Can You See The American Flag On The Moon? Yes!

Bright Venus (bottom) and Jupiter are joined by the Hyades (right of Jupiter) and Seven Sisters star cluster (top) in the eastern sky at the start of morning twilight today. Photo: Bob King

I got up at 2:30 and casually surveyed the sky while poking around with the telescope till 4. Total meteor count: 0 Delta Aquarids and 2 unrelated meteors. Maybe tomorrow will be better.

Sharing the 50-degree temperatures with the crickets and katydids that inhabit the dewy grass was pleasant enough. Venus and Jupiter along with the Hyades and Seven Sisters star clusters totally jazzed up the eastern sky, and at 4:06 a.m. the space station breezed by. I hunted for the Progress cargo ship along, ahead of and behind the station but never saw it. Did you have better luck?

Apollo 16 astronaut John Young hops while saluting the flag in April 1972. Credit: NASA

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) keeps on giving. Flying only 31 miles high above the moon’s surface it snapped a set of newly-released photos of the Apollo landing sites that plainly show the U.S. flags planted by the astronauts.

The flag that John Young saluted is still visible in this picture taken by the LRO. The gray-colored blob is the flag; its contrastier shadow to the left is easier to make out. Also seen are the lunar descent module, astronaut tracks, the Lunar Rover and its tracks. Credit: NASA

One of the most common questions asked by the public when we’re looking at the moon through a telescope is why we can’t we see the American flags or any other sign of Apollo with the Hubble Space Telescope. It IS the most powerful telescope, right? Here’s the rub. The smallest possible thing Hubble can see on the moon is about 328 feet across or the length of a football field. While impressive feat of resolution, no Apollo spacecraft comes anywhere near that size. Every piece of man-made hardware is below the space telescope’s resolution limit.

Because of the lighting angle, the Apollo 17 stands out even better than Apollo 16’s. Credit: NASA

The trick to seeing flags and other details is not necessarily a bigger telescope; it’s getting a camera in orbit close to the moon. That’s what the LRO’s been doing for past few years. Its cameras can record objects 1.6 feet across. Lots of things, including lunar descent modules, experiments placed there by astronauts and even their footpaths come into focus in LRO’s eye. And now, the flags.

Astronaut Harrison Schmitt stands on the surface of the moon next to the U. S. flag at the Taurus- Littrow landing site during the Apollo 17 mission. A “half-moon” Earth is visible at top. Credit: NASA

I swear I can see the contrast difference between the stripes and the dark, starry patch and even a hint of the flagpole in the Apollo 16 photo. Pretty incredible!

The only flag we probably won’t ever see is the first one, planted there by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on July 20, 1969. Aldrin reported it was blown over by rocket exhaust as the astronauts left the moon to return to the orbiting command module.

Since the flags are made of nylon they won’t last terribly long under the extreme conditions on the lunar surface. Strong ultraviolet light from the sun has probably already caused the colors to fade. Over a longer time, the flags will turn brittle until one day crumbling into little heaps of dust during a moonquake.

Click HERE for full resolution views of the Apollo landing sites taken by LRO.


273 Responses

  1. Doc

    i think what i find most offensive is the fact we have sats posted overhead that can make it a person’s bic pen in hand from 100 miles above but we cant have a better image than these from 30 miles above..
    im sure it’s because the LRO is what….antiquated/outdated/been there floating around 40+ years??

    1. astrobob

      The flags are incredibly small. The largest object the Hubble Space Telescope can resolve on the moon is about 300 feet across. That’s pretty darn small but much, much bigger than any piece of Apollo hardware. Only the moon-orbiting LRO, when its orbit was lowered to a mere 31 miles, could see such tiny details on the moon. You do bring up a great point however – why not a bigger telescope in orbit around the moon to record details like we can from Earth orbit? Possibly an issue with cost? BTW, LRO was only launched in 2009.

      1. jonathan holen

        Cost? bullocks. Its about priorty. DOD Budgets worldwide are much more interested at, say, making out the resolution of a hand grenade from inside our own mesosphere, or tracking macroeconomic paradigms that we can already accurately predict. Too much time is spent policing one another and maintaining a hegemony of predation as old as time, when something with 1/10 the resolution, just pointed in the other direction could advance cosmology. the optics and the software is already in place. We just need to look out, instead of in. 50,000 psi of c02 for 1:30 cost billions? I think not.

