where is the flag on the moon?

conceited

:pac:

Diogenes

There isn't a single flag on the moon, there are six of them, each Apollo mission left a flag, and abandoned equipment.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/%7Edurda/Apollo/landing_sites.html

Is your question. Why can't I see the flags? We do not have telescopes that will give you a close up of old glory. Well sorry we don't, however what we do have is this.

Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running.

University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley was the project's principal investigator during the Apollo years, and he follows its progress today. "Using these mirrors," explains Alley, "we can 'ping' the moon with laser pulses and measure the Earth-moon distance very precisely. This is a wonderful way to learn about the moon's orbit and to test theories of gravity."

Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.


Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.

Targeting the mirrors and catching their faint reflections is a challenge, but astronomers have been doing it for 35 years. A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm

Hobbes

Check out mythbusters as well. They did a NASA special where they debunk a lot of the conspiracy theories.

Mahatma coat

so apparently the flags are here



http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

rocky25

Mythbusters " Flag On The Moon "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

meglome

I wonder are the mythbusters in on it now. :rolleyes:

conceited

I'm sold! Thanks for the info and links lads.

Kernel

rocky25 wrote: »

Mythbusters " Flag On The Moon "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

Hey look, I was right they did use a frame on the flag. God, I remember the abuse levelled at me from Diogenes on that...

DEVEREUX

theres no flags on the moon because the U.S never set foot there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIw06kd--is

SuperSean11

clareyfairy wrote: »

theres no flags on the moon because the U.S never set foot there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIw06kd--is

Your very closed minded. One youtube video isnt a lot of evidence.

DEVEREUX

SuperSean11 wrote: »

Your very closed minded. One youtube video isnt a lot of evidence.

Im not closed minded at all ! far from it !

Just pointing people to an interesting link.:)

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Hey look, I was right they did use a frame on the flag. God, I remember the abuse levelled at me from Diogenes on that...

As that video shows, they had a vertical and a horizontal support.

If you want to call that a frame, then I guess you could equally call a flag-pole a frame.

Generally speaking, a frame encloses something. 2-of-4 sides isn't a frame.

ETA - I'd also add that the "abuse" levelled at you from Diogenes was from the comment that the flag was not made from traditional cloth. The flag was made from cloth. You subsequently got to the notion that there was a wire frame inside the flag. There wasn't. There was a rigid horizontal support at the top of the flag.

Unfortunatly according to Dr.Phil Plait on the skeptic's guide to the universe this week the nylon flag would have been dissolved by ultraviolet rays by now:(

mr kilo

cheese

mr kilo

chedder cheese

Tony Broke

How come we can see planets on galaxies, trillions and trillions miles away with Hubble, but we cant see the stuff left on the moon?

The distance between ous and the moon is something like 384,403 Km and its 1/4 of the earths size, yet we cant see small objects with Hubble.

But how come then, we can see a planet 5 times the size of ours 193,120,800,000,000km away with Hubble?

It just doesnt make sense to me.

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

How come we can see planets on galaxies, trillions and trillions miles away with Hubble, but we cant see the stuff left on the moon?

The distance between ous and the moon is something like 384,403 Km and its 1/4 of the earths size, yet we cant see small objects with Hubble.

But how come then, we can see a planet 5 times the size of ours 193,120,800,000,000km away with Hubble?

It just doesnt make sense to me.

We can't see planets around other stars let alone in other galaxies they are too small and far away.

axer

Here is the maths to explain why we are unable to view the flags from earth:
http://www.geocities.com/humealumni/flag.htm
Basically a mirror with a diameter of 110m would be needed and it would have to be in orbit because of the turbulence of the earth's atmosphere not really worth the effort just to see some flags and old junk.

Tony Broke

King Mob wrote: »

We can't see planets around other stars let alone in other galaxies they are too small and far away.

How come we have images 100,000's of light years out then, if we cant see them?

Captain Chaos

King Mob wrote: »

We can't see planets around other stars let alone in other galaxies they are too small and far away.

Em.. yes we can and scientists have detected around 100 planets orbiting other stars, alot of them are bigger than Jupiter, they can only be seen when they pass infront of their parent star.

