…And if so, are there telescopes powerful enough that it would be visible? I’m just wondering if that would be a way to prove to the deniers that we’ve actually landed there.
That wouldn’t prove anything to them. That’s the thing with crazy people.
From this earlier thread:
And further in the thread, “no”, there is no telescope on Earth powerful enough to show what remains of the flag. And the Hubble couldn’t see it, either.
What there IS still on the Moon that we can readily detect is a corner cube array used to reflect laser light for making precise measurements of the Moon’s distance from us. That ought to be proof enough for any reasonable person. Unfortunately that leaves out most of the whackjob deniers.
There’s NO flag on the moon!
I stopped by there in late '74 and took all six.
What about the footprints? Are they still there?
They should be. There’s no mechanism for obliterating them in such a short time. The Clementine spacecraft took photos of the area where one of the moon landings occurred, and (if you have a good imagination) you can see for yourself: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
Very good to know. Thanks, everyone.
I think “storms” might be a bit of a stretch…
Ooh, ooh! I’ll give you $54 for the Apollo 17 flag! Pleeeeeeeease!
There are six LEM landing stages on the Moon, not to mention three Surveyor soft landers. But facts have never stopped a good crazy conspiracy fantasy.
Well, duh. How you gonna prove that those artifacts are on the moon, and not on some sound stage in Nevada?
No? We can read a headline in a newspaper from space, but we can’t see the LEM on the Moon? :dubious:
Because a telescope can’t see through the walls and roofs of a sound stage.
Telescopes reading headlines on your front porch, if such exist, are orbiting a hundred miles up. The moon, on the other hand is a quarter million miles away. So, were the headline on the newspaper story true, the telescope that would see the Moon Lander would be looking twenty five thousand times as far.
You can see a quarter, well enough to read heads or tails at ten feet, if you see really well. How well do you suppose you would do calling heads or tails for a quarter on the Washington Monument, if you were looking from Miami?
I think you’re misremembering by five years Mr. Griffith .
And two golf balls
In impossible lies.
Regardless of whether we can or can’t read a newspaper headline from space, the fact is that space is not very far away at all
As Fred Hoyle once said, it’s only an hour’s drive away, if your car could go straight upwards. The moon, on the other hand, would take you five months to drive to
Cool link, but ugh - wouldn’t you think a “Senior Space Writer” would know the difference between “pouring” and “poring”?
Nitpick: 2,500 times as far.
They send probes to all the planets, and beyond. They land probes on some planets and moons. We have many satellites orbiting the earth. They want to make a moon base, yet nobody sends a satellite to orbit the moon. Wouldn’t it be easier to set up satellites orbiting the moon before all the different countries try to set up a moon base? We should be able to learn stuff from a satellite orbiting the moon, and have great quality pictures of the topography. Not even a European attempt has been made, and they rub Nasa’s nose in their accomplishments when they can. They are the space agencies of Earth, so you know who they are.
For the it isn’t much of a storm, I have to say it has been ocuring for 30 some years since the landings.