      2. sly

        c,mon huble can see other galaxies .but it cant see the flag sorry for thinking mmmmm bull. (now that china is on moon and can see no evidence. I dont buy it

        1. astrobob

          Hubble can see distant galaxies because they’re many light years across and composed of brilliant, radiating stars. The most distant ones are so far away they look nearly identical to stars. Even you and I can see one of two galaxies with the naked eye alone (and thousands through a telescope) but the stuff we left on the moon is simply too small to see in the Hubble. For instance, I can spot at least 10,000 galaxies in my 15-inch telescope, but the smallest feature I can see on the moon is about 1/2 mile across. Now that’s pretty small much too big for any of the Apollo hardware. Hubble can get down to 300 feet, still much to coarse a resolution to see any hardware on the moon. To get even a halfway decent image, we have to use the hi-res camera on LRO which orbits about 31 miles high. These are the simple facts of life a.k.a. telescopic resolution limits.

          1. JP

            LOL, astrobob.

            So the Hubble telescopecan resolve 300′ and your 15″ scope can resolve 2640′, therefore the Hubble has only nine times better resolution than you 15 incher? Sure…

          2. astrobob

            Resolution limits are set by the diffraction limit of a telescope’s optics not by my opinion on the matter. Keep in mind the Hubble is not an especially large telescope (94-inch mirror — only 6 times the diameter of my telescope’s mirror) compared to what we’re using on Earth these days. You can read about diffraction limits here: and specifically about the Hubble here:

            Hubble’s theoretical limit is 0.05 arc seconds but its practical limit is 0.1 arc seconds in visible light – that’s how large the apparent size of an object must be for Hubble to resolve it. The diffraction limit for a 15-inch scope is 0.3 arc seconds.

            Hubble can do better than that limit in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum with a limit of 0.024 arc seconds. That’s the absolute theoretical best. At the moon’s distance, 0.024 arc seconds equals 141 feet. That means two objects separated by 141 feet could just be made out in Hubble’s eyes. Not clearly, not sharply but you could detect it.

            Unfortunately it is very difficult for Hubble to observe the Moon because the telescope is rapidly orbiting the Earth, causing the moon to appear to swing backwards and forwards in the sky very rapidly. Since Hubble can’t compensate for this, it’s unlikely that this limit could ever be approached. A more practical limit is closer to 300 feet.

            OK, so let’s look at the Apollo lunar landing module. It’s 5 meters or 16.4 feet across. Equipment the astronauts set up is even smaller. It’s simply not possible for Hubble to see anything of this.

          1. Duh

            Still funny Hubble can see stars in galaxies billions of mile away yet can’t get a better picture of the moon. The Hubble should be able to see the lunar lander like you looking at your car in the driveway.

          2. astrobob

            Many people make this assumption, but the Hubble scope doesn’t have magical powers. Like everything, it has limits. The smallest object Hubble can see is limited by the size of its 94-inch mirror. At the moon’s distance, the biggest thing it can discern in visible light is around 300 feet across. That’s pretty small until you consider that the lunar lander was only 17 feet tall and about 14 feet wide. Much too tiny! To date, only the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, orbiting 31 miles from the surface, has been able to see and photograph the Apollo sites.
            Hubble can see incredible detail on Jupiter, but at Jupiter’s distance, the smallest object visible is miles across. At a galaxy’s distance, Hubble can see stars – but not resolve them as disks just like you and I can see stars, only fainter – but the smallest objects it can resolve as shapes are light years or trillions of miles across.

        1. astrobob

          The answer has been an emphatic YES ever since NASA’s Lunar Orbiter photographer all six Apollo landing sites several years ago.

  2. Jason

    While I’m not one of the conspiracy theorists that believe the moon landing never happened, I have always wondered why the flag seems to move as though there was wind even though space is a vacuum.

    1. astrobob

      Hi Jason,
      The flag flapped because of the exhaust expelled by the lunar module when it blasted off the surface of the moon on its return to the orbiting command service module. The exhaust and dust were enough to blow the Apollo 11 flag to the ground.

        1. astrobob

          The Apollo 11 flag is the only one to blow over from rocket exhaust. The others are still up. Remember, theirs was the first flight and there are lots of variables. It wasn’t easy to get those poles wedged in tight.

          1. Bojan

            I am sorry, but could you please explain, why there was no dust or smoke under lunar module, when it lifted off when launched from the surface of the moon? What kind of engine doesn’t produce smoke and even flame under it, only some sparks?

