugging in R and d moon will give you a size in meters of the smallest size thing HST can see.
5. When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big! If you look at this HST image of the Moon you can see that they say "Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across." I think they used 500 nm as their wavelength instead of 600 nm, but it's the same order of magnitude as what we got here. So there's no way HST can see anything humans left behind. HST can do a good job of studying large-scale geology, like craters, which is what the images were of. People and their stuff are just really small on a planetary scale!)
(From cornell.edu website...
Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!
Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.
Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.
More details for the mathematically inclined: How did I calculate this stuff? Well, here's the procedure. Let's take the case of Hubble and find out what the smallest thing it can see on the surface of the Moon is.
1. Resolution (in radians) = (wavelength)/(telescope diameter) or R= w/D. This is a formula from optics.
2. So for Hubble we know that the telescope diameter is 2.4 meters (it's not very big - it had to fit into the Shuttle.) Also, we know that visible wavelength light is in the range 400-700 nanometers. I'll use 600 nm, because it's somewhere in the middle and I've used it before for this calculation.
3. If you use all units of meters and do R= (600e-9)/(2.4) = 2.5e-7. Well, that gives us the resolution of Hubble in radians which isn't too intuitive, but we can convert to meters on the surface of the Moon.
4. To find the spatial extent that 2.5e-7 radians is at the distance of the moon, set up a triangle between Earth and the Moon, where R is the angle in radians that we calculated, x is the side opposite angle R which corresponds to the object on the moon, and the adjacent side is the Earth-Moon distance. Then you have Tangent(R)=x/(distance Moon). The distance to the moon is 384,400 km. So converting to meters again and plugging in R and d moon will give you a size in meters of the smallest size thing HST can see.
5. When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big! If you look at this HST image of the Moon you can see that they say "Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across." I think they used 500 nm as their wavelength instead of 600 nm, but it's the same order of magnitude as what we got here. So there's no way HST can see anything humans left behind. HST can do a good job of studying large-scale geology, like craters, which is what the images were of. People and their stuff are just really small on a planetary scale!)
reply to post by scotsdavy1
Thanks for that, I did google it and saw some interesting photos. I had wondered about that mission and had not seen those photos. Once again thanks.
Thanks for that, I did google it and saw some interesting photos. I had wondered about that mission and had not seen those photos. Once again thanks.
I think i know what the OP means as in that for all we`re on mars taking pictures of rocks from feet away and you can clearly see my front room
curtains and car parked in front of my house on google earth, why is it that all we have is blurry pictures of whats meant to be
the US flag at the landing site on the moon?. Why not go back to the moon, much cheaper alternative to mars, and take super close up pics of the landing site and flag now, it`s almost as if the good ole US of A is saying "ok folks we went the moon,forget about it, heres some grainy sihtty images of it which are very dubious but heres ur front garden in high definition on google earth and heres some excellent pictures of a rock on mars??? bit suss to me.
the US flag at the landing site on the moon?. Why not go back to the moon, much cheaper alternative to mars, and take super close up pics of the landing site and flag now, it`s almost as if the good ole US of A is saying "ok folks we went the moon,forget about it, heres some grainy sihtty images of it which are very dubious but heres ur front garden in high definition on google earth and heres some excellent pictures of a rock on mars??? bit suss to me.
reply to post by fenian8
Thank you... Exactly... Why are we able to be on mars looking for who knows what... But we cannot prove to all the skeptics that yes we did in fact land on the moon, here is the proof. Here is the live webcam that we have with in from our satellite orbiting our moon.
Check out how many people have "bought" land on the moon through ebay... Do you seriously think nobody would be interested if they put a live webcam and made it a big deal like they hype up everything in the media?
I'm just saying people have already wasted millions of dollars on the moon buying property... Why not surveillance your new property... HAHA
Maybe charge you for it? I dunno... (You ass***** from google better not steal this idea)
I'm just saying people have already spent millions of dollars on the moon buying property... Why not surveillance your new property... HAHA
All I know is everyone talks about how advanced we seem to be... However we cannot even prove now in 2012 what we did less than 45 years ago... One of mankind's biggest and proudest moment... Seriously?
Keep it up guys.
Thank you... Exactly... Why are we able to be on mars looking for who knows what... But we cannot prove to all the skeptics that yes we did in fact land on the moon, here is the proof. Here is the live webcam that we have with in from our satellite orbiting our moon.
Check out how many people have "bought" land on the moon through ebay... Do you seriously think nobody would be interested if they put a live webcam and made it a big deal like they hype up everything in the media?
