Wonders of the Universe

[Mickymoody]

Another mystery of space that remains unexplained, is pictures of the rear unseen side of the moon were released today, and shown in Metro newspaper, but still no sign of the junk that Nasa left up there on their 'many' missions to the moon. Theres the Rover car, flag, and loads of other junk they left behind, but none can be seen from earth by telescope, or pictures taken via satellites, from the rear of the moon. Why?

Just to clarify, something exploding in space would require oxygen, to combust. Stars create oxygen, methane, etc, in fact all elements known to man, so explosions would happen, man made objects don't if in orbit, with no fuel in them.

Just to clarify yet again Micky. They didn't land on the other side of the moon. They landed on the side that always faces earth. What sort of size do you think the things they left on the moon were?. Buy yourself a nice big telescope and try and spot a solitary ant in a field 20 miles away.
This is the sort of scale of things you'd be looking for on the moon.
To get the resolution needed to spot something on the moon as small as a footstep, the telescope would have to have a lens almost 200metres across. With the biggest optical telescope on earth, we can only see things about 20 metres across.

The Hubble can see things from many light years away. But there has NEVER been a photo of junk left on the moon?

WHY has there never been a photo of stuff left on the moon? What camera took Neil Armstrong jumping out of his spaceship?

We HAVE telescopes that can map Mars, but never no photos of the moon, and the junk we left there...Why is that? Because we never went there perhaps? You show me evidence that man walked on the moon.

 

[Monkeh]

The Hubble can see things from many light years away. But there has NEVER been a photo of junk left on the moon?

Because Hubble can't focus that bloody close, and nobody has bothered building a telescope sufficiently large which can. Feel free to make your own.

 

[sooey]

The Hubble can see things from many light years away.

So can your eyes.

No one can be as thick as you seem. You must be taking the pizz.

 

[Nige F]

Maybe showing you Uranus

 

[Nige F]

[, .

What camera took Neil Armstrong jumping out of his spaceship?

.[/quote]Polaroid

 

[Mw Roofline]

Another mystery of space that remains unexplained, is pictures of the rear unseen side of the moon were released today, and shown in Metro newspaper, but still no sign of the junk that Nasa left up there on their 'many' missions to the moon. Theres the Rover car, flag, and loads of other junk they left behind, but none can be seen from earth by telescope, or pictures taken via satellites, from the rear of the moon. Why?

The Hubble Telescope has a resolving power of 3.2x10^-7 radians. At the distance of the moon (386,000 kilometers), it can see objects no smaller than 124 m wide. In other words, if the Hubble takes a picture of the moon at its best resolution, each pixel would be at least 124 m^2. The lunar lander was only 3 m wide, so even that is too small to see even with our best telescope. To see the flag left on the moon you'd have to have the mother of all lenses, about 5 widths of the average semi.

The reason the Hubble and other big telescopes get such good detail when looking at extra-solar objects like nebulae and galaxies is that, despite being much farther away than the moon, these objects are simply enormous: their widths are measured not in meters or even kilometers, but in light years and parsecs.

The astronauts only ever landed on our side of the moon otherwise it would have been impossible to maintain any radio contact.

 

[snico]

Another mystery of space that remains unexplained, is pictures of the rear unseen side of the moon were released today, and shown in Metro newspaper, but still no sign of the junk that Nasa left up there on their 'many' missions to the moon. Theres the Rover car, flag, and loads of other junk they left behind, but none can be seen from earth by telescope, or pictures taken via satellites, from the rear of the moon. Why?

Just to clarify, something exploding in space would require oxygen, to combust. Stars create oxygen, methane, etc, in fact all elements known to man, so explosions would happen, man made objects don't if in orbit, with no fuel in them.

Just to clarify yet again Micky. They didn't land on the other side of the moon. They landed on the side that always faces earth. What sort of size do you think the things they left on the moon were?. Buy yourself a nice big telescope and try and spot a solitary ant in a field 20 miles away.
This is the sort of scale of things you'd be looking for on the moon.
To get the resolution needed to spot something on the moon as small as a footstep, the telescope would have to have a lens almost 200metres across. With the biggest optical telescope on earth, we can only see things about 20 metres across.