          2. alek

            it is really amazing to know that america reached the moon,before the birth of the microprocessor. It would have been even more amazing if america had reached the moon before niklaus tesla was born. that could have been stupendous. we shoud ask few questions to the astronauts 1) did they land during the lunar day 2) how did the cooling system of the spacesuit handle the 120deg celsius. 3) what was the power for the space suit. 4) was there backup power on spacesuit 5) what batteries did they use in the spacesuit. 6) did they recharge the spacesuit batteries from solar power? 7) was the spacesuit designed for the lunar night also? 8) why was water used as a coolant ? 9) did they have snacks/drinks on the moon if they were thirsty? 10) the water coolant , would it not freeze in the lunar night?

            the moon landing cannot be reviewed by any independent person because of us secrecy

          3. astrobob

            All the answers to your questions are well documented in many books and online sources. By the way, all the astronauts landed during lunar day. It would have been incredibly hazardous to land at night when there’s very little illumination of the lunar surface.Here’s what Armstrong and Aldrin ate and drank while on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission:
            1st meal: bacon squares, peaches, sugar cookie cubes, pineapple grapefruit drink and coffee
            2nd meal: beef stew, cream of chicken soup, date fruitcake, grape punch and orange drink
            They also had snack items like dried fruit, candy, extra beverages, wet packs, sandwich spread, and bread.

        2. Saber

          Even agencies like NASA and brilliant Astronauts such as Neil Armstrong can make mistakes. In 1999 NASA lost a $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter just because they didn’t convert their units from English to metric. Nobody is perfect.

          1. astrobob

            You’re absolutely right. That was a terrible mistake. Officials at NASA admitted the mistake too and took measures to prevent it from happening again.

        3. Are you honestly that ignorant? Everything you are trying to dispute is explained, I hope for the sake of your well being you are just trolling, otherwise I fear you have a brain on par with a small rodent.

    2. SX

      If you’re referring to it waving when they placed it down then that’s easy, it was still moving from when the astronauts placed it. It’s an upside L frame that holds the flag and the top wiggled a bit when being placed into its spot. Nothing difficult to understand unless you’re trying to make it out to more than it was, like the conspiracy theorists.

        1. jonathan


          That is because we do not have high quality cameras mounted on any satellites orbiting the moon like we have orbiting Earth.

          Space is only 62 miles up. However, the moon is 252,088 miles away from the moon.

          1. caralex

            Yes, we do, Jonathan. The LRO has been orbiting and photographing the moon with its high quality cameras, since 2009.

  3. nathan

    I love it when you call someone that doesn’t believe the “official story” a conspiracy theorist like it’s an insult. Like all of the things that the government has lied about that was later declassified and showed that they were lying. All the people that doubted those stories were called nut job conspiracy theorists. Like all the radiation testing done on people throughout the country and Agent Orange used against everyone. In every case the conspirator is both parties technically. Although I do not make any claims, I still think that it doesn’t hurt to question the “official story”. Just tell me this, what of the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the absolute lack of radiation protection on all Apollo rockets and the PLSS suits. No radiation fogging on any stills or video footage when in fact even to this day our technology still cannot overcome even 5 rems of exposure, yet, all stills came out crystal clear. So many lighting issues like when they have the sun back lighting a still and the front of an astronaut is still lit up. I dunno, I just can’t find any answers to these questions.

    1. astrobob

      Please don’t suggest the Apollo missions were a conspiracy. I am not going to spend time arguing their reality especially in light of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos which I had hoped would finally put this non-issue to rest. Just to touch on your questions:

      * Van Allen Belts: The Apollo astronauts were not only shielded by layers of aluminum within their craft, their passage through the belts was brief and led only to minor radiation exposure within the allowable limits (between 0.16 and 1.14 rads which is well below the limit.) Bottom line – they flew to the moon and survived, many into old age and to this day.

      * True, the sun illuminates one side of the astronauts but sunlight reflected from the surface provides a considerable amount of additional or “fill” light for the other side.

      1. nathan

        Well I do appreciate you taking the time to respond but I don’t know… Will you watch this video?
        It is a bit long, but I don’t know what to think after I watched it. I really don’t want you to look at anything you don’t want to but it seems like there are so many discrepancies. I am not trying to stir the pot. Please trust I am completely sincere. I have always had my eye to the sky and I am sure you and I have a lot in common. I just want someone who can elaborate with me. Thanks.

