Man Has Never Set Foot on Moon

Have we been to the moon?

  • Of course not.

    Votes: 26 13.1%

  • Of course so.

    Votes: 173 86.9%
  • Total voters
    199
Originally posted by Prosoothus
Janus58,

Instead of increasing the size of the lense in the satellite to get a higher resolution, why not just increase the chemical density of the photo film and then just enlarge the picture until the correct resolution is achieved?

Tom
Click to expand...

The resolution is determined by the opitical limits of the lens system, not the graininess of the film(except in those cases where the film resolution is already less than the opitical resolution.)

No lens can focus to a perfect mathematical point. The focus is always spread over a small region called the "Airy disk". This limits the resolution. Larger apertures are needed to reduce this effect.

Increasing the density of the film would just mean that the Airy disk would encompass more grains in the film, without increasing the resolution of the image.
 
The Lunar Module's descent stage measures 31 feet across the landing gear. That's the widest measurement. The mean lunar distance is around 239,000 miles, I think.

Now, (2 * π * 239,000)/ 1,296,000 = ~1.16 arcseconds per mile at the lunar distance. Making the Lunar Module's descent stage: (31 / 5,280) * 1.16 ≈ 0.0068 arcseconds in angular subtension.

Now, how big a primary mirror/lens would you need in order to get that kind of resolution?

Instead of increasing the size of the lense in the satellite to get a higher resolution, why not just increase the chemical density of the photo film and then just enlarge the picture until the correct resolution is achieved?

I think the maximum resolution that you'll receive is only as much as the optics will let you.

It's all a bit silly anyway. Even if the US government did have the required optics in their spy satellites, why would they be trusted by moon hoaxers to give unaltered images? These are the same people who they're accusing of faking the moon landings.
 
the film particles or CCDs can not be effective if they are smaller the size of the light wave (usually below 700nm, depending on color)
 
I spotted an error in my previous post. It unfortunately compounded to make both calculations invalid.

Where I wrote "arcseconds per mile", it should obviously be miles per arcsecond. That makes the real value for arcseconds per mile the reciprocal of 1.16. Or roughly 0.86.

This makes the more accurate calculation for the angular subension of the Lunar Modules' descent stages to be around 0.005 arcseconds.

I think that the Hubble Space Telescope is limited to around half an arcsecond in resolution. Two orders of magnitude difference. If I understand correctly, you'll need a mirror a hundred times larger than HST's to resolve the largest of Apollo remnants. I think Hubble's mirror is around ninety six inches in diameter, or eight feet. Meaning you'd require a telescope with a mirror eight hundred feet in diameter.
 
I wish the US didn't go the moon. So much money just to go to the moon and back

I'm saddened to think that, with all the money my own country's government has wasted on socialist programmes, we could have gone to the moon. :D

Seriously, the money spent on the Apollo programme had numerous pay-offs beyond just having been able to go to the moon.
 
hey this war on iraq costed us enough money to go to mars and back 3 times!

Ground based multiple interferometer telescopes (to be complete before 2007) could pick out the Landers on the moon.
 
Originally posted by BrainWithAGun
I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive. Plus the fact that our government lies constantly (Roswell, Area 51, etc.). Is it possible that I am wrong? Ehh, maybe, but probobly not.
Click to expand...
There are 800 pounds of moon rock that would like to have a word with you.

If that's not enough to penetrate the tinfoil temple your head is camped inside of, how do you explain the reference mirror that we use, to this day, to measure the distance to the moon for tidal forecasting?
 
Yeah, reference that instead of bringing up in the mirror argument. An unmanned mission could have put that there easily, and it isn't conclusive proof that we've put a man on the moon. But there's plenty of other proof, and hordes of refuting to do with the hoax theory.

Once you show that the technology is present, and that the hoax theory isn't plausible, it's really hard to deny the truth.

