If there is a flag on the moon at tranquility base why not snap a shot with hubble  cant or wont?
100366
Not even hubble can achieve the resolution to see a flag on the moon.
188723
Several. Acouple of the key reasons was because the flag was waving. There's no wind in space. Also, when they were hopping around on the moon, they weren't going any higher than what they would have on Earth. They were merely going in slow-motion. Also, between Earth and moon there is the Van Allen belt, which contains radiation. Today NASA says that we can't go to the moon because we don't have the technology to safely pass through the radiation. The reason the moon landing was faked was because we were in the Cold War which harbored the space race. The Soviets were beating us so we needed something that they wouldn't be able to top.
50872
This was one of the claims made in a effort to debunk the moon landings. Here is an explanation on why no stars are seen in pictures taken in space.\n\n"The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs. \n\nThis claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon. \n\nBill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour"
876714
No.  Even the Hubble Space Telescope cannot resolve objects as small as the Lunar Module or the Saturn IVB booster that were crashed on the the moon for seismic experiments.  The HST can resolve objects as small as 0.05 arcseconds.  To see the Lunar Module, it would have to resolve objects as small as 0.0005 arcseconds.  In other words, you'd need a telescope 100 times better than the HST and you'd need it to be in space.\n\nAnd just for the hoax lovers ...\n\n1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.\n\nb) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nc) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?  Who took the video of Neil Armstrong? \n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal wel
1040803
Explain how a 600 yard wide rock could cause the 2,160 mile wide Moon to wobble, without touching it? It'd be like throwing a golf ball at a bus and expecting it to tip it over....\n\nIt doesn't matter what the moon does as far as wobbling and spinning, it's gravity isnt affected (unless it breaks up) and therefore the end result means zip to us. We may just get to see the far side!
422854
The moon although is a sphere, but it is so far away that it appear a flat round disk. there is nothing strange about this and if people are not educated that moon is a spherical rock, they'd probably think it's a round flat disk.\n\nBut for me, I see it as a hole in the ceiling.
703223
There is no oxygen in space, so you couldn't light a match. I bet if you could though, it would burn in a sphere.
1139401
Due to atmospheric interference, it would not be possible to see any mad made object left on the moon from a telescope on the surface of Earth.\nHowever, there is a very powerful, Earth orbiting, telescope which is free from atmospheric distortions…the Hubble space telescope.  However, even this telescope, as powerful as it is, could not possibly see the flag left on the moon.\n\nUsing a little math and common sense, it would not nearly be possible to see the flag on the moon with the Hubble space telescope.\n\nFirst, let’s get some basic facts straight.\nThe Diameter of the Hubble telescope is 2.4 meters and the distance from the Earth to the moon (on average) is about 3.84 E8 meters.\n\nPretty much the only thing limiting what Hubble can and cannot resolve is diffraction through a circular aperture (i.e. how light waves interact with each other when they get to Hubble's mirror.\nThe minimum angle which a circular aperture can resolve is given by the formula,\nTheta_min = 1.22 Lambda / D\nwhere Theta min is the minimum angle, Lambda is the wavelength of light we are using, and D is the diameter of the opening.\n\nIf we assume we are using light at 500 nm (roughly the middle of the visible spectrum) and we know that Hubble's diameter is 2.4 meters, we can find the minimum angle to be,\nTheta_min = 2.54 E-7 radians.\nThis is quite a small angle by Earthly standards, but will it compare to the angle to the flag on the moon?...we'll see.\n\nHere is where I have to make an assumption, but it is a very reasonable assumption and one that will assure us that out answer is correct. Watching the moon landing videos, one can see that the astronauts placed a moderately sized flag on a pole on the moon. Although I don’t know the exact dimensions of the flag, I can assure you, it was definitely no bigger than 10 ft. But for the sake of argument and to make the numbers easier, let’s assume it was 10 feet (~3 meters).\nIf the distance between the flag and Hubble is the same (about) as the distance from the Earth to the moon, then we can calculate the angle between the top of the flag and the bottom of the flag pole as seen by Hubble orbiting Earth. The angle comes out to be about, 7.81 E-9 radians, about 30 times SMALLER than the absolute minimum angle Hubble can resolve...and this is if we assume that the flag is 10 ft, which it obviously is smaller than that in reality.\n\nPlus, Hubble was specifically designed to look at VERY distant object. Although the moon is far away, it might as well be right next to us compared to the stars/galaxies/.. Hubble is supposed to be looking at. Therefore, I don’t know exactly how it will respond looking at such a close and bright object.\n\nOne this is sure through, you could not see the flag, even with one of the best telescopes ever built operating perfectly under ideal conditions using visible light.
