Moon Landing - Real or Fake?

The purpose of my posting is not to advocate the Moon Landings were a hoax, or that they there valid. Merely to ask skeptical questions, with an open mind.

Doesn't it seem very odd that we were able to land a man on the moon with antiquated technology of 35 years back, but that we have not duplicated that feat since?

Why doesn't NASA aim the Hubble telescope at some of the artifacts on the moon and try to take pictures of them, to debunk this nonsense, once and for all?

Why do we have thousands of man-made satellites around the earth, but we don't even ONE in orbit around the moon? Wouldn't it be nice to have one in geosynchronous orbit on the dark side of the moon constantly reporting images to us?

Its not the technology. The sad fact is that no one wants to go back. Therefore we haven't even bothered.

all?

Because the relative brightness of the moon would burn out Hubble's sensors.

Images of what? Craters, boulders, and dust that never moves?

No. Why go to the moon again? Why not use the money to explore, oh I don't know, Mars?

It doesn't have the power to resolve those artifacts. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php? number=134

The thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth are taking pictures of people and plants and weather, or relaying telephone calls and television pictures, or sending time signals to GPS receivers, or any number of other tasks. What would you expect a satellite to be doing on the dark side of the moon? Is the surface of the moon likely to have changed since 1972? Would this be money well spent, or could it be better spent on, er, exploring Mars?

It costs money. There's no glory (especially in American minds) in doing something for the second time. Given a reason and an acceptance of the risk (and America is risk-averse these days) and a budget of about 20 billion dollars it would take about 4-5 years to get a human foot on the Moon again. If we went to stay (multiple missions with larger teams, with a permanent base) it might take seven or eight years to build the infrastructure needed before the first landing.

Because it would destroy the instruments in the Hubble which are not designed to look at really bright objects like the Moon. Any pictures from such an observation if it succeeded would be condemned as fakes.

There have already been pictures taken from Lunar orbiting satellites that show (in not good detail) at least one of the manned landing sites, including the descent stage of the lander still in place. From thirty miles up there isn't a lot of detail

A question of money ... especially it would be quite strange to spent billios of dollars, only to convince some nonbeliever.

Because hubble is constructed to see objects in fare distance and the moon would be to bright to see anything.

Of cause it would be nice to have satellites out there. Also it would be great to have some around Venus, Jupiter, Pluto and near the sun. But it is always a question of money and the priorities of science community and polticians. By the way - there is an European satellite on the way towards moon. It uses first time a nIon drive for interstellar travel and therefor need a little more time than with a convetional rocket drive. But it will be there next year and maybe you will get some prove.

It's sad that 'sad' is a understatment.

The vision, excitment and unifying awe that space brings.. oh well. It will come in a more enlightened time. Don't you think?

Bull.

If you are 'merely ask[ing] skeptical questions' then why can't you be bothered to do your own research? Excuse us if *we* are skeptical about your claims. The answers to your questions are all over the internet. If you bothered to look for a few minutes, you would already have the answers.

There's but one reason you made this post; to stir the pot as a troll.

Several other people have answered your 'skeptical questions' adequately and accurately. I'll add on here some points that were not made in response to this question. o If you think not having satellites in orbit around the moon is proof we didn't go, then you must also think that all other unmanned missions to the moon, and indeed all other beyond Earth orbit missions were faked too. o It wouldn't make a difference if we did have a satellite on the 'dark side of the moon' (laugh). You conspirowackos would insist the images were faked, just like you insist (with no logical grounds) that we didn't land on the moon, and the pics from the surface of the moon are all fake too, every last one of them. Same reasoning applies to your idiotic Hubble question. Even if Hubble would not be destroyed (it would be) by looking at the moon, and even if Hubble could resolve the landing sites (it can't...not sensitive enough), you would insist the image are faked. You already insist NASA is a grand conspiracy. Hubble's run by NASA. So, the images would be faked too.

I stand corrected on this. Observe: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/1999/14/im...

But proven from the same cite as above... 'Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across'

What reason would we even WANT satellites orbiting the moon??

Human beings are curious monkeys

So he'd have a twin brother?