So we did go to the moon?

[avgas]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club.

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.

1) I pointed out earlier.
2) IS THE VERY GOOD POINT I WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER.........So you win the prize.......
3) Relates to 2.......so you also win the bonus round.........
4) Irrelevant, we have photos of things moving much faster. The moons speed is relative to where you are in context to it.

Every body green rep this guy - he has a clue.

[awa355]

\\\Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club.

Thirdly\\\\

Rover Club ???? British Leyland ?? on Mars?? Got there first?????????,
GEEEEZ!!!
Let me see, Valve grind every 12,000 miles, CV joints every 15,000, Thats, umm umm , amazing.

Didn't the Yanks also leave a buggy on the moon??

[Winston001]

4) Irrelevant, we have photos of things moving much faster. The moons speed is relative to where you are in context to it.

Ta AV very kind.

As for point 4, as I understand it the only way a high definition photo of the Moon can be taken by an orbital telescope is by using a small aperture long exposure. The scope is orbiting Earth at 40,000kph, the Moon is travelling a different orbit, plane and speed, the two objects change their relative positions every second, all of which means a slow deep photo can't be captured.

We can do it from Earth but there's 200km of atmospheric diffusion in the way.

[avgas]

Ta AV very kind.

As for point 4, as I understand it the only way a high definition photo of the Moon can be taken by an orbital telescope is by using a small aperture long exposure. The scope is orbiting Earth at 40,000kph, the Moon is travelling a different orbit, plane and speed, the two objects change their relative positions every second, all of which means a slow deep photo can't be captured.

We can do it from Earth but there's 200km of atmospheric diffusion in the way.

Stop it. You sounded so smart before

Here is why we can't see the hardware from earth.....yet....
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/...ar_lander.html

But even when asked if a satellite could do it - general response is "anything is possible........but we don't have budget to look at the rock..."

Interestingly enough we do have cool stuff like this:
http://www.lunarworldrecord.com/image.php
going on, on earth...........but it comes down to that "no budget to look at the moon man".

We will get there. But I fear by the time we do, my great grandkids will be living on mars and you may as well take a photo with a Polaroid taking the scenic route home to earth.

[Scuba_Steve]

This won't help NASA's case, conspiracy theorist's get more ammo in their arsenal

NASA loses moon rocks

[Usarka]

NASA loses moon rocks

That's supposed to say: NASA loses, and the moon rocks!

[pzkpfw]

This won't help NASA's case, conspiracy theorist's get more ammo in their arsenal

NASA loses moon rocks

Yes, because in conspiracy land, a Government agency can accurately keep track of hundreds of items being loaned out to hundreds of scientists, over long periods, without there being some screw-ups.

(For me, this actually adds to the overwhelming pile of detail in the whole operation, that reinforces the fact of it being real. If it all was "perfect" (before, during or after), then I'd be suspicious...)

[imdying]

It's a crime how much they've lost... the original footage tapes, the blueprints for the Saturn V, so many of what was collected

[slofox]

Well, I dunno about you fullas, but I didn't go to the moon. I stayed home and listened to it on the radio...

[jrandom]

The moon landing was faked in a soundstage on Mars.

[Big Dave]

Well, I dunno about you fullas, but I didn't go to the moon. I stayed home and listened to it on the radio...

We all went into our school auditorium and watched it on TV.

[Edbear]

We all went into our school auditorium and watched it on TV.

We didn't have TV, so we listened on the radio and I went outside, looked up at the moon and marvelled that there were actually people up there!

[Winston001]

We didn't have TV, so we listened on the radio and I went outside, looked up at the moon and marvelled that there were actually people up there!

Radio eh? Luxury.

We 'ad to hang round corner shop and steal newspaper which we'd take ta teacher to read it to us. Radio huh!

[Big Dave]

Teacher! Luxury.

When I say TV I mean.....tell young kids today that etc etc

[Winston001]

Ha! We lived in a old leaky corridor when we went to the moon - and it was night time when we got there! No NASA welcoming parties and dodgy flag shadows for us.


But we were 'appy. ...