|
Post by Enterprise on Jul 25, 2005 23:20:32 GMT -4
Has any attempt ever been made for satellites to photograph the Moon and the Apollo landing sites?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 25, 2005 23:37:24 GMT -4
The Clementine orbiter photographed the Apollo 15 landing site: It's not the kind of detail that hoax believers want, of course, but it's probably the best image of a landing site (besides the ones made by the Apollo astronauts).
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 23:54:06 GMT -4
I believe ESA's SMART-1 probe, which is currently orbiting and mapping the Moon, has imaged or is planning to image the Apollo landing sites, though I haven't heard much about it. It’s possible ESA hasn’t released any images yet. When they do release them I don’t expect to see much. It is my understanding that the camera’s resolution is not good enough to see actual Apollo artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2005 7:34:33 GMT -4
At this site: www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.htmlyou can zoom in on each of the landing sites using various orbital photos. There are a few photos available on the internet which show the lunar module as a tiny bump on the surface as photographed from the command module overhead.
|
|
|
Post by Enterprise on Jul 26, 2005 12:00:34 GMT -4
Thanks for that. It's easy to forget how big the Moon is and small the LM's are in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2005 22:28:26 GMT -4
Thanks for that. It's easy to forget how big the Moon is and small the LM's are in comparison. Good point -- it's exactly what I thought after posting. That link gives you a good idea of what the landing sites look like and what it takes to see the lunar module. I sometimes wonder whether people actually think about from what distance -- without optical aids and with binoculars and telescopes -- they could see an object the size of the LM's descent stage. Say a small garden shed. Mike Collins couldn't see the Eagle from overhead with optical aids even though he had a good idea where to look. However, it's good to hear Richard Gordon's exclamations of "I see Surveyor" and, "I see Intrepid." Everyone who insists that an LM could be seen with earth-based telescopes or the Hubble has obviously never worked out what sort of angle the LM would subtend from earth, and what the telescopes can resolve at that distance. They are dreamers who don't do their homework.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 26, 2005 23:51:54 GMT -4
Kiwi
For most, their logic is: Hubble can see objects which are much further from Earth, so Hubble *must* be able to see the LM on the Moon. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 27, 2005 2:05:35 GMT -4
Thanks for that. It's easy to forget how big the Moon is and small the LM's are in comparison. IIRC, the moon has roughly the same surface area as Africa. Here is an Apollo 17 image of the LM sitting on the surface. Here is London at the same scale (Parliment is in the middle, on the left bank of the Thames. Westminister Abby is the cross-shaped building just west of it). Oh, and where are my manners? Welcome to the board, Enterprise! I imagine it's been a long road, getting from there to here...
|
|
|
Post by Enterprise on Jul 28, 2005 19:10:38 GMT -4
Thanks for that. It's easy to forget how big the Moon is and small the LM's are in comparison. IIRC, the moon has roughly the same surface area as Africa. Here is an Apollo 17 image of the LM sitting on the surface. Here is London at the same scale (Parliment is in the middle, on the left bank of the Thames. Westminister Abby is the cross-shaped building just west of it). Oh, and where are my manners? Welcome to the board, Enterprise! I imagine it's been a long road, getting from there to here... Thanks for the example and the welcome Count Z. I'm a bit of a layman in some of the science here, but I do find it interesting. Yep I chose my username as homage to the best trek series, cancelled before it should have been, and the first shuttle.
|
|