flags on the moon

[sallack]

hi all,

i'm new to this site, i have read several articles on the hoax and understand both sides of all the arguments. i am not a space or science buff , so please, if anything i say is stupid just bare with me!

i'm having difficulties with just one element.

i understand that all the apollo teams left a flag on the moon.. this would total six?

i understand that one of apollo 12's objectives was to take photographs of apollo 11's flag.. i understand that this was the only objective they did not accomplish due to the camara being damaged.

did any of the other four apollo missions capture footage / photos of the orginal two/three/four or five missions flags?

if so, where can i view these images?

do we have satellites/ telescopes that can capture footage from the moon's service today?

if so, have any of these captured the flags?

(i don't know much about technology either, so if this is an absurb question i apoligise in advance)

if the rover has been sent to mars which is capable of sending back images from the surface, why can't N.A.S.A send one to the moon, send it to the right coordinates, take the images of the flags and end this argument once and for all?

the moon is closer than mars.

thanks.

[PhantomWolf]

i understand that one of apollo 12's objectives was to take photographs of apollo 11's flag.. i understand that this was the only objective they did not accomplish due to the camara being damaged.

I very much doubt this since the landing sites were far apart and the flag would not have been observable from Orbit.

did any of the other four apollo missions capture footage / photos of the orginal two/three/four or five missions flags?

Again, the landing sites were well spread, and the LM itself was barely visible from orbit, the flag would have been impossible to see.

do we have satellites/ telescopes that can capture footage from the moon's service today?

Not sure what you mean, but no telescopes can see the remains of the Apollo missions, to do so would require a mirror at least 170m across.

if so, have any of these captured the flags?

To see one of the flags would be extremely difficult because we're looking down on them, they likely don't exist anymore (the sunlight and heat/cold would likely have destroyed them) and the telescope would need to be about 1.7 km across.

Hope the helps.

[sallack]

thanks for the reply,

i've read the offical N.A.S.A report for the apollo 12 mission, and it clearly states that one of the objectives was to capture the orginal landing site. it's online. and it was the only objective not accomplished

[echnaton]

Welcome to the board. This is the best place I know of to get answers to question in a calm and reasonable environment.

i understand that one of apollo 12's objectives was to take photographs of apollo 11's flag.. i understand that this was the only objective they did not accomplish due to the camara being damaged.

Apollo 12 landed a great distance from the A11 landing site. The first goal of the mission was to prove that astronauts could make accurate landings. The site chosen for this was where Surveyor had landed a few years before and A12 did meet this goal, visited the old Surveyor and even brought part of it back to earth.

The camera damaged early in the EVA was the video camera on the LM. As the camera was on the LM and the landing site far from the A11 site, no TV of any artifacts was planned. Attempts were made from command modules to see the landing sites from orbit but none were successful at recognizing the LM. At any rate the flag was much too small to be visible from much of a distance, compared to the LM.

did any of the other four apollo missions capture footage / photos of the orginal two/three/four or five missions flags?

No. All the site were spread out in different areas to maximize the scientific study of the moon. Neither the flags nor the LMs were visible from space.

do we have satellites/ telescopes that can capture footage from the moon's service today?

if so, have any of these captured the flags?

No current earth or space based telescopes can resolve objects the size of the LM. That is they can’t be seen even with the finest instruments available. There is really very little scientific interest in doing so anyway. The flags were off the shelf flags purchased at Sears and have likely deteriorated from the rather intense level of ultraviolet light, which is unattenuated by an atmosphere, like here on earth.


I’m curious, why all the questions about flags?

[Data Cable]

sallack said:

i understand that one of apollo 12's objectives was to take photographs of apollo 11's flag.. i understand that this was the only objective they did not accomplish due to the camara being damaged.

Where did you hear that? As you can see from this digram, 12's landing site was nowhere near 11's. In fact, the distance between them is second only to the distance between 12 and 17. I doubt it would be feasible from the CSM in lunar orbit, as the LM is only barely perceptible from that distance.

Besides, 11's blastoff blew the flag over, because of how closely it was planted to the LM.

did any of the other four apollo missions capture footage / photos of the orginal two/three/four or five missions flags?

Again, the landing sites were well out of visual distance of each other. The purpose was to explore as many different types of lunar geography as they could, not to keep landing within sight of the last mission.

do we have satellites/ telescopes that can capture footage from the moon's service today?

Not from Earth, or even Earth orbit. The laws of optics dictate that any device capable of resolving such a small detail at such a great distance would require a primary reflector or lens hundreds of meters across.

