US Flag

Forgive my ignorance and feel free to correct me (constructively) if I am
wrong. I am just trying to learn about this subject

My basic understanding is that a telescopes "power" is in its ability to
gather light. If that is the case and we left some reflective (gold
foil/leaf/plated/whatever) items on the moon is it that telescopes are not
good enough yet to pick up that light or is it that we cannot discern the
light of the left behind articles from the light being reflected by the
moon.

If the rover or base of one of the lem's were floating in space not near a
light source, would we be able to see them easier?

Also, my understanding is that the Hubble and the new array in Chile (I
think) most likely both have the ability to see these objects on the moon.
Is that true?

I would like to get proof so we could shut these conspiracy (one of my
friends included) up once and for all. Not to mention, it would make for
some entertaining skywatching.


Thanks,

Scott

"Nerd Gerl" wrote in message
om...
Why did American astronauts plant the U.S. flag on the choke dark
side unchoke of the moon? Some people believe there is such a side -
a side that always remains hidden from earth's view. Who's bright idea
was it to hide the US Flag in this manner.

Assuming that there is no dark side of the moon - why can't amateur
astronomers see the US Flag with telescopes - and verify that it is
there?

Hi there. You posted:

My basic understanding is that a telescopes "power" is in its ability to
gather light. If that is the case and we left some reflective (gold
foil/leaf/plated/whatever) items on the moon is it that telescopes are not
good enough yet to pick up that light or is it that we cannot discern the
light of the left behind articles from the light being reflected by the
moon.

Well, a telescope has two functions: 1. to gather light to form an image, and
2. to magnify that image to reveal detail. Here, the wave nature of light
comes into play, and puts a fundamental limit on how much detail a given
telescope "aperture" (the diameter of the main lens or mirror) can "resolve"
from other nearby detail. It is this resolution limitation which prevents use
from using current telescopes to see the equipment left on the moon by the
Apollo astronauts. The larger the telescope's aperture, the finer the detail
which can be resolved. For example, with my 10 inch reflecting telescope, I
can easily see or "resolve" craters as their true pit-like form down to about
0.9 miles across and at low sun angles I can see some finer crack-like
features down to around 0.2 miles across, but no finer, since the wave nature
of light tends to blur detail into almost invisiblity at sizes much smaller
than this. The Hubble Space Telescope can do better, but it still can't show
craters any smaller in diameter than about 495 feet, which is still vastly
larger than the tiny 30 foot-wide descent stage of the lunar module. Even the
great 10 meter Keck telescope would still be too small to clearly show the
descent stage (that is, if the atmosphere would let it resolve to its
theoretical limits, which it almost never does).

If the rover or base of one of the lem's were floating in space not near a
light source, would we be able to see them easier?

Not really. We could "detect" a spacecraft in deep space at the moon's
distance with a large telescope (it would appear as only a faint point of
light), but put it near the moon or on its surface, and the glare (plus the
additional detail next to it) would make detecting it impossible.

Also, my understanding is that the Hubble and the new array in Chile (I
think) most likely both have the ability to see these objects on the moon.
Is that true?

Nope, as I said, Hubble can't do it. The new array in Chile may do better
than Hubble, but while it theoretically might be able to show the lander
stage, in practicality, it probably wouldn't be able to do it due to the
Earth's atmosphere and the amount of competing detail on the moon's surface.
It might be worth trying for, but I have some doubts as whether everything
could be aligned well enough to actually image the lander descent stage.

I would like to get proof so we could shut these conspiracy (one of my
friends included) up once and for all. Not to mention, it would make for
some entertaining skywatching.

Well, I'm afraid that it probably wouldn't shut many of them up, because many
would not accept the images as "evidence" for a moon mission. They would
either say that the images were "faked" (as they have for much of the Apollo
mission images), or that we just landed something on the moon with no
astronauts on-board. They would continue to ignore the preponderance of
evidence for the truth of the moon missions (as they have before. People
believe what they want to believe (and the two most common things in the
Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity). Clear skies to you.


--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

In article ,
(Nerd Gerl) writes:

Why did American astronauts plant the U.S. flag on the choke dark
side unchoke of the moon? Some people believe there is such a side -
a side that always remains hidden from earth's view. Who's bright idea
was it to hide the US Flag in this manner.

Hi "Nerd Gerl",

The "dark side" is whichever side is opposite the Sun, during the monthly
rotation. All 12 astronauts landed on the side of the moon facing the earth.
When the first lander (Apollo 11) took off, "Buzz" Aldrin "happened" to glance
out the window and observed the wind blow the flag down onto the ground. The
dust would have settled and covered it from view. Our present day telescopes
don't seem to have enough fine detail resolving power to even view the large
lander thingy. (Would you like to volunteer to be the 13th person to go to the
moon and check it out first hand?


The Mote around the Beam?
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Getting the Right Interpretation
http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/interpre.htm

Jay Windley wrote:

"Nerd Gerl" wrote in message
om...
|
| Why did American astronauts plant the U.S. flag on the choke
| dark side unchoke of the moon?

They didn't.

| Some people believe there is such a side - a side that always
| remains hidden from earth's view.

There is -- only it's not the "dark" side since it gets just as much sun,
periodically, as the near side.

In fact, since it never gets affected by lunar eclipses (they all
happen at night there), it must get a tiny bit *more* sun than the
near side.

--
Odysseus

"Scott Cadreau" wrote in message
news
Forgive my ignorance and feel free to correct me (constructively) if I am
wrong. I am just trying to learn about this subject

My basic understanding is that a telescopes "power" is in its ability to
gather light. If that is the case and we left some reflective (gold
foil/leaf/plated/whatever) items on the moon is it that telescopes are not
good enough yet to pick up that light or is it that we cannot discern the
light of the left behind articles from the light being reflected by the
moon.
snip

Picture this. You take a 300watt halogen lamp and turn it on. You then hold
a candel in front of it. Walk about 300 yards aways. You can still see the
halogen light, but the candle is so overpowered you don't even know it's
there.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
snip
People
believe what they want to believe (and the two most common things in the
Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity). Clear skies to you.
snip

David, please don't let this detract from your awesome post, but the snippet
above was the best part. LOL.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com
The two most common things in the univers are Hydrogen and Stupidity. -D.
Knisely

"Scott Cadreau" wrote in message
news |
| If that is the case and we left some reflective (gold
| foil/leaf/plated/whatever) items

Aluminized mylar, generally facing the wrong way. Look at the pictures. Do
the sides of the LM look significantly brighter or darker than the
surrounding terrain?

| Also, my understanding is that the Hubble and the new array in Chile (I
| think) most likely both have the ability to see these objects on the moon.
| Is that true?

No, at least in the HST's case.

| I would like to get proof so we could shut these conspiracy (one of my
| friends included) up once and for all.

The conspiracy theorists have to ignore a staggering amount of information
and scientific principle in order to hold to their theories. What's to
prevent them from side-stepping this particular bit of evidence just like
they have every other bit of evidence?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
Out here in the High Mojave desert, with all the sage brush,etc. growing,
you'd
not be able to spot that penny unless you dozed a clear pathway to it and
even
then, with the crows out here, they'd most likly get it and carry it off!

And I did say without either bino's or a scope.


No, actually you said, "even with telescope or binos, it's not going to
happen."

but I nitpick.