        1. astrobob

          It’s so depressing to watch this. I gave up after a while. It hurts to see people, who really don’t know details of the lunar landscape, what it was like inside the Apollo capsule or even who understand the basics of shadows, wheedle away at a great achievement. Just one example – take a look at this photo and you’ll see how utterly incorrect they are about shadows. Notice that depending the distance between you and the object, shadows diverge at different angles exactly as in the Apollo images. Here’s the pic:

          1. Re

            The pic shows clearly how the front most tree is dark, the huge light coming from the back is creating even and parallel shadows, whereas on Apollo 11 pics the astronauts front part were exposed to light as if from a projector

          2. astrobob

            The shadows are exactly what you’d expect to see on the uneven terrain of the lunar surface with the sun shining. Can you tell me what tree and what astronaut “front parts” you’re referring to?

      2. Richard

        I am Quite sure they had flashes on the camera’s and light’s on the spacecraft tho illuminate any subject they cared to photograph… The Doppler effect alone (from all of the numerous and continuous communication from radio communication and telemetry from all of the vehicles ) would have proven with everyone who had a radio with the frequency shift alone that someone was speeding around the moon at regular intervals. Also Triangulation of radio signals would pinpoint the locations and distances… not to mention telescopes would locate general locations as well. Also if we could have sent suborbital missions and had rockets that could send nuclear payloads why not monkeys and men. Your a smart guy don’t you think if there was a race to the moon and we cheated the Russians/Chinese/world would have screamed foul…My guess is you have seen Capricorn 1 once too many.. Tell me you jest…

      1. astrobob

        Probably because of weight restrictions and the fact that a 4-foot-long flag was considered adequate. Erecting a large flag would have likely taken more time (very precious stuff – NASA had those guys BUSY) and accomplished little. Even if a larger flag had been chosen, it would have had to be at least 300 feet across for the Hubble Space Telescope to see it.

          1. Richard

            Perhaps if they had known people would have had such a denying spirit 40 years later Buzz would have shuffled out with his feet or with the lunar rover BUZZ WAS HERE with the tire tracks…. so it could be seen from afar… like some do on the beach… but then some would say it was done by a robot with remote control… why would anyone do that unless they knew people would doubt their story…. You cannot fix stupid…

          2. DW

            A better option would have been large repeated circuits in the rover so the paths could be seen via a telescope

          3. astrobob

            A great idea but time was too precious to waste on something so trivial. Plus, it would take A LOT of repeated circuits.

  4. David

    Astro Bob, you have the patience of a saint. We live in a great country but, alas, a crass society. Thank you for shedding additional light on this, one of man’s greatest achievements. Wish there were more like you.

  5. Mark

    Astro Bob I applaud you, as David said you truly do have great patience. I my self question the so called “official version” of most things the government puts out. I am of the belief that there were six maned missions to the Moon and twelve American Astronauts walked on the Moon and collected sample and photographs. I have been wrong about many things before however. You seem to very knowable about the subject and I have one serious question to ask you If you could find the time to reply. I haven’t been able to find a suitable answer that I find plausible. That my just be my fault for not looking in the right place or not understanding what I’ve read. Could you explain to me why no stars appear in any of the pictures take from the moon?

    1. astrobob

      Hi Mark,
      Thank you for your kind words. The answer to your question is easy: shooting pictures on a sunlit moon is much the same as on a sunny day on Earth. The camera shutter speed is very fast because light is abundant. To photograph stars – which are nearly as dim at the moon as they are from Earth – requires a much longer exposure and a tripod. Since the astronauts were photographing rocks, scenes and each other, the exposure times were much too brief to record faint objects like stars which require exposure times of many seconds. You won’t see stars in any of the sunlit pictures of Earth taken from the space station for the same reason. To photograph stars and auroras, astronauts use time exposures and high ISO speeds when they fly over the night side of Earth.

      1. Mark

        Thanks a lot for that. Makes perfect since I should have been able to figure that one out myself since im familiar with the long exposure process used to photograph nebulas, gas clouds and such in space with a telescope. Which I think is basically the same concept with shutter speed and exposure.

