Why haven't we launched any artificial satellites that orbit the Moon?

[Curiousity28]

I would've thought something like that would be do-able given we've landed on the moon, but also quite useful for discovering more about it.

 

[Phrak]

It's doable and has been done to map the moon.

 

[negitron]

You mean like http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10270929-239.html we launched last month?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Not only has it been done, it was done 43 years ago. The Soviet Luna 10 probe made a couple hundred orbits before contact was lost. It may still be up there.

 

[Creator]

I would've thought something like that would be do-able given we've landed on the moon, but also quite useful for discovering more about it.

Where have you been for the last 40 years, Curiosity?

After MANY failures, Luna 10 (1966) was the first to orbit the moon...
Like Negitron said; the latest one is the LRO...


See here for a more complete list:
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/everything/moon/missions.html

Creator

 

[seasnake]

Yesterday I watched a program that questioned whether man actually went to the moon, or whether it was all faked. The program said that the Chinese (I think it was the Chinese, could be wrong on this) were launching a satellite program that would take close up photos of the surface of the moon. The interesting thing about the program was that it stated that the range rover, flag, and other equipment that the Apollo Mission left upon the surface of the moon should still be there if man really did land on the moon, and that if such equipment is there, then it should all be able to be varified by looking at it from space (we don't have anything powerful enough yet to see any of it from Earth).

 

[Pengwuino]

Yesterday I watched a program that questioned whether man actually went to the moon, or whether it was all faked. The program said that the Chinese (I think it was the Chinese, could be wrong on this) were launching a satellite program that would take close up photos of the surface of the moon. The interesting thing about the program was that it stated that the range rover, flag, and other equipment that the Apollo Mission left upon the surface of the moon should still be there if man really did land on the moon, and that if such equipment is there, then it should all be able to be varified by looking at it from space (we don't have anything powerful enough yet to see any of it from Earth).

Good timing to have seen that program because...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325687

 

[russ_watters]

The interesting thing about the program was that it stated that the range rover, flag, and other equipment that the Apollo Mission left upon the surface of the moon should still be there if man really did land on the moon, and that if such equipment is there, then it should all be able to be varified by looking at it from space (we don't have anything powerful enough yet to see any of it from Earth).

If hoaxsters believe the photos taken by astronauts on the moon were faked, what possible reason would they have for believing that new photos of lower quality taken by satellites were not faked?

The faith of the moon hoax crackpot is total, so there really isn't anything to be gained by discussing such things. This is why the moon hoax hoax is not an acceptable topic for discussion here.