Why can't we see the apollo artifacts on the moon?

Question

First off, I personally feel that we did go to the moon and it wasn't a hoax. Whether you agree or not *isn't* what I'm asking simply an objective question about the technical reasons of "why". - - I had to put this in because the last 2 times I asked it turned into an arguement between conspiracy theorists and believers and I didn't get an answer. Ok...

THE QUESTION:

Why is it we can't see the landers and flag and whatnot from the moonlandings. It seems it would be pretty clear cut to end the discussion on whether we went or not to just point a telescope at the moon and say ok at coords X Y Z you can see the lander and tracks and there it is. I find it hard to believe even today our best telescopes don't have the resolution to see even a trace of our landing on the moon. So whats the deal?

Answer 1

  They are simply too small to be resolved by present technology.

Answer 2

I too believe we went to the moon, however, to those who claim we don't have the technology to see things that small on the moon is bogus.  We have had at least 2 satellites orbiting the moon capable of 80 cm/pixel resolution(the same as google earth): Japan's Kaguya spacecraft, aka Selene and China's Chang'e 1.  Unfortunately, the only one of them has found any evidence left behind by the Apollo mission.  The Selene satellite found possible evidence of Apollo 15's engine "halo".

Read about it here: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/...

Answer 3

Size and distance.

The hubble telescope, when pointed at the moon, has a single pixel size resolution of about the size of a football field.  Think about that...  one pixel of color, is representative of a surface area of a football field.  The artifacts left behind, are all considerably smaller than this.  

Yes, there are more powerful telescopes on earth, but to be able to find something the size of a flag or a lander with these magnification optics...  still impossible!

Think about it this way...  why can't you see a bumble bee that's 7 and a half miles away?  Even with your glasses on!  The same issues with optics apply.

I suppose you could send a probe to the moon, to photograph the landing site, but the only people that don't believe we landed in the first place are all going to claim that that mission was a hoax as well.  So really, what would be the point in that?  Unless you physically uproot every single skeptic, put them on a ship, and sent them to the moon, there will always be one person who will claim "hoax."

Answer 4

I've been wondering that too. I would think the hubble telescope would be able to focus on the landing site and we could all be done with this discussion once and for all. We should be able to see the shadow of the flag at least.Good question.

Answer 5

With respect, how hard you find it to believe is beside the point. There is an inviolate physical limit on the resolving power of a telescope, which is determined by its aperture and the wavelength of light. The artifacts on the Moon are at best the size of a small truck. The tracks go on for miles but are only inches wide. And all of these are over a quarter of a million miles away.

If you do the relevant calculations you find that in order to just *see* the largest items on the Moon (the lunar module descent stages), you need a telescope over 200m across. To be able to see what they actually *are* you need a telescope on the order of a couple of kilometres across. No such telescope exists, and it is doubtful such telescopes could even be built.

Think of it this way: with a decent pair of binoculars you can see houses a few miles away and make out the windows, but you can't see the ants crawling up the walls. In terms of size and distance, seeing an ant a few miles away would actually be easier than seeing the lunar landers on the Moon.

Answer 6

i don't think it's so much that we can't, but more that we can't be bothered to. Those people that claim hoaxes about NASA and the moon landings are pretty much unimportant to NASA. As it takes a great amount of energy to focus and use the Hubble, it's easier just to ignore the critics and get on with the job.

ALSO, the Hubble would be more than powerful enough to see those objects.

Answer 7

Your right... it would give us some clear proof that the moon landing was real, but unfortunately, its impossible to do with the current technology. And even if we did get the technology, why would the government waste the time proving something that obviously happened?

As you know, the Hubble telescope is the most powerful telescope currently in use. It can see galaxies billions of light years away, but it does not have clear enough resolution to see things like the flag on the moon... even if it did, it would still be next to impossible. Here's the reason why:

If you get the specks on the Hubble and do the math, you get the figure that it has about the resolution of a football field. This means that for every pixel there is in one of the pictures, the equivalent area on the moon is about the size of a football field. And unfortunately, none of the artifacts left were even close to that size. Although many find it hard to believe, it is true.

Okay, you can see a tree clearly a mile away, right? Yes, the tree is easy to see because it is large. Lets pretend the mile is the distance from the Earth to the moon, the tree is a crater on the moon, and the moon's is Central Park. Okay, so far no problem viewing the tree. But someone drops a penny... from a mile away, could you spot a penny in Central Park? Of course not. This is the same problem the Hubble has. You don't have enough resolution to clearly make out the penny.

Here's another problem. This has to do with the flag specifically. All astronauts that planted the flag agreed that it was very hard to do on the moon's surface. Neil Armstrong said that when they left, it was barely holding on. The flag could have very well been blown away by the thrust from the lunar module's takeoff. So the flag probably isn't where it was to begin with.

And last but not least, the "moon-hoaxers" wouldn't believe it. They would say "Well we just put it there later." or "We sent it up in a rocket later on... it doesn't prove anything." They are that ignorant... no piece of evidence is great enough for these people.

Answer 8

As answered by others, current telescopes don't have the necessary resolution.

However I also have to point out that even there were new pictures, they probably would only convince a very small part of the Hoaxers (they dismiss all the existing documentation based on their willful ignorance)

Those who promote the Hoaxtheory don't care about facts, they just repeat their stupid claims without any regard to the counterarguments.

Just look around here, those in favour of a Hoax still come up with "radiation", "waving flag" etc.

Answer 9

You don`t need to look at the moon. When Neil and Buzz where on the moon they were transmitting continually this would not have been possible if they had been in orbit as their signal would have been lost when they were behind the moon. The moon landings could not have been faked for this simple reason.

Answer 10

There are no telescopes powerful enough to see such a small object so far away.

Answer 11

They can see one of the Apollo artifacts. The artifact is a reflector. When a laser from earth beams to the moon onto the reflector, the beam comes straight back to its source.