The best radio telescopes in use today have a resolution of between 2-3 Min of Arc. The moon is between 30.5 and 31.6 Min of Arc. So the best the radio telescope is going to do is resolve down to about 1/15 of the moon, or about 144 miles. So no you can't not resolve any flags, poles, landers or anything else.

theTroll

Could any of this change any of that?


Interferometry

The Very Large Array, an interferometric array formed from many smaller telescopes, like many larger radio telescopes.One of the most notable developments came in 1946 with the introduction of the technique called astronomical interferometry where many radio telescopes are combined in a large array to achieve much higher resolutions. Martin Ryle's group in Cambridge obtained a Nobel Prize for this and later aperture synthesis work[1]. The Lloyd's mirror interferometer was also developed independently in 1946 by Joseph Pawsey's group at the University of Sydney[2]. In the early 1950s the Cambridge Interferometer mapped the radio sky to produce the famous 2C and 3C surveys of radio sources. An example of the array-type radio telescope is the Very Large Array (VLA), in Socorro, New Mexico, which is an interferometric array formed from 27 individual antennas. The largest existing radio telescope array is the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope, located in Pune, India. A larger array, LOFAR (the 'LOw Frequency ARray') is currently being constructed in western Europe, consisting of 25 000 small antennas over an area several hundreds of kilometres in diameter.

[quote]Besides observing energetic objects such as pulsars and quasars, radio telescopes are able to "image" most astronomical objects such as, galaxies, nebulae, and even radio emissions from *PLANETS*.[/quote]

What's being emitted from the moon?

[quote]Very Large Array[/quote]

It can have a resolution of 1 arc sec. So 120 times better then the current ones in use. So resolution of still just over a mile on the moon. Remember resolution is the size of an object that you can tell it apart from another object, so the object would have to be over a mile in size before you can even tell what it is.

So not going to help.
theTroll

"What's being emitted from the moon?"



Not sure. Would hope the 'scope could be tuned to look for reflected energies - but I don't know.

Something has to be better than optical telescopes - right?

I am just grabbing at straws - admittedly - but I would hope there is a way to more-or-less simply take a look up there and prove that we went - cause, obviously, we did.

I know that we get a laser signal from the moon routinely. But the 'no-go-ers' would say that the reflector of laser signals was just plopped there somehow - without people setting it into place.

Think real hard - are you sure there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to get the radio equipment to help us 'did-go-ers'?

[quote]are you sure there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to get the radio equipment to help us 'did-go-ers'?[/quote]

No; because the conspiracy theorists develop what we call "self-reinforcing delusions" to combat any rational evidence we provide that we did go.

The best we can do is point and laugh at them...or at least prevent them from propagating their stupidity on those that may be straddling the fence on the issue.

No, radio is the worse way to go.

Remember resolution is based on the wavelength, the longer the wavelength the lower the resolution. So radio waves are a lot worse then visible light.

You want to be heading to the other end of the spectrum. X-rays and gamma ways have a much better resolution then visible light.

That is why they use x-ray microscopes and not radio microscopes.

theTroll

[quote][quote]Very Large Array[/quote]

It can have a resolution of 1 arc sec. So 120 times better then the current ones in use. So resolution of still just over a mile on the moon.[/quote]


What if the photo of this square mile were made the size of a house or something, and then people went over it with a magnifying glass - isn't there any way?

[quote]You want to be heading to the other end of the spectrum. X-rays and gamma ways have a much better resolution then visible light.[/quote]

Well, then what about x-ray imagining capabilities for the same problem? Can it be done someday?

[quote]Can it be done someday?[/quote]

Doesn't matter; no matter how much evidence you give them, they will be convinced it was a conspiracy. They hold their beliefs because a) they are too proud to admit that they were wrong, or b) they are sincerely delusional.

Resolution means that is the size that you can detect the difference in objects. So with a meter resolution you can tell cars apart, but not even detect a person. Resolution is the max, blowing it up larger does not gain you anything.

To use x-rays you need an x-ray source, beaming x-rays at the moon would get you in lots of trouble, also due to the distance, they would spread out and not be of any use.

Sorry, no real way of doing it.
theTroll

But I just saw something the other day on x-ray imaging. The sensor they have uses the radiation available from 'out there'. Seems like if they tuned it in for reflected signals they could do it without having to 'shoot' x-rays from here on Earth.

But, if the image received covers too large an area, then yes this just won't work - I suppose.

[quote]What if the photo of this square mile were made the size of a house or something, and then people went over it with a magnifying glass - isn't there any way?[/quote]

"Resolution" is similar to a single pixel on a LCD monitor. No matter how much you magnify a pixel of a single color, it's still the same single color, with no variations.

Cycle, when they are talking about resolution, even with radio astronomy, the problem is the items on the moon are going to get "lost" in the background.

Even if the radio telescope at Areciebo, Puerto Rico, were to be focused on the Moon, the reflected energy, from whatever source, is going to be too much to discern something as small as even the Lunar Lander base, never mind the flag.

Look at it this way, if you put a radio telescope only 40,000 miles from Earth, and aimed it at the Earth, you wouldn't be able to pick up something as small as the Empire State Building. It would get "lost" in the background noise from the Earth.

If you were to try and bounce a radar wave off the Moon (which has of course been done), with the intent of "seeing" something as small as the Lunar Lander base or the flag pole, the signal would be too diffuse to be of use. To be sure you'd pick up the moon itself, but not something so small as the objects left there.

Also, others are correct, merely getting pictures of objects left on the moon would not convince the conspiracists. They would simply state that those items were placed there by robotic landers.

Well, then, pffft - if there's no proof we went, then I'm joining the OTHER side -

[quote]if there's no proof we went[/quote]

Well, what do you consider proof? A picture? How would you know it wasn't faked? For some conspiracy extremists, the only acceptable proof is for them to go in person and see it. Anything else might have been faked just like the landing.
You can't win.

Well since I didn't go there, then nobody else did either -



You're correct. Pointless debate, but that makes for great tv! -

SO, I say we didn't go!

Near as I can tell, the 'no Moon landing' crowd's entire case can be summed up as 'It didn't look the way people thought it would, therefore, it was faked.'

That seems to lie behind most other conspiracy theories. 'It doesn't look right' is usually based upon lack of knowledge or understanding of whatever is under question. Some people like neat and easy answers that make the world seem less random and frightening.

Just about every silly argument against the moon landing is covered at www.clavius.org.

FACT there is a reflector on the moon left by nasa so a obseratory can reflect a laser back and measure the relitive distance of the moon to the earth i dont know the name of sead obseratory but google does