Have we been on the Moon ?

[Romans828]

I believe some of the forum members here are still on the moon, cause they can't be from the same planet I am on.........

 

[Siddhartha]

Sure, why not?

 

[ReiAyanami]

Yes, and furthermore. It is made entirely of cheese.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: DeathwatchGuard

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
3.)there is tape of a faked moon landing that the US made just in case;

I can't say I've ever seen that one, nor heard of it. Could you provide a link?

Originally posted by: B00ne
If ppl dont believe in the moon landing, why dont they just take a good telescope and look for the landers or ask Nasa to make a close up from the flag with hubble.

It'd be a waste of time spent using Hubble. Plus I don't even think Hubble can see that detailed that far away.

The SMART-1 lunar probe that's due to arrive in lunar orbit in a year might be able to see that close up.

ROFL! I do hope you meant Hubble can't see that detailed that close up, not that far away...
1st Hubble is in the orbit meaning the atmosphere doesn't interfere(not to mention the pollution)
2nd it's quite capable of scaning the known universe in numerous spectra and different ways...
I'm sure there's a way it could quite precisely scan the Moon's surface...

Either way, the moon also moves to quickly for the Hubble to snap a decent picture of our 'junk.'

 

[MonstaThrilla]

The Hubble talk is moot. During one of the Apollo missions, they placed a large reflecting mirror on the Moon. Scientists around the world have shot laser beams at it and the beams have bounced back. They would have not bounced back due to any natural materials on the Moon...

 

[tritium4ever]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Either way, the moon also moves to quickly for the Hubble to snap a decent picture of our 'junk.'

Sounds reasonable, but unfortunately that isn't true. It is correct that Hubble cannot track the moon fast enough to get a shot. However, it doesn't need to! The moon is bright...so much so that it takes a very short exposure to capture the moon. Hubble's controllers merely point the telescope ahead of the position of the moon and wait until it drifts into the field of view, then it takes the image! It's well within Hubble's capabilities, and it has already been done before.

Note that I'm talking about taking images of the moon, not of the stuff that humans have landed on it (which I will take as a given, despite the topic of this thread). Nothing in lower Earth orbit or on the ground has the angular resolution to image something that small. It would be possible if NASA had a satellite similar to the Mars Global Surveyor (the MGS has a camera capable of producing 0.7m resolution), but the lander was about 8 metres across and thus would only be a 11-pixel blur if such a camera were in orbit around the moon. Don't expect to see the stars and stripes, cause that ain't gonna happen.

So you might ask, where are all the spectacular images of the moon taken by Hubble? Easy: there are no spectacular images. Unfortunately Hubble flies about 400,000km away from the moon, and at that distance Hubble actually does no better than large ground-based telescopes! It also does worse than the satellites NASA has orbiting the moon, far closer than Hubble. Because of those reasons, it's a waste of precious time and money to take images of the moon with Hubble.

Yet another myth debunked. There's my scientific contribution for today.

 

[Unheard]

This site was done to debunk that Fox TV special. It has quite a bit of good information for those who care. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: AntaresVI
Why do Europeans (especially non-native English speakers) put spaces before punctuation? Honest question.

Everyone in the U.S (and continental Europe, and the rest of the planet outside the U.K.) is a "non-native English speaker"...or did you forget that "English" comes from England?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Witling
This thread's enough to frost one's potatoes. Ignoring the ignorance of the very first post, LordMagnusKain's name has to be put into the running for stupid entries. It reads:

"1.) the waving of the American flag as placed on the moon does not fit with moon physics;

2.) the radiation belt around the earth, that earth orbiting craft don't pass, wasn't properly shielded against.

3.)there is tape of a faked moon landing that the US made just in case;"

1. The treatment of the American flag was extensively discussed in 1969. They knew the flag wouldn't display so they provided a wire to make it stand out from the pole. Do you have any evidence of the flag "waving" as opposed to just standing out from the pole?

2. Earth orbiting craft can't pass the radiation belt. Where did you get this one? You're looking at shots of Mars every day that came from two craft that passed the radiation belt. Or did you mean humans can't pass it? Radiation doesn't kill instantly unless it is massive. The earth's radiation field isn't strong enough to cause sudden death.

3. Faked moon landing tape? Of course, you have no proof, correct?

By the way, "photos" taken by Hubble wouldn't be definitive for conspiracy theorists. If we could fake the initial landing, how much easier to fake photos by Hubble.

Not only would you have to get the astronauts in on the fake, but you'd have to get all the NASA people who handled the transmissions and the people at the ground stations receiving the transmissions in on the fake.

Get a life!

1. The treatment of the American flag was extensively discussed in 1969. They knew the flag wouldn't display so they provided a wire to make it stand out from the pole. Do you have any evidence of the flag "waving" as opposed to just standing out from the pole?

Maybe the basis for this claim is the early promo for MTV. The flag on the moon was waving all over the place, there.