Can we view NASA Apollo artifacts on the Moon?

[BigD30]

I realize this topic has been resurrected and debated over for over 30 years now... but I have a question for you, nonetheless. I have absolutely NO doubts concerning the 1969 and all other subsequent trips to the moon by NASA. In my mind, to make these events a ‘hoaxed’ phenomenon is more logistically improbable than actually doing it in the first place.

My question is this… is it possible to view the NASA artifacts (i.e. the left over lunar lander vehicles, the lunar rovers, anything left behind by astronauts when returning home to Earth) from Earth-based telescopes? Can a casual amateur astronomer view these things using a reasonably competent scope, or were these landings made on a side of the moon not directly visible to us? I assume it is the latter… they probably wanted to land on a side that wasn’t so brilliantly lit by the direct sun.

What a wonderful thing it would be to look through a telescope, see the NASA artifacts with our own eyes, and make the conspiracy theorists eat crow! But alas, the artifacts may be out of our view here on Earth… I’m not sure.

Thank you for your time!

[pldennison]

Nope.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Welcome to the boards BigD30.

Please note that a question like this more appropriately belongs in General Questions then in Great Debates.

That aside the link pldennison provided helps. In addition, try to think of it like this:

Ever see spy plane or spy satellite photos? Everything on the ground is still fairly dinky and usually only identifiable to trained photo intelligence experts. Granted the cameras used in these instruments are not equivalent to a full-blown observatory but then again they are a helluva lot closer (and don't knock the optics in a spy satellite...they are first rate and still quite powerful in their own right). Maybe 10-15 miles up for a plane and 50(?) or so miles for a satellite (or less or more...I don't know how far up they actually are).

Now try and compare that to seeing what amounts to a car on the moon which is some 239,000 miles away (give or take). I don't think anything we have could discern something so small that far away. Certainly nothing your average Joe is likely to have in his.

...were these landings made on a side of the moon not directly visible to us?

The moon always points the same face towards the earth (hence some of the mystique surrounding the 'Dark Side of the Moon'). Unless the astronauts landed on the dark side of the moon (which they didn't) they'd be on the side facing the earth.

[jab1]

Oh, well....

On this page, it says that the Hubble space Telescope "can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."

On this page, it says that the bottom half of a Lunar Module, the biggest piece of equipment left behind on any Apollo mission, was only 9.4 meters wide. 9.4 meters is less than 31 feet, so the biggest thing left behind is WAY too small to be seen even by our best telescope.

Besides, even if you could see it, some idiot would say, "Prove to me it wasn't sent there by an unmanned rocket."

[SPOOFE]

Besides, even if you could see it, some idiot would say, "Prove to me it wasn't sent there by an unmanned rocket."

Or they'd simply say that the photos were doctored. You have good intentions, BigD, but alas, some people just can't be convinced, ever.

[sailor]

>> Unless the astronauts landed on the dark side of the moon (which they didn't) they'd be on the side facing the earth

Whack-a-Mole, I hope a moment's thought will make you realise this is nonsense. The moon has no "dark side" that I now of. Or do you know something that I don't.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I would imagine that the inside is quite dark.

[BigD30]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I'm admittedly not an expert on viewing the Moon. And yes, I realize the remaining NASA Apollo artifacts are very small (especially at 230,000+ miles from Earth).

I have never doubted NASA and the Apollo program. It has been too well documented and the whole world was watching the progress as it happened (including the Russians who would have immediately reported if we were 'faking' by conducting an Earth orbit & nothing else).

I think it would be really cool in the near future if NASA utilized some of today's technology and launched some un-manned, solar-powered Web cams to the various sites of historic import so that the world could view live Web-casts of the various craft. I was too young to remember the last Apollo flights (since I was born in August of 1971).

Anyway... as you can tell, I'm a 'dreamer'. I'm hopeful that some day we (America) will return to the moon. With our current technology and knowledge, we could take exploration there to the next level.

[Santos L Halper]

Originally posted by sailor
The moon has no "dark side" that I now of. Or do you know something that I don't.

