Russians to investigate our "moon landing."

[Perd Hapley]

Nobody's stopping any other country from putting up lunar orbiters or landers to go check things out. And they have, but none have bothered with the proper instruments.

The conspiracy widens...

[TommyGunn]

There was a bit where the kid was in trouble for bringing an old textbook in that spoke about the moon landings as fact, when the new "approved" textbooks said that the moon landings were faked so we could trick the soviets into spending themselves into the hole.

Oh yeah.....forgot about  that scene....it broke my "kook" meter so I just passed it off as  Hollyweird.

[RocketMan]

So where were YOU when the moon rocks went missing? Can you account for your whereabouts between now and 1969? 

I don't have to answer to you.  You can't prove nuthin!

[Scout26]

Boy, the right side of youtube for those two links are a lot of conspiracy theory whackadoodle rabbit holes...

[cordex]

Any telescope big enough to resolve Apollo landing sites would be blinded by looking at the moon. Including Hubble.

Hubble isn't nearly big enough to spot the landing sites, but it has successfully taken pictures of the moon.

[KD5NRH]

Any telescope big enough to resolve Apollo landing sites would be blinded by looking at the moon. Including Hubble. They really don't have the ability to dial up their "f-stop" when it's set really really low to stare at some faint galaxy for a couple of hours.

Just need more bullets to turn down the light: http://astroanecdotes.com/2015/03/26/the-mcdonald-gun-shooting-incident/

[MechAg94]

Hubble isn't nearly big enough to spot the landing sites, but it has successfully taken pictures of the moon.

The comment I saw may have been on the mythbusters episode where they tested some of the moon landing fake myths.  One of the experts they interviewed mentioned the resolution of our telescopes at that distances was down to a handful of meters but still too large to see the equipment we left there. 

I thought someone (India?) was looking at doing a moon orbit probe, but I don't recall when.

[Brad Johnson]

I want them to look into why Big Oil keeps supressing the 100 mpg carburetor!

Brad

[MechAg94]

I want them to look into why Big Oil keeps supressing the 100 mpg carburetor!

Brad

That runs on water.   

[MechAg94]

Oh yeah.....forgot about  that scene....it broke my "kook" meter so I just passed it off as  Hollyweird.

That was a neat movie, but some of the small details were odd.  All the fatalistic and anti-war stuff reminded me of some of hte 60's/70's scifi stories I have seen.

[cordex]

The comment I saw may have been on the mythbusters episode where they tested some of the moon landing fake myths.  One of the experts they interviewed mentioned the resolution of our telescopes at that distances was down to a handful of meters but still too large to see the equipment we left there. 

Maybe I'm not up to date on the most powerful telescopes, but my understanding is that to get a "handful of meters" of resolution from here to the Apollo landing sites (say to spot the rover or a decent stage) you'd need something like a 60 or 80 meter diameter telescope capable of tracking the target as well as adaptive optics.  I think the largest telescope on earth is a little over 10 meters.  For comparison, Hubble is 2.4 meters, and I think it might have issues with tracking a target on something as close as the moon.

An orbital telescope's real advantage is that it could dispense with the adaptive optics but would need to be of similar size to an earthbound scope as orbit only buys a few hundred miles.  Hubble is around 350 miles up; that doesn't mean much in terms of distance to the moon.

[AJ Dual]

How about we just go there? 

Of course, they'll say we just faked that too.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/369441main_lroc_apollo14_lrg.jpg

Although the simple answer is that if we'd faked any of it, the Soviets would have been all over it.

[HankB]

. . .  I'm sure Soviet SIGINT was watching the Apollo missions with everything they had . . .

I was in Florida on family vacation with my folks, and a few days before Apollo 11 liftoff, we chartered a boat out of the Keys and went deep sea fishing. We encountered a Russian trawler - with a lot of antennae - somewhere beyond the 12-mile limit. Gee, wonder what they were doing there? 

We were in Winterhaven at liftoff - we watched it on TV, then went outside and 'way in the distance, we saw the bright orange flame of the Saturn V rising from the horizon. With binoculars - and a good dose of my youthful imagination - I could see a little black dot at the apex of the flame . . . the rocket, no doubt.

[KD5NRH]

Hubble is around 350 miles up; that doesn't mean much in terms of distance to the moon.

Y'know, I'd never really considered that distance in perspective; Hubble (when directly overhead) is closer than Tulsa or Laredo.

Might have to throw that in if the boss wants to send me back to McAllen; it's an hour farther than Hubble's orbit.

[MechAg94]

I was in Florida on family vacation with my folks, and a few days before Apollo 11 liftoff, we chartered a boat out of the Keys and went deep sea fishing. We encountered a Russian trawler - with a lot of antennae - somewhere beyond the 12-mile limit. Gee, wonder what they were doing there? 

We were in Winterhaven at liftoff - we watched it on TV, then went outside and 'way in the distance, we saw the bright orange flame of the Saturn V rising from the horizon. With binoculars - and a good dose of my youthful imagination - I could see a little black dot at the apex of the flame . . . the rocket, no doubt.

That reminds me of something I saw on one of the conspiracy shows.  Some people were claiming there were a couple more top secret Apollo missions than publicized because they "found something" on the moon.  There is no way in hell they could keep a Saturn rocket launch secret much less all the other activity.

[lee n. field]

Depends where they launched it from.

[MechAg94]

Depends where they launched it from.

Also, Skylab was just a cover.

[Doggy Daddy]

Y'know, I'd never really considered that distance in perspective; Hubble (when directly overhead) is closer than Tulsa or Laredo.

Yeah, but can you hitchhike to the Hubble?

[dogmush]

Yeah, but can you hitchhike to the Hubble?

Sure, but these days you have to start in Russia.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, but can you hitchhike to the Hubble?

Bring your towel.

[Strings]

And don't panic!

[HankB]

That reminds me of something I saw on one of the conspiracy shows.  Some people were claiming there were a couple more top secret Apollo missions than publicized because they "found something" on the moon.  There is no way in hell they could keep a Saturn rocket launch secret much less all the other activity.

Remember the Glomar Explorer, which was made to raise a sunken Soviet sub off the bottom of the ocean? There was a sister ship, the Glomar Investigator, which was specifically made to handle a Saturn V liftoff. Out in the middle of the Pacific, away from witnesses, there were at least three additional moon launches and landings - which were never publicized - to investigate the oversized humanoid robots found on the Moon.

 

[MechAg94]

Remember the Glomar Explorer, which was made to raise a sunken Soviet sub off the bottom of the ocean? There was a sister ship, the Glomar Investigator, which was specifically made to handle a Saturn V liftoff. Out in the middle of the Pacific, away from witnesses, there were at least three additional moon launches and landings - which were never publicized - to investigate the oversized humanoid robots found on the Moon.

 

I would believe that over a land launch in the Continental US.  And there were likely enough astronauts in the training queue that would have given their right arm to get into space. 

On the radio traffic side of things, did they have the tech to reliably encode all the communications with the spacecraft out at the moon?  Kind of assuming they could, but thought I would ask.