I'm just saying people have already wasted millions of dollars on the moon buying property... Why not surveillance your new property... HAHA
Maybe charge you for it? I dunno... (You ass***** from google better not steal this idea)
I'm just saying people have already spent millions of dollars on the moon buying property... Why not surveillance your new property... HAHA
All I know is everyone talks about how advanced we seem to be... However we cannot even prove now in 2012 what we did less than 45 years ago... One of mankind's biggest and proudest moment... Seriously?
Keep it up guys.
Originally posted by ThinkB4uSpeak
Thank you... Exactly... Why are we able to be on mars looking for who knows what... But we cannot prove to all the skeptics that yes we did in fact land on the moon, here is the proof. Here is the live webcam that we have with in from our satellite orbiting our moon.
You act like anyone really cares what a small fringe group really thinks...
BTW wouldn't they just say the web cam is fake too? "Going to all that trouble to prove it is real just means they are desperate to hide the fact it was all faked" I can hear it now...lol
Originally posted by fenian8
I think i know what the OP means as in that for all we`re on mars taking pictures of rocks from feet away and you can clearly see my front room curtains and car parked in front of my house on google earth, why is it that all we have is blurry pictures of whats meant to be
the US flag at the landing site on the moon?. Why not go back to the moon, much cheaper alternative to mars, and take super close up pics of the landing site and flag now, it`s almost as if the good ole US of A is saying "ok folks we went the moon,forget about it, heres some grainy sihtty images of it which are very dubious but heres ur front garden in high definition on google earth and heres some excellent pictures of a rock on mars??? bit suss to me.
Moon
We’ve already been there.
We have already sampled the surface composition.
We know there are no life-forms.
It does not nor will never have an atmosphere that could support life.
Mars
Similar to earth.
We have not yet fully sampled the composition of the surface.
It has an atmosphere which has/had the possibility to support life.
With some ingenuity on our part it has a possibility to support future human life.
FYI fenian8 - All the really close up images for Google Earth are taken by airplane and car not by satellite imagery.
reply to post by ThinkB4uSpeak
So basically you won't listen to any of our responses until you see a picture of the us flag on the moon?
So basically you won't listen to any of our responses until you see a picture of the us flag on the moon?
Images of houses, streets, car number plates taken from a couple of hundred miles. Moon is over a thousand times further away.....thats all that is
required in the answer
Originally posted by Xtrozero
But we do have good pictures and here is one of them...
Nice photo of a sound stage you got there...
reply to post by Gibonz
A sound stage proven to be in a vacuum. A sound stage covering several kilometres. A sound stage with proven reduced gravity.
So, a several kilometre wide vacuum chamber falling through the atmosphere is what you'd need to film this.
Of course it won't stop you just repeating the same claim, but it's nonsense and you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
A sound stage proven to be in a vacuum. A sound stage covering several kilometres. A sound stage with proven reduced gravity.
So, a several kilometre wide vacuum chamber falling through the atmosphere is what you'd need to film this.
Of course it won't stop you just repeating the same claim, but it's nonsense and you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Do you really think that a picture (Photoshop?) taken by an advanced (not your own) telescope, maybe even orbiting in space (really?) is enough to
convince you?
I really, really doubt that. Its easy to see that there are several possible influences to this from three-letter-govs so you could never trust a simple photography.
You have to go to the moon, yourself.
BTW: No one will believe you. So every other sceptic has to go to the moon, too.
Man, thats a lot of work. Better start building some rockets, right?.......
I really, really doubt that. Its easy to see that there are several possible influences to this from three-letter-govs so you could never trust a simple photography.
You have to go to the moon, yourself.
BTW: No one will believe you. So every other sceptic has to go to the moon, too.
Man, thats a lot of work. Better start building some rockets, right?.......
reply to post by ThinkB4uSpeak
Ignoring the galaxies for a second... Maybe because the distance between the surface of the earth and geostationary orbit (satellites) is far shorter than the distance from the earth to the moon?
Back to the galaxies. You do realize those images aren't color photos right? I mean, those are radio waves and radiation. The images you know and love of the galaxies is NOT what your eye, or a normal camera / scope would see. Most of them, in fact, are made up of various types of measurements to produce the image.
Why are we able to see details on human faces, license plates, distant galaxies, etc... Using our telescopes and satellites but we are for some reason unable to see the area we "landed on the moon"???
Ignoring the galaxies for a second... Maybe because the distance between the surface of the earth and geostationary orbit (satellites) is far shorter than the distance from the earth to the moon?