There are, however, future missions in the works which could be capable of imaging Apollo artifacts on the lunar surface from lunar orbit, the largest of which would be the LM descent stages, which remained on the surface. The flags themselves would have long since disintegrated under constant bombardment by unfiltered sunlight.

[Data Cable]

sallack said:

i've read the offical N.A.S.A report for the apollo 12 mission, and it clearly states that one of the objectives was to capture the orginal landing site. it's online.

Could you provide a link?

[sallack]

thanks ech for the reply.

i researched the missions a few years ago. As i said, i understand both sides of the argument. the only problem i had that i couldn't find information on was the flags. if the reputation of N.A,S.A is on the line, i can't believe that someone in the organisation hasn't made the effort to prove everyone wrong by capturing these images. if they can send the 'rover' to mars and obtain footage from the surface, why not do it on the moon?

[PhantomWolf]

According Apollo by the Numbers, the primary objectives where:

The primary objectives were:

- to perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling in a mare area;
- to deploy the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP);
- to develop techniques for a point landing capability;
- to further develop human capability to work in the lunar environment; and
- to obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.

I'd suggest that you are confusing the last objective, to taken images of sites for the later missions and that was achieved as were all of the other objectives*

*edited to add, except for those involving the TV camera.

[Cavorite]

sallack said:

i can't believe that someone in the organisation hasn't made the effort to prove everyone wrong by capturing these images. if they can send the 'rover' to mars and obtain footage from the surface, why not do it on the moon?

The Mars rovers cost hundreds of millions of dollars each. I doubt that Congress would be very happy about an expensive mission that just has the stated aim of looking for a flag. Particularly one that has disintegrated over the last few decades.

[PhantomWolf]

if the reputation of N.A,S.A is on the line, i can't believe that someone in the organisation hasn't made the effort to prove everyone wrong by capturing these images.

The thing is that it isn't on the line. Reasonable and rational people accept the current evidence that NASA has produced, they don't just wave it away and then demand a heap more.

[Data Cable]

sallack said:

if the reputation of N.A,S.A is on the line, i can't believe that someone in the organisation hasn't made the effort to prove everyone wrong by capturing these images.

First off, the reputation of NASA (no periods) isn't on the line. Secondly, as noted above, "capturing these images" involves more than just the "effort" of "someone in the organization," it's a thoroughly involved and expensive mission in and of itself.

If future missions image or visit the Apollo landing sites, it will likely either be a passive happenstance of another scientific study, or specifically to study the effects of long-term exposure of man-made hardware to the lunar surface environment. The futile attempt to silence paranoid critics who will almost certainly dismiss the new evidence as also faked is not a sufficient justification for the expense and effort involved.

if they can send the 'rover' to mars and obtain footage from the surface, why not do it on the moon?

Because they already sent 12 men to obtain footage (among other things) from the moon, perhaps? Put it this way: If someone questions the authenticity of the Mars rover footage (which people have), is it reasonable to demand another mission just to prove that the previous mission actually happened? And another to prove that one? And so on?

[Tanalia]

And the HBs would just say any images from a little rover showing a Lunar Module, Lunar Rover, misc equipment, tracks, or [remains of] a flag were being shot in a secret sound-stage or (given the advances in the past decade or so) generated as computer graphics.

[Count Zero]

i've read the offical N.A.S.A report for the apollo 12 mission, and it clearly states that one of the objectives was to capture the orginal landing site. it's online. and it was the only objective not accomplished

I'm curious about this. We knew that the Eagle had missed its target and landed long, and Mike Collins failed to find it from orbit. I know that we eventually figured out where it came down, but I wonder if, before this happened, Apollo 12 was tasked with searching for the site.

[Bill Thompson]

i understand that one of apollo 12's objectives was to take photographs of apollo 11's flag.. i understand that this was the only objective they did not accomplish due to the camara being damaged.

And I once thought I had heard everything.
I believe they are many miles apart. Can you please tell me what website you read this from?

[Obviousman]

I'm guessing that our new friend sallack has read something that has purported to be an 'official' report, but was in fact not. Alas, there are plenty of examples of this throughout the internet.

Sallack, I think you would find many people here who would support a return to the Moon in order to prove that the Apollo missions really did happen. We run into problems though:

- Claims that it is a waste of money 'proving' something that is already acknowledged by the scientific community to have happened (if you are not aware, ask about the book James Oberg was going to produce for NASA debunking the "Moon Hoax");

- Return to already explored sites gives no substantially new scientific knowledge; and

- Any evidence supporting the Apollo landings will be denounced as "faked" by those with strong convictions to the contrary or financial interest in promoting a hoax theory.

Welcome to the Zoo!