I do have an open mind, though. I might consider the hoax theory should I be presented with a single piece of evidence supporting it. So far, I've yet to see anything that couldn't be explained away. Nothing at all has suggested a conspiracy.

But, if one has undeniable proof, I'll hear him out.

Go on, someone take me up on the offer. :)
 
I just have a few questions about this:

1.How many times have man gone to the moon after 1969?
2.If none or very few, why?
3.And how come you never hear about people today going to the moon, If we could do it in the 60's there shouldnt really be a big problem doing it today right?
 
1.How many times have man gone to the moon after 1969?

Four manned lunar landings occured after 1969.

2.If none or very few, why?

Do you consider four to be very few?

3.And how come you never hear about people today going to the moon, If we could do it in the 60's there shouldnt really be a big problem doing it today right?

It would be possible, if the venture could be funded. I wouldn't say that it would be "easy."
 
We don't see people going to the moon any more because it cost 1 billion dollars a shot! And with today’s space technology it still cost that much because so little development has happened over the last decades because no one is willing to put up the money!
 
http://www.clavius.org

To help you see the truth.

As I mentioned earlier, the Clavius site is extremely good. There are none better at debunking the so-called "theories" that suggest that the moon landings were faked, or the "record" was.

Yeah, reference that instead of bringing up in the mirror argument. An unmanned mission could have put that there easily, and it isn't conclusive proof that we've put a man on the moon.

Indeed. Like I said earlier in the thread, the Russians did deploy such a device at least once -- on Lunokhod 1.
 
We don't see people going to the moon any more because it cost 1 billion dollars a shot!

The Apollo programme cost twenty five billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that's around eighty billion dollars in today's money.

If another similar programme were started these days, the cost would likely be similar, and the development time longer.
 
Everywhere I go I see these moon hoax threads. Sure, the moon shot was a money pit but I think it happened. It would be too huge a conspiracy to pull off. Conspiracy topics sure are popular though. I think this board has the right idea. They've put conspiracy into its own little corner. http://www.spacemessageboard.com
Thats the new space board for SpaceDaily.com. The poll here was 61 to 13 when I checked just now. Thats a high rate of moon hoaxers. I wonder what fuels this cynicism. I wouldn't put it past the US government or any government for that matter to mislead people but I don't think they have the brains to pull off a global conspiracy of this magnitude. Come on. These are politicians we are talking about. They can't even keep their pants on through a single term as a general rule. Russia, the US and Britain and Australia would have had to be in on it. Give me a break. We can't even all agree on a currency or which side of the street to drive on or what form of measurement to make standard. Colluding on a moon landing and keeping it quiet for over 30 years without assasinating hundreds of people. Riiiiiiight!!!
 
I think this board has the right idea. They've put conspiracy into its own little corner. http://www.spacemessageboard.com

And here: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/index.php

There is a lively discussion board dedicated to alleged lunar conspiracies. You don't find many moon hoaxers there. However, there is a lot of reasoned discussion of the "theories" and many of the posters are scientists and engineers.

I wonder what fuels this cynicism.

Ignorance. Stupidity.
 
Oh wow. Phil Plait actually posts there. I saw a link to that at the Space Science category of space message board while I was perusing it but hadn't checked it out yet. I see he posts as the bad astronomer too. Cool. That's duly bookmarked. I love his wry sense of humour. We should just go steal his replies to moon hoax conspiracy claimants and post them whenever the topic surfaces. It would be better to delete them though. They are only after exposure. Every thread you see with """Moon Hoax"""" all over it is intended to register a response and provoke arguments. They want to see this topic talked about aas frequently as possible everywhere so it shows up in search engines and they gain more followers from the ignorant masses.
 
Ok thanks for all the answers, but one other thing that I can't really understand is how the astronauts could resist the radiation from the Van Allen Belt with the little protection they had?

And does anyone have any link to a site that shows the 4 latest manned moonlandnings, I only seem to find pictures of the first one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top