Back to the galaxies. You do realize those images aren't color photos right? I mean, those are radio waves and radiation. The images you know and love of the galaxies is NOT what your eye, or a normal camera / scope would see. Most of them, in fact, are made up of various types of measurements to produce the image.
Originally posted by fenian8
I think i know what the OP means as in that for all we`re on mars taking pictures of rocks from feet away and you can clearly see my front room curtains and car parked in front of my house on google earth, why is it that all we have is blurry pictures of whats meant to be
the US flag at the landing site on the moon?. Why not go back to the moon, much cheaper alternative to mars, and take super close up pics of the landing site and flag now, it`s almost as if the good ole US of A is saying "ok folks we went the moon,forget about it, heres some grainy sihtty images of it which are very dubious but heres ur front garden in high definition on google earth and heres some excellent pictures of a rock on mars??? bit suss to me.
Come on man, the thread is only 2 pages long, please read previous posts!
Grimpachi's post answers the OP's original question, it's simply not possible or at least economically viable. As pointed out Google earth uses images taken from planes.
What you are saying here is that the USA should spend millions or billions of $ to photograph the landing site instead of visiting new planets, just to satisfy the non-believer?!
reply to post by ThinkB4uSpeak
Did you miss the shot we took of the spot where we stuck the American flag? Or someone's flag...not sure which. I believe a satellite or a probe managed to catch a very good pic of a flag on the moon. You missed it?
I suppose you did. Well, this one is from the 31st of July, 2012. Here you go:
Did you miss the shot we took of the spot where we stuck the American flag? Or someone's flag...not sure which. I believe a satellite or a probe managed to catch a very good pic of a flag on the moon. You missed it?
I suppose you did. Well, this one is from the 31st of July, 2012. Here you go:
edit on 21-8-2012 by
AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Since some of you don’t seem to believe that we went to the moon here’s some undeniable proof that you can test and see for yourself (with the
right equipment) just visit any earth based Lunar Laser Ranging Observatory and ask very nicely if you can observe what I'm about to tell you.
100 feet away from the Apollo 11 Lander on the moon in the Sea of Tranquility - Buzz and Neil placed a “Laser Ranging Reflector Array” on the surface of the moon and it still works today! Apollo 14 & 15 also placed reflectors near the landing sites. You can shoot a laser pulse at any of the arrays and the corner-cube reflectors in the array will send the laser pulse straight back to where it came from.
100 feet away from the Apollo 11 Lander on the moon in the Sea of Tranquility - Buzz and Neil placed a “Laser Ranging Reflector Array” on the surface of the moon and it still works today! Apollo 14 & 15 also placed reflectors near the landing sites. You can shoot a laser pulse at any of the arrays and the corner-cube reflectors in the array will send the laser pulse straight back to where it came from.
Originally posted by meticulous
Since some of you don’t seem to believe that we went to the moon here’s some undeniable proof that you can test and see for yourself (with the right equipment) just visit any earth based Lunar Laser Ranging Observatory and ask very nicely if you can observe what I'm about to tell you.
100 feet away from the Apollo 11 Lander on the moon in the Sea of Tranquility - Buzz and Neil placed a “Laser Ranging Reflector Array” on the surface of the moon and it still works today! Apollo 14 & 15 also placed reflectors near the landing sites. You can shoot a laser pulse at any of the arrays and the corner-cube reflectors in the array will send the laser pulse straight back to where it came from.
Yeah i`ll do that tommorrow, sorry thought i was on a conspiracy sight and BTW i think we did go to the moon, but think we can`t go back, however we just have to believe whatever the MSM and people who support there "official" story complete with non staged photographs tell us?????? OK
new topics
-
D.B. Cooper mystery may be solved
General Conspiracies: 4 hours ago
top topics
-
D.B. Cooper mystery may be solved
General Conspiracies: 4 hours ago, 13 flags
active topics
-
D.B. Cooper mystery may be solved
General Conspiracies • 20 • : Flyingclaydisk -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 82 • : Xtrozero -
Interesting Video-UFO?
Aliens and UFOs • 17 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 398 • : andy06shake -
How Long have You been Alive?
General Chit Chat • 34 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3717 • : BrucellaOrchitis -
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 31 • : fringeofthefringe -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 97 • : BrucellaOrchitis -
Joe Biden Dabs Away Tears at Farewell White House Dinner
Politicians & People • 27 • : chr0naut -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 241 • : andy06shake