Can Telescopes Capture Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Equipment?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the ability of telescopes, specifically the Hubble Space Telescope, to capture images of the Apollo moon landing equipment left on the lunar surface. Participants clarify that the Hubble's resolution of 0.1 arcseconds translates to a maximum resolution of 186 meters, making it incapable of resolving the small artifacts left behind by the Apollo missions. Instead, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has successfully photographed these sites, revealing astronaut paths and equipment. However, skeptics of the moon landing continue to dismiss these images as hoaxes, indicating a deeper psychological resistance to accepting evidence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of telescope resolution and imaging capabilities
  • Familiarity with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its mission objectives
  • Knowledge of the Apollo moon landing missions and their historical context
  • Awareness of conspiracy theories and their psychological implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the technical specifications and limitations of the Hubble Space Telescope
  • Explore the mission details and findings of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
  • Investigate psychological profiles of conspiracy theorists and their belief systems
  • Examine the historical evidence supporting the Apollo moon landings
USEFUL FOR

Individuals interested in space exploration, educators addressing conspiracy theories, and anyone seeking to understand the technical aspects of lunar imaging and the psychology behind belief in hoaxes.

  • #31
There is another type of remnant that we left on the moon. That is, scientific instruments. In particular, there are optical reflectors that are used to reflect lasers aimed from the Earth observatories. This allows accurate distance measurements with precision of a few inches.

In a sense, these are the most visible artifacts on the moon. Of course, it takes very specialized equipment and techniques to make these measurements.

In principle, a skeptical scientist could do the calculations and supervise a measurement. An intelligent person would be able to see that only special high reflectance mirrors designed to direct light back to the source (i.e. corner mirrors) would allow sensitive enough reception of a reflected laser.

Well, the average person doesn't have the clout to be allowed to supervise, but this goes back to what the previos poster (alt) said about observing actions. Why would hoaxters claim to install an observable mirror? Would this not then require that all astronomers at observatories be in on the hoax?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
stevenb said:
There is another type of remnant that we left on the moon. That is, scientific instruments. In particular, there are optical reflectors that are used to reflect lasers aimed from the Earth observatories. This allows accurate distance measurements with precision of a few inches.

In a sense, these are the most visible artifacts on the moon. Of course, it takes very specialized equipment and techniques to make these measurements.

In principle, a skeptical scientist could do the calculations and supervise a measurement. An intelligent person would be able to see that only special high reflectance mirrors designed to direct light back to the source (i.e. corner mirrors) would allow sensitive enough reception of a reflected laser.

Well, the average person doesn't have the clout to be allowed to supervise, but this goes back to what the previos poster (alt) said about observing actions. Why would hoaxters claim to install an observable mirror? Would this not then require that all astronomers at observatories be in on the hoax?

Good point Steven.

I remember that when the lunar lander touched down there was a report that there was a continuous "echo" happening afterwards that was monitored by some of the instruments that were placed. They speculated that he moon was hollow. Since then there's been better information but I've missed most of it. Is the moon hollow? Or is this misinformation as well?
 
  • #33
alt said:
There's an old saying;

"Watch what they do, not what they say"

I find this aphorism to be quite handy - invaluable sometimes, when trying to come to the truth of some matter.

Putting aside all the evidence pro moon landing, it is interesting to ask the question;

"If it was a hoax, OK, fair enough - they did it once. Why though, would they do it again and again and again" ..

Surely they wouldn't push their luck that far ? If they hoaxexd it to beat the Ruskies, or for international prestige, etc, what need was there for them to hoax it repeatedly ?

There's another saying;

"Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"

It is beyond reason, even at the lunatic fringe, that people would believe in multiple, repeated hoaxes. And this, in itself, is a fascinating mystery to me.

Surely the hoax adherents would have had to confront this question. How do they answer it to themselves ? I''ve hunted around web sites recently, trying to find how they answer this question, but can't find much.

Anyone have any idea ?
I'm a non moon landing hoaxer, but anyways, I can find no more reason to actually go to the moon more than once, than I can to hoax it more than once. Also, a good motive would be to get the funding. If it was a hoax, it would actually explain the irrationality of repeated moon trips given the cost associated, and what accomplished, basically bragging rights.
 
  • #34
jreelawg said:
I'm a non moon landing hoaxer, but anyways, I can find no more reason to actually go to the moon more than once, than I can to hoax it more than once. Also, a good motive would be to get the funding. If it was a hoax, it would actually explain the irrationality of repeated moon trips given the cost associated, and what accomplished, basically bragging rights.

Bragging rights ? Don't you think others, China, Russia, etc, would have had the evidence and ability to rain on their parade ? Particularly after multiple such 'hoaxes' ?

(don't tell me - they were in on ot too ?)
 
  • #35
I'm just saying that you aren't going to stump any MLH's with "why would they hoax it more than once?"

The apollo programs ended up costing an estimated 170 billion (2005) dollars. That's quite a motive. If your a MLH'er, and your looking for a motive, money would be a good one. If you consider this as a motive in your plot, then repeated hoaxes would fit. Maybe if you were creative about it, you could throw in some kind of ulterior military motive using the payload, and funding, for a black project. All in all, it would make for a good movie.
 
  • #36
jreelawg said:
I'm just saying that you aren't going to stump any MLH's with "why would they hoax it more than once?"

The apollo programs ended up costing an estimated 170 billion (2005) dollars. That's quite a motive. If your a MLH'er, and your looking for a motive, money would be a good one. If you consider this as a motive in your plot, then repeated hoaxes would fit. Maybe if you were creative about it, you could throw in some kind of ulterior military motive using the payload, and funding, for a black project. All in all, it would make for a good movie.

I see what you're saying. For a moment there, you had me thinking you were on the MLH camp.

$170B in 2005 dollars ? Cheap, compared to the multi billions / trillions farmed out of late.

Well, how do you suppose they get around the proposition that other countries, China and Russia in the main, would have had no motive to keep quite, and every motive to expose the 'fake' moon landings. After all, imagine what prestige THAT would have resulted in, for the country doing the exposing.

How do the MLH's get around that one ? Anyone know ?

PS - I have tried to find some answer to that myself, but haven't been able to, and see it as possibly the most glaring ommission in the MLH's story.
 
  • #37
Moon landing hoax theories are not discussed here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K