        I truly appreciate you response 🙂

  6. nagyelme moores

    no manned mission to the moon for the past 40 years or so….that is the fact that fuels the conspiracy theories. And why not? Fairly obvious that humanity is not able to mount a manned mission there today, much less 40 years ago with space science in its infancy.

    was there a strong motive to mislead the World? – yes. Was there the capability to fake the missions – yes. Going for a spin around the Earth and faking the rest is entirely plausible.

    1. astrobob

      While no landings may sound plausible to you, they nonetheless happened and have given us a bounty of information about the moon. Some of the hardware the astronauts left there still functions to this day and provides valuable data. We haven’t been there since because there’s been no strong desire on the public’s part or the political will. The U.S. changed direction after the moon landings, which accomplished a Cold War goal, and focused on developing the shuttle and space station as well as expanding robotic missions to all sorts of interesting places in the solar system.

      1. Ken harris

        there is proof that there is far to much radiation in space for a man to survive. The suits they used then had very little if any protection from it. No way they could of passed the van allen radiation belts and that is a fact. Mythbusters said nothing about that.

        1. astrobob

          They passed through it and that is a fact. The passage was brief enough – with protection offered by the ship itself – to not kill or injure the astronauts.

          1. brian

            if we really did got to the moon, why have we not been back and have heard so many rumours of US being warned away, I read the last appollo mission had a (alien) intervention of some sort.

          2. astrobob

            We haven’t been back because the support and money to continue were lacking. It was a version of “been there, done that”. Instead plans were set for a more permanent place in orbit with the SkyLab mission and future space shuttles.

        2. Kanman

          If Space is filled with deadly radiation, how is Richard Branson and Virgin going to fake taking the general pubic into Space next year? and how are the crew of the ISS still alive?

          1. ahon

            Well all the space walks and space stations have always been inside the radiation belt! They have never,ever gone further than few hundered miles…… Even if you check NASA web page they admit that radiation/flares etc is the biggest problem but what amazes me is that only APOLLO ASTRONAUTS SUPPOSEDLY HAVE EVER GONE THROUGH THAT BELT OUT INTO UNKNOWN SPACE! just think about it the thing which was not a problem for NASA in late 60s , why turns out to be still a major issue in year 2014???

          2. astrobob

            The reason that ONLY the Apollo astronauts have gone through the radiation belts is because after Apollo no other country including the U.S. sent people to the moon or beyond. There is no need to go through the belts or linger there unless you’re on a voyage beyond the Earth. I’m guessing the Chinese will be the next to send someone to the moon. No doubt the moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy machine will be ready to pooh-pooh that as well.

      2. DW

        First I want to thank you for the blog. I was hoping something like this was available. I was a mere boy of 13 when it occurred and I read all that had been published on it, for the schools, in the years leading up to it. My dad’s bombardier in WW II even worked on the LEM for Grumman. But, name calling and dismissal of the criticism only fuels the minds of skeptics and with an increasingly over reaching govt, willing to lie to the people and spy on us at a whim. It’s no wonder there’s such a complete dis-trust of that same govt & it’s agencies.
        They waste billions sending Hubble up and it can’t even see until it’s repaired. Why not spend a few million to debunk all this and have NASA actually do the debunking. They won’t and the reason is they don’t care as they provide much of the technology for the spying perpetrated on innocent Americans and free nations around the world. NASA like all govt agencies care only about grabbing their piece of the tax dollar pie!!

        1. MBDK

          NASA actually considered doing this, but decided to put their time and effort to better use than to give those with conspiracy-driven agendas any free publicity. The people at NASA were smart enough to realize that the vast majority of MHB (Moon Hoax Believers) won’t accept any amount of evidence, anyway. Besides, EVERY issue the MHB have presented has been thoroughly debunked by astronomers, physicists, and other like-minded individuals many times over. Also, although the MHB will use cherry-picked excerpts from NASA’s records, they turn around and say they refuse to believe anything NASA says – quite a telling double standard. So, why waste time and resources on debunking what has already been debunked, to a group of people who refuse to accept the blatantly obvious?

          The MHB seem to embody General Melchett’s sentiments from the Black Adder series: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.”

  7. Chase

    Myth Busters did an episode on this. Even if you doubt, how can you with people proving the moon landing was actually true?

      1. Swarriner

        ‘The Lasers Bright Magic’ by Thomas Meloy

        Page 876
        “Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment.”

        Many types of signals can be bounced off the Moon, even without any type of reflectors. In the 1950s, Moon-bounce was used to communicate around the curvature of the Earth. If you were in the military and wanted to talk with someone in Hawaii from California, you would bounce your conversation off the Moon.

