You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
63 points

Did you know that you can take a telescope and LOOK AT THE LANDING SITES ON THE MOON?

permalink
report
reply

If you can afford the simple equipment necessary, you can literally send and receive a ping to a device left at one of the landing sites that proves without a doubt we have been there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I’m not a radio engineer, but my understanding is you’re just bouncing signals off the moon itself, there isn’t a device that echos the signal back or anything. There are mirrors on the moon to reflect lasers back though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

They left a couple retro reflectors on the moon during the moon landings so we can bounce lasers off them to accurately measure the distance to the moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think that’s what they meant, cuz a ping to a radio device wouldn’t prove much, just that you are getting signals from up there. A laser would prove definitively.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Couldn’t such device be delivered without people, like a remotely controlled rover? How does that prove that people made an actual landing on the Moon?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Because there’s like 6 of em, and we know exactly which mission launched each one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You are correct, it proves nothing. None of these things prove that people have been on the moon. Unless you want it to. Then anything is proof 😅

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Now I’m curious, what’s the resolution (like in meters) of a good home pro telescope watching the moon at say the best of times?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I’m no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it’s still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.

For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Isn’t this because Hubble is actually made to look deep into space and not under its nose? I’m sorry, but I’m not watching a 14 minutes video for that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.

permalink
report
parent
reply