Tony Broke

axer wrote: »

Here is the maths to explain why we are unable to view the flags from earth:
http://www.geocities.com/humealumni/flag.htm
Basically a 110m mirror would be needed and it would have to be in orbit because of the turbulence of the earth's atmosphere.

I know that, my question is how do we have images like above and we cant see objects on the moon.

It doesnt make sense to me.

Captain Chaos

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Em.. yes we can and scientists have detected around 100 planets orbiting other stars, alot of them are bigger than Jupiter, they can only be seen when they pass infront of their parent star.

I meant that you couldn't get an image of one, not that they couldn't be detected.

axer

Tony Broke wrote: »

I know that, my question is how do we have images like above and we cant see objects on the moon.

It doesnt make sense to me.

You dont actually see much detail of any of the planets or stars in that image.

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

How come we have images 100,000's of light years out then, if we cant see them?

Stars and galaxies are very very large and very very bright, planets not so much, and lunar landers even less so.

Tony Broke

axer wrote: »

You dont actually see much detail of any of the planets or stars in that image.

Yes but we can still see them, even though they are billions and billions of miles away and the moon is only a short distance from ous relative to those.

Yet we can only see an object 300 feet long and 250 feet wide on the moon.

Anyone have the math on that?

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

Yes but we can still see them, even though they are billions and billions of miles away and the moon is only a short distance from ous relative to those.

Yet we can only see an object 300 feet long and 250 feet wide on the moon.

Anyone have the math on that?

Can you not see the scale on the bottom of the picture?
That galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears across.
That's pretty big.

axer

Tony Broke wrote: »

Yes but we can still see them, even though they are billions and billions of miles away and the moon is only a short distance from ous relative to those.

Yet we can only see an object 300 feet long and 250 feet wide on the moon.

Anyone have the math on that?

It is the same math that I linked to earlier. As King Mob pointed out, the galaxies are very very big and the stars are very bright and also very big but you are looking for detail down to two feet or so on something that is 221,000 miles away. The image of that galaxy is a very distant image, it does not show any detail of anything inside of it.

Tony Broke

King Mob wrote: »

Can you not see the scale on the bottom of the picture?
That galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears across.
That's pretty big.

Of course, its just amazing to think we can see that far away, but cant see nothing of importance on the moon.

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

Of course, its just amazing to think we can see that far away, but cant see nothing of importance on the moon.

Do you not get perspective or something?
Galaxy = very big approx. 100000 lightyears
Moon lander = very small approx. 5 metres

Tony Broke

King Mob wrote: »

Do you not get perspective or something?
Galaxy = very big approx. 100000 lightyears
Moon lander = very small approx. 5 metres

Yes, but it seems out of whack

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

Yes, but it seems out of whack

Do the math, it isn't.
Just because you personally don't understand something does mean there's a conspiracy.

stewiegriffin08

"The footage of Neil Armstrong's "one small step" is considered among the most important artefacts of the 20th century but the original NASA tapes have been mislaid somewhere in the US." - quote

come off it.... mislaid?? MISLAID? :eek: Tis is the moon landing footage were talking about.... the biggest achievment of man kind!!! you think by now a 18 year old like myself would be sick of looking at the footage... infact.. I never saw the moon landing footage... I never got the chance... where is it?? you think it would be replayed on tv over and over... the start of rte new or something.... The moon :rolleyes:

pure bollix :P

Tony Broke

King Mob wrote: »

Do the math, it isn't.
Just because you personally don't understand something does mean there's a conspiracy.

I didnt say anything about a conspiracy Mob, I believe 100% we went to the moon.Its just that Hubble can find objects in space that have appeared out of nowhere 11 billion light-years away and it cant see anything worthwhile on the moon.

My question has been answered and the math probably does work out, but im still amazed eg pics of saturn taken by Hubble

Tony Broke

King Mob wrote: »

Can you not see the scale on the bottom of the picture?
That galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears across.
That's pretty big.