Sure it's got a dark side, it's whichever side isn't currently facing the Sun (the Earth's got a dark side too). It's true, however, that there isn't one particular side, it changes as the Moon orbits the Earth.

What Whack-a-Mole is thinking of is the far side of the Moon (I.E. the side not facing the Earth). You're right, all of the Apollo missions landed on the near side.

Eric

[Koxinga]

Isn't there a mirror left behind on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions that scientists can still bounce a laser off of? I had thought that they were still making precise measurements of the distance to the Moon using this method.

Not the same as viewing the stuff directly, but it would be evidence we were there, nonetheless.

[Mangetout]

Can the hubble telescope focus on objects as close as the moon anyway?

Note to NASA:
When you next visit the moon, take a large quantity of white paint and (in enormous letters, each a mile or two across) write "See, I told you we were here"

[SPOOFE]

Note to NASA:
When you next visit the moon, take a large quantity of white paint and (in enormous letters, each a mile or two across) write "See, I told you we were here"

Last I heard, NASA has no plans in the near future for a return to the Moon. The Chinese, however, do (although that may change).

[Mangetout]

Actually easier than paint would be to make the letters out of some very thin plastic, maybe coated with metal to make it reflective, the astronauts could just roll it out (there's no wind to worry about.

[BigD30]

It really is a shame that 30 years have passed, and the whole Moon landing is becoming 'ancient' history. Every time I look at the Moon, I am filled with a sense of awe that twelve human beings walked there once (and also a sense of sober realization at the loss of life in achieving that goal... Apollo 1 and all other related accidents or incidents).

I do like the idea of rolling out the giant letters so that people on Earth can finally have proof... maybe even unfurl the largest American flag on the surface with the words, "WE WERE HERE FIRST... NOW DO YOU BELIEVE US?"

Oh well. These astronauts and the men/women behind them who made the voyage possible should never be forgotten.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by BigD30
I do like the idea of rolling out the giant letters so that people on Earth can finally have proof... maybe even unfurl the largest American flag on the surface with the words, "WE WERE HERE FIRST... NOW DO YOU BELIEVE US?"
[/b]

I'm afraid I'd have a hard time resisting the temptation to simply put CHA.

Maybe we should send all the skeptics to the moon?

[kingpengvin]

I always feel queasy whenever the "moon landing was a hoax" people are referred to as skeptics. I know that is the correct terminology but I prefer my skeptics with a little more rationalism and a lot more brains rather than conspiracy minded wing nuts.

PS We never discovered North America, that was a hoax and we are all still living in Europe.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by kingpengvin
[PS We never discovered North America, that was a hoax and we are all still living in Europe. [/b]

Wait, let me check outside my window -- black cabs, double decker buses, Big Ben....nope, looks like Nebraska to me.

I do think it is a shame that we seem to have lost our sense of wonder about space travel. I can remember when they used to televise space shuttle launches on a regular basis, and people would watch them. <sigh>

[kingpengvin]

I know what you mean. Shuttle missions have become so common place that people forget what an extraordinary effort is being put forth to set up a space station. Perhaps NASA has to become the showmen again to get the funds by planning a greater and more spectacular mission. That was what Mars was supposed to be.

PS For those who think they came from Asia Africa, Australia, or Antarctica they are fooled as well. There are only three continents. South America, Europe and Atlantis.

[KeithB]

In My Webster's New World the third definition for "dark" is: "hidden"

In Random House's Webster Unabridged it is the *13th* def'n.

My point is that calling it the "dark side of the Moon" is the same as saying "darkest Africa."

(Can you tell that I had a physics teacher in high school correct me for using "dark side of the moon"?

[jab1]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Isn't there a mirror left behind on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions that scientists can still bounce a laser off of? I had thought that they were still making precise measurements of the distance to the Moon using this method.

Yes, indeedy. It was left behind by Apollo 11. The McDonald Observatory in West Texas still uses it.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by KeithB
In My Webster's New World the third definition for "dark" is: "hidden"

In Random House's Webster Unabridged it is the *13th* def'n.

My point is that calling it the "dark side of the Moon" is the same as saying "darkest Africa."

