[thedoc (OP)]

Prasad  asked the Naked Scientists:
   Hello Chris:
Congratulations on fifteenth anniversary of Naked Scientists!

I have an unanswered question lingering for a long time!

We all have heard of controversies and conspiracies around the moon landing back in 1969. There are so many theories which suggest it never happened because of the scientific factors around the angle of the pictures shared, position of sun, unexplained shadow and so on.

I have been asking this question myself for a long time. We know that when the crew landed on the Moon they left behind few things like landing gear. Unless they are totally covered by the sand and dust storms, we should be able see them again. With the availability of all those high powered cameras and satellites flying around the earth, and even Hubble telescope in our orbit, why can't we take a picture of those debris and close the controversy for good?!

Hope you can answer this in your next episode.

Thanks!
 
Prasad S



   
What do you think?

[chris]

Welcome Prasad!

The moon landings did happen!

There are several strands of "evidence" (apart from the samples of moon rock given to countries all around the world by the successful returning teams).

Most compelling are the independent images of the landing sites captured by the European Space Agency's "SMART-1" probe, an ion-drive powered craft launched in 2003; part of its mission was to scrutinise the Lunar surface, which results in the capturing of images of the infrastructure left behind more than 40 years previously:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218958/Probe-photos-Apollo-landing-sites-reveal-man-DID-walk-Moon.html

The other strand of evidence is the mirror positioned on the moon from which a laser beam is reflected to measure the Earth-Moon distance on a daily basis. This is how we know that the moon is moving about 2cm further from the Earth each year.

So, in sum, there are personal accounts, images and independently gathered data that all support the claim that men went to the moon in the 1960s and 70s.

[evan_au]

Unless they are totally covered by the sand and dust storms

Unlike Mars, the Moon does not have enough atmosphere to move grains of sand.

There is another phenomena, where it seems that sunlight at dawn can electrostatically charge minute specks of dust, and elevate them above the Lunar surface. I guess this would eventually fill in footprints.

It is possible that a meteor impact could obliterate one of the landing sites, but is unlikely to damage all of them. 

[syhprum]

Although earth based telescopes cannot provide enough resolution to detect moon landing artefacts those mounted on lunar orbiting satellites certainly can and numerous pictures of landing vehicles, rover tracks etc have been published.

[RD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218958/Probe-photos-Apollo-landing-sites-reveal-man-DID-walk-Moon.html

Better images here ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

[chris]

Better images here ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

Thanks for this reference, RD; those images from NASA really are amazing, even to someone who is not a lunar-landing conspiracist.

[neilep]

As a firm believer in empirical study I went to the moon and found this:




Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 11.30.28.png (171.3 kB . 600x280 - viewed 3208 times)

A true bonafide non doctored photo of me just moments ago on the moon actually, for real !!

[chris]

We leave a mess wherever we go, it seems, especially ewe

[chris]

Just look at the mess ewe have made of this nice thread now...

[chris]

Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 11.30.28.png (171.3 kB . 600x280 - viewed 3208 times)

Is that a "Starbucks" cup in the bin there?

[neilep]

....Soya Flat White please !

[Bored chemist]

Ther's still a problem.
To see the moon in that much detail from earth you need a very good telescope- far better than any individual is going to be able to afford.
So the only telescopes that will ever see the moon will be owned by the likes of NASA.
Imagine that NASA does this, points it at the moon, and shows the pictures.
The loony types who already don't believe NASA went to the moon aren't going to believe the pictures, precisely because they are from NASA.

[PmbPhy]

Ther's still a problem.
To see the moon in that much detail from earth you need a very good telescope- far better than any individual is going to be able to afford.
So the only telescopes that will ever see the moon will be owned by the likes of NASA.
Imagine that NASA does this, points it at the moon, and shows the pictures.
The loony types who already don't believe NASA went to the moon aren't going to believe the pictures, precisely because they are from NASA.

Its more than that. Conspiracy theorists have a very strong tendency to disregard anything that disagrees with what they already believe. I'd wager that none of them are real scientists since their thinking is so far from that of scientists. It's not as if they use the scientific method. With these anti-moon landing nuts, I'd bet they'd disagree under all conditions other than actually going to the moon and see the landing sites of the Apollo missions.