Apollo Landing Sites Photographed by NASA

[Peter Parker]

What I find odd is that the majority of people that I know who claim a hoax only question the landing (though I've heard the claim about the Van Allen belts).

I think that if NASA can design a huge (Saturn V - V is for "Very big") rocket with slide rules and electronics that we wouldn't now put in a dishwasher, then send 3 men on a mostly un-powered 1,500,000+ km journey and retrieve them with an accurate re-entry that doesn't cook them or bounce them into deep space ... if you can do all that then a retro-rocket landing with the moon's 1/6 Earth gravity isn't so hard -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...arcade_game%29

But we can't see the lunar modules on the moon from Earth because it's a really long way away. The Hubble is one of the best optical telescopes available and I did some googling and found this: http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...or-Possible-Mo

On the left it says (my emphasis):

"These Hubble data illustrate the high-resolution resolving power of the Advanced Camera for Surveys and display features smaller than a soccer field from low-Earth orbit some 248,000 miles (400,000 kilometers) distant."

Of course, this is from NASA who faked the whole thing as a cover for the budget being blown at the time on the aliens in Area 51 and are faking it this time to hide the true cost of the US government's "quantititatative easing one out" programme.

But even if you doubt NASA, you can't doubt Douglas Adams:

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

[Marcos]

i would expect this to be the kind of poor quality photos the hubble could achieve, considering they claim its not built for that kind of range.

why are these photos so crap?

[Stoo]

The LRO is going to be going into a lower orbit at some point which will allow for far better images than the first bunch.

You can view the original images here: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse (careful with the download options, some of them are a tad massive..)

One of the instruments on the LRO is a laser imager called LOLA, which is designed to map the surface in high-res 3D, but whether it will be higher res than the images I don't know.

[Stringent]

actually as to if we have satellites that can read newspapers from orbit? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_imagery

The top secret government ones still suffer the same problem, enless someone has figured out a way of seeing through water without suffering any refraction!

Things like google earth use areal photogrophy as soon as it gets close.

Guess thats hype then, although the moon should have less refraction as it has almost no atmosphere.

Oh and as for Zak being a non believer, well believe on the moon landing and you shall see!