The Hubble can see things from many light years away. But there has NEVER been a photo of junk left on the moon?

WHY has there never been a photo of stuff left on the moon? What camera took Neil Armstrong jumping out of his spaceship?

We HAVE telescopes that can map Mars, but never no photos of the moon, and the junk we left there...Why is that? Because we never went there perhaps? You show me evidence that man walked on the moon.

There have been photographs taken of lunar debris, including flags, vehicles instruments etc

Google the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and you will see lots of photos, inclusing footprint tracks on the moon

 

[Mickymoody]

Another mystery of space that remains unexplained, is pictures of the rear unseen side of the moon were released today, and shown in Metro newspaper, but still no sign of the junk that Nasa left up there on their 'many' missions to the moon. Theres the Rover car, flag, and loads of other junk they left behind, but none can be seen from earth by telescope, or pictures taken via satellites, from the rear of the moon. Why?

Just to clarify, something exploding in space would require oxygen, to combust. Stars create oxygen, methane, etc, in fact all elements known to man, so explosions would happen, man made objects don't if in orbit, with no fuel in them.

Just to clarify yet again Micky. They didn't land on the other side of the moon. They landed on the side that always faces earth. What sort of size do you think the things they left on the moon were?. Buy yourself a nice big telescope and try and spot a solitary ant in a field 20 miles away.
This is the sort of scale of things you'd be looking for on the moon.
To get the resolution needed to spot something on the moon as small as a footstep, the telescope would have to have a lens almost 200metres across. With the biggest optical telescope on earth, we can only see things about 20 metres across.

The Hubble can see things from many light years away. But there has NEVER been a photo of junk left on the moon?

WHY has there never been a photo of stuff left on the moon? What camera took Neil Armstrong jumping out of his spaceship?

We HAVE telescopes that can map Mars, but never no photos of the moon, and the junk we left there...Why is that? Because we never went there perhaps? You show me evidence that man walked on the moon.

There have been photographs taken of lunar debris, including flags, vehicles instruments etc

Google the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and you will see lots of photos, inclusing footprint tracks on the moon

I checked that site, and saw lots of 'Artists impressions', of things on the moon? But NO actual evidence. Can you clarify?

If a telescope can show closeups of Mars, why is there no so much evidence of landing on the moon?

If the missions to the moon were made on the side we see, and anyone with a telescope can see it, then somebody PLEASE show me a picture of a piece of junk left behind. It seems that people are struggling. We have more pictures of Mars, than the Moon.

You find a picture of the grounded Rover vehicle on the moon, in any picture published, after over 40 years. As stated, the rocket landed on the side of the moon we see, and we have telescopes quite capable of scanning that from Earth. Which isn't an 'artists impression'.

 

[snico]

If you can be bothered to look through the images you will see exactly what you are asking to see!

eg

 

[spacecat]

to bring the thread back on track
i watched the episode on gravity and its a direct rip of the steven hawkings series
master of the universe only not half as informative and by a physicist known for more than a crappy oasis haircut and being in a crap band.

There must have been 20 shots of this twit moodily walking NO where

 

[anobium]

I don't profess to know much about this subject but I find his series very interesting and am somewhat surprised to see the comments re his knowledge.
Do I take it that we have more knowledgable contributors on this forum than professor Cox !
His CV looks pretty good to me !

.Brian Edward Cox, OBE, (born 3 March 1968) is a British particle physicist, a Royal Society University Research Fellow and a professor at the University of Manchester. He is a member of the High Energy Physics group at the University of Manchester, and works on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland. He is also working on the R&D project of the FP420 experiment in an international collaboration to upgrade the ATLAS and the CMS experiment by installing additional, smaller detectors at a distance of 420 metres (1,380 ft) from the interaction points of the main experiments.1]

 

[joe-90]

If he's so clever why doesn't his name come up anywhere saying he wrote any of it? He's just reading a script.

 

[MisterG]

Things can only get better ..... - D:Ream.

 

[spacecat]

No one is saying he doesn't know his stuff

But this has all been done before by other people only better without the need to travel all over the world at the license payer s expense making pathetic links as the excuse.

 

[joinerjohn]

Same with the top 40 songs every week. Usually half full of cover versions of songs we've all heard before.