I love this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Tony Broke

axer wrote: »

It is the same math that I linked to earlier. As King Mob pointed out, the galaxies are very very big and the stars are very bright and also very big but you are looking for detail down to two feet or so on something that is 221,000 miles away. The image of that galaxy is a very distant image, it does not show any detail of anything inside of it.

So Hubble can only detect them,but it can't really see them?

Tony Broke

But yet we can take a pic of Nebula with a sun-like star, three thousand light-years from Earth?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070513.html

Tony Broke

Tony Broke wrote: »

But yet we can take a pic of Nebula with a sun-like star, three thousand light-years from Earth?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070513.html

Yea because the nebula and star are huge and very bright.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

As that video shows, they had a vertical and a horizontal support.

If you want to call that a frame, then I guess you could equally call a flag-pole a frame.

Generally speaking, a frame encloses something. 2-of-4 sides isn't a frame.

ETA - I'd also add that the "abuse" levelled at you from Diogenes was from the comment that the flag was not made from traditional cloth. The flag was made from cloth. You subsequently got to the notion that there was a wire frame inside the flag. There wasn't. There was a rigid horizontal support at the top of the flag.

Pedantic Bonkey, pedantic... It's a wire frame/support inside the flag. I feel so liberated.

scumbag sqpants

There are more flags than just the one US flag, don't China, Russia and now India also have their respective colours on the moon?

Ciaran500

scumbag sqpants wrote: »

There are more flags than just the one US flag, don't China, Russia and now India also have their respective colours on the moon?

Only the US have ever landed men on the moon, they rest have satellites orbiting the moon.

Mahatma coat

I thought the Russians had landed at least two misions on the surface?

Mahatma coat

OK so it appears thet the Ruskies only sent a Rover, not a person

Four-Too

The moon landing was a hoax made to cheat the taxpayer out of money - they never landed there. Youtube has more videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX7cnzvD8OM

and....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbd6KXHql0o

Who do you believe, the lying corporate media and politicans of this World, or this man?!

Four-Too

Four-Too wrote: »

The moon landing was a hoax made to cheat the taxpayer out of money - they never landed there. Youtube has more videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX7cnzvD8OM

and....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbd6KXHql0o

Who do you believe, the lying corporate media and politicans of this World, or this man?!

One of the many religious scam artists of the world?

Bet he's got tons of hard empirical evidence of a hoax.

Cunning

massive doses of solar radiation eats the flag.

there should be remnants of the moon buggy though(metal bits maybe). but it would be quite hard to spot.
the full moon is a disc of about 9.5 millon square kilometers
or about 9500 billion square meters (9478716000000m^2) [9.5 by 10^12]
the moon buggy might be 2 sqare meters

a rugby pitch is about 10,000 square meters
so it'd be like looking for something of size one billionth of a meter square on a rugby pitch (something 32micronsx32microns) thats pretty hard to find!
thats something smaller than the tip of a human hair (about 80 microns across).
i'm pretty sure neil armstrong was on the moon


also of course we've been to space
how else do you explain hubble telescope imagry
gps and satellite communications etc etc etc

iPlop

their talking about going back in 2017 i think.They will defenitly be able to fake it properly this time;)

bmcgov86

i reckon the flag is on the flagpole.more than likely. unless the man on the moon robbed it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Cunning wrote: »

also of course we've been to space
how else do you explain hubble telescope imagry
gps and satellite communications etc etc etc

clearly it's a jewish trick to keep us fixated on the stars while they rob us blind with the WTO.

Kernel

Mordeth wrote: »

clearly it's a jewish trick to keep us fixated on the stars while they rob us blind with the WTO.

Mordeth your Jewish jokes are not funny, or ironic, or whatever it is you are trying to be... If you cannot contribute anything, why do you continue to spam this forum?

redout

There is a great documentary called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which is well worth a look. Raises some interesting questions especially the earth through the window.

jhegarty

Simple test for moon landings.

View top-budget 1969 blockbuster films.

Notice special effects and laugh at how fake they look.

Now watch moon landings , looks real.

I am sure they could have faked it (to a standard we would believe today) from 1990 on , but not in 69.