1105641
Your question has been answered.  In fact, even the largest telescopes do not have the resolving capacity to see a flag on the moon.  \n\nWhy would you think it was faked?
485816
You know that with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the flag on the moon?
842001
It works for me.  http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/
543224
No government can lay claim to the Moon!\n\n§ 7.3.1.1 International and National Laws\n\nThe 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits governments from making territorial claims of celestial bodies, e.g., the first man on the Moon could not claim the Moon for his country, and likewise for Mars, and other bodies in space.\n\nJust one among many international laws through the U.N.\n\nHOWEVER!!!!\n\nThere are no international treaties that keep private claims from being made.  Meaning that there isn't any international law keeping you or anyone else from claiming territory on bodies in space.\n\nSo good luck defining the boundaries of your claim and enforcing your boundaries Integrity.
1165410
Ugh I cannot believe people actually ask this retarded questions.\nTell you what sparky, go outside at night, when there are plenty of stars. Now, take a picture of a friend with a flash or using an external light (as they did on the moon) Know what you'll find when the photos come back? NO STARS!\nWhen you understand what FOCAL LENGTH means, you'll know why the photos on the moon have no stars in them. I hope the website helps you understand...
138088
The hubble telescope it up above all the atmospheric disturbance, allowing for much higher quality photos.\n\nFor the same reason stars twinkle, land based telescopes have a limited resolution power, after a certain size, it doesnt really help any (unless you want to build a complicated atmospheric correction machine to adjust the mirror to compensate).
1044689
There are stars in some, but not all of the photos.\nStrong lighting causes the stars to get underexposed, and that is why you can't see them.\n\nIf you have any reason to doubt our landing on the moon ask the Russians (Who had their own lunar program) if they believe it.  They had many spies, and would have benefited greatly if the moon landing was in fact a hoax.
514886
the moon won't blow up.  it is geologically inactive.  that means that its just a dead rock up there orbiting the earth.
288730
Why can't we see the flag on the moon?  \nA.    Lets assume that: \nThe height of the flag (a) pole in ft. = 6 \nThe average distance to the Moon (approx) in miles = 221,000 \nWhich means that the distance to the Moon (approx) in feet (b) = 1,166,880,000 \nB.    Given the above: \nThe tangent (t) of the above in radians [tan(a/b)] = 0.0000000051, in radians \nConverted to Degrees [180*(t/pi)] = 0.000000295 degrees \nThis means that a telescope would have to be able to resolve an angle of 2.95 x 10-07 degrees to see the flag left on the moon.\nC.    That means:\nSince one Arc Degree (1/360 of a circle) = 1.000000000 Deg. \nAnd one Arc Minute (1/60 of a degree) = 0.016666667 Deg. \nAnd one Arc Second (1/60 of an arc-minute) = 0.000277778 Deg. \nWe can calculate that:  \nThe Angle to be resolved is: 0.000000295 Deg. \nAnd the Angle to be resolved in Arc Seconds is: 0.001060596 \n\nSo, to see the flag, a telescope must be able to resolve an angle less than an 1/1000th of an arc second.\n\n"So how big of a telescope would that require?", you ask.\nThe Dawes limit calculates how close two objects can be and still be resolved by a telescope. \nThe formula is:  Resolution (in arc seconds) = 4.56/Diameter. \nSo, to determine the required diameter, the formula is:  D = 4.56/Resolution(arc seconds) \n\nDoing the math, that is 4.56/.001060596 arc seconds, to see the flag a telescope would require a mirror 4,299.47 inches wide! That is 358.29 Feet!\nA super-telescope THAT big would have to be in orbit, to eliminate the turbulence of the earth's atmosphere.