        1. Jonathan

          I was impressed by one of the commentators photographing the ISS. Even with my 36MP D800E and a 300mm f2.8 with 2x converter I get a speck that , if I fully zoom in, barely shows the shape of it. I have a 12 inch dobsonian which I want to try and capture images of the ISS with. Is going to be difficult though I suspect. What is the theoretical resolution limit of my scope and what would the smallest crater I could resolve on the lunar surface be? I saw a pic once of a lunar walk photographed via a scope on earth. I find that a. It hard to believe, detail was rather high..

          1. astrobob

            Hi Jonathan,
            The only real photos of the Apollo “walking trails” I know of were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. You should have no problem seeing the shape and solar panels of the ISS with you 12-inch magnifying around 60x. The smallest crater you’ll see on the moon under excellent seeing conditions will be a little under 1 mile across.

  8. Ken harris

    Anyone who believes we actually landed on the moon the 1960s technology is a fool. It would be the same as putting a rocket on a dart and hitting a bullseye from the US to Russia. There is nothing man made on the moon. If there was flags on the moon they would be bleached white by the sun. This whole thing is b.s.

    1. astrobob

      You are correct about the flags. They started out in color but if we could return to see them now, they’d all be white from bleaching in the sun, much like what happens to colored cloth/plastic left out in the sun a long time here on Earth. As for the landings, it’s time to accept the accept the truth they happened and celebrate a great achievement.

      1. brian

        so why hasn’t the inventors of hubble made a telescope to see smaller detailed objects surrounding our high orbit and lunar surface?????

        1. astrobob

          There’s no need to build a bigger telescope to study the moon from Earth orbit. We’re already there with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which can take photo of objects 3 feet across from its usual 31-mile-high orbit. See today’s blog for more on the orbiter plus links:
          As for high orbit, there is a dedicated telescope facility on Maui in Hawaii that tracks much of the space junk and orbiting satellites. It’s atop Mt. Haleakala at 10,000 feet. By the way, the Hubble can only see objects the size of a football field at the moon’s distance.

          1. astrobob

            Someone screwed up at Perkin-Elmer, the folks who ground the Hubble mirror, when they assembled a testing device incorrectly. Granted NASA shares the blame, but this was clearly the case of a very unfortunate human error. On the bright side, NASA did the right thing and came up with a fix. The telescope has been doing cutting edge research ever since.

  9. smudge

    It’s so sad that a young generation of people would find it so easy to consult the internet (or Web) and draw conclusions based on whatever they read (or see).
    Instead…get to work. Pull your pen or pencil (yes! Pen or Pencil, if you know how to use it) out of your pen-protector, grab a slide-rule and use some engineering to solve the problem. Or as an option, put your computer to good use and do the same.
    “We don’t do it because it is easy, but because it is hard.” JFK

    1. DW

      The leftist govt of the US wants the population dumbed down. It makes for a more compliant and reliable democrat voter. They don’t believe because they were never taught.

  10. Pete Perry

    wow, you have some amazing patience. but all the conspiracies just go to show how amazing of a feat of engineering the lunar moon landing was. I kinda want to see If i can make a model rocket & lunar rover to reach the mood, a child’s dream I know. but heck, I want to, so I’m going to try, let them call me nuts! and I’ll have my fun, whether I’m successful or not 🙂

    again, nice article!

  11. Bruce Kasper

    What tangible benefit has the General public gained from NASA landing on the Moon or for that matter going into space? Don’t include any new materials like plastics , etc., or any other spin-offs from the Space Program, they could have been developed otherwise given the motivation.

    1. astrobob

      I’m sure other readers will have something to add but for starters:
      * The picture of Earth as a small blue globe floating in the blackness of space
      * Jobs
      * Knowledge not only of how to build better rockets but in-situ study of the nearest alien world
      * 842 lbs. of moon rocks and all we’ve learned about the moon and lunar environment through their study by hundreds of scientists back on Earth
      * Partnerships between NASA and business to commercialize technologies developed during the moon missions including everything from freeze-dried foods to kidney dialysis machines that allow patients greater freedom. These are not trivial spinoffs. There are dozens and dozens more. To discount them by saying we would eventually have discovered this stuff could be applied to every single human enterprise you might deem less than relevant.
      * Gave the nation a sense of self-