I get this question/answer a lot, but I disagree. Dark means unlit by the Sun in this case, and no semantic dodging will change that.

The Moon has a dark side, but it's not a permanent one, any more than the Earth's. When the Moon is new the dark side faces us; when it's full the dark side is also the far side.

And need I mention it? http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html. ;-)

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by KeithB
In My Webster's New World the third definition for "dark" is: "hidden"

In Random House's Webster Unabridged it is the *13th* def'n.

My point is that calling it the "dark side of the Moon" is the same as saying "darkest Africa."

I get this question/answer a lot, but I disagree. Dark means unlit by the Sun in this case, and no semantic dodging will change that.

The Moon has a dark side, but it's not a permanent one, any more than the Earth's. When the Moon is new the dark side faces us; when it's full the dark side is also the far side.

And need I mention it? http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html. ;-)

[ITR champion]

The OP asked whether a casual amateur astronomer could see the artifacts left on the moon. I have an 8 and 1/2 inch reflector. At highest magnification, the smallest objects that I can see are craters between 10 and 20 miles across. So to answer the OP: no.

[KeithB]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer

I get this question/answer a lot, but I disagree. Dark means unlit by the Sun in this case, and no semantic dodging will change that.

The Moon has a dark side, but it's not a permanent one, any more than the Earth's. When the Moon is new the dark side faces us; when it's full the dark side is also the far side.

Why does it mean "unlit by the Sun in this case"? Africa is lit by the Sun, too, but "darkest Africa" means hidden Africa. I admit that the usage is pretty much restricted to Warner Bros. cartoons, but at what point does "dark side of the moon" become an idiom for the far side?

[Snickers]

Mangetout - yes, Hubble can (and has!) provided us with images of the Moon. The problem is that it's very difficult. Because of the speed at which the Moon is moving, Hubble has to constantly adjust to keep it in view. Thus, the images that have been taken of the Moon with Hubble aren't at Hubble's maximum theoretical resolution for the Moon and are "blurry." (I've seen them - they're not blurred, it's just that they're not as good as they could be due to the Moon's speed. Or something. I thought they looked great.) So it can be done - indeed, I think they did it just to see if they could!

Snicks

[jab1]

Hubble Shoots the Moon

[SPOOFE]

I know what you mean. Shuttle missions have become so common place that people forget what an extraordinary effort is being put forth to set up a space station. Perhaps NASA has to become the showmen again to get the funds by planning a greater and more spectacular mission.

Maybe they should put large-breasted, naked women in space. I'd watch THAT!

Dark means unlit by the Sun in this case, and no semantic dodging will change that.

It's commonly referred to as "the dark side" because it's so evil... I mean, because it's just easier that way. Commonality is the key here.

Or are you saying that you don't understand what people are actually referring to when they say "dark side of the moon"? (Aside from a Pink Floyd album, of course)

[Koxinga]

Now hold on. The link provided by jab1 says that Hubble can discern features as small as 600 feet across. Maybe the Apollo lander itself is too small to see under these circumstances, but what about the disturbance in the lunar soil made by the top half of the lander blasting off? Could Hubble see this kind of evidence of Apollo?

[Koxinga]

Heck, I understated my own case. At the bottom of the page it says that in close up, Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across--less than the length of a football field.

[SPOOFE]

what about the disturbance in the lunar soil made by the top half of the lander blasting off? Could Hubble see this kind of evidence of Apollo?

Even though all the traces would still be undisturbed in the vacuum of space, I doubt that the vast majority of the blast ring of the Lander's blast-off would be indistinguishable from the rest of the lunar surface.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally posted by jab1

Yes, indeedy. It was left behind by Apollo 11. The McDonald Observatory in West Texas still uses it.

I hate to show just how little I know about all this stuff, but won't an accumulation of dust build up on the mirror, eventually making it worthless? Or is the accumulation so slow that it doesn't matter for any practical purposes? Or does it accumulate at all?

[tracer]

jr8 wrote:

I'm afraid I'd have a hard time resisting the temptation to simply put CHA.

If you did, you just know someone would send up a special mission to erase the C.

[Munch]

Originally posted by LonesomePolecat

I hate to show just how little I know about all this stuff, but won't an accumulation of dust build up on the mirror, eventually making it worthless? Or is the accumulation so slow that it doesn't matter for any practical purposes? Or does it accumulate at all?

You could always put a little fan next to it...

[jab1]

I don't know how long it takes dust to accumulate on the Moon's surface, but I'm sure it takes a VERY long time without any atmosphere to blow it around. What dust there is comes from tiny meteors hitting the surface and pulverising the rocks and scattering the resulting debris around. The fact that the McDonald Observatory is still using the mirror* 32 years after it was placed up there shows that the rate of accumulation must be very low.

*It's actually a collection of prisms designed to reflect light 180 degrees so that it goes back to its origin no matter the angle of illumination. IOW, the laser pulse will go right back to the observatory no matter where in the sky the Moon happens to be. Here's a picture of it. Compare the size of the footprints around it; it's about the size of a suitcase. (I hope to find a better photo.)

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Munch

You could always put a little fan next to it...

*Sigh* . . . Bad Astronomer, where are you?

[jab1]

I'm sure Munch was joking about the fan.

[Irishman]

Yes, it has been noted that no optical telescopes can see moon artifacts. However, the other thread failed to mention the many amateur HAM radio operators who tracked the Apollo missions real-time. So while optical tracking wasn't possible, radio tracking was. And we're not just talking professionals, this is astronomy and radio hobbiests from around the world.

Whack-a-Mole said:

The moon always points the same face towards the earth (hence some of the mystique surrounding the 'Dark Side of the Moon'). Unless the astronauts landed on the dark side of the moon (which they didn't) they'd be on the side facing the earth.

In this phrasing, the "dark = hidden" argument is wrong. Because he'd be stating a tautology. So he's talking about sunlight - ergo, "dark side of the moon" is an error.

jr8 - CHA?

KeithB said:

My point is that calling it the "dark side of the Moon" is the same as saying "darkest Africa."

I suppose someone could make that type of phrasing. That seems an antiquated and awkward turn of phrase to me, but I will accept it as a possibility. So you have to look at each case, and what the person actually says. In most cases, the word dark is referring to sunlight by the context of what they say.

LonesomePolecat said:

I hate to show just how little I know about all this stuff, but won't an accumulation of dust build up on the mirror, eventually making it worthless? Or is the accumulation so slow that it doesn't matter for any practical purposes? Or does it accumulate at all?

It's not an issue. Remember, the moon has no atmosphere. There is very little to disturb the dust (only meteoroid impacts) and nothing to carry the dust around. It's not like Mars where there is a thin atmosphere that can move dust and dirt. So for all practical purposes, there is no dust accumulation.

[Icerigger]

One day someone will send a lunar obiter to map the surface at high resolution like the Landsat program, and I am sure the Apollo landing areas will be photographed at high resolution. A moon rover could travel to the appropriate places take pictures as well.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Irishman
jr8 - CHA?

It's a reference to the comic book /cartoon The Tick, in which the villain Chairface Chippendale attempts to write his name on the moon with a big laser but is interrupted by the Tick, leaving the letters "CHA" clearly visible, much to the mystification of the rest of the world.

When the Tick later attempts to erase the letters from the Moon, he succeeds in eradicating the "C" but leads Omnipotus to Earth, who takes a hefty bite out of the side of the Moon.

We now return you to reality.

[SPOOFE]

In this phrasing, the "dark = hidden" argument is wrong. Because he'd be stating a tautology. So he's talking about sunlight - ergo, "dark side of the moon" is an error.

Considering that he TWICE mentioned sides facing towards/away from Earth, I think it was clear that he was not, in fact, referring to sunlight. Not once did he mention the lighting of the Moon (aside from the popular phrase "dark side of the Moon").

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
*Sigh* . . . Bad Astronomer, where are you?

I'm lurking around here someplace. Anyway, the fan thing was a joke. I laughed, at least.

[jab1]

Originally posted by jr8

It's a reference to the comic book /cartoon The Tick...

And which will be a live-action series starring Patrick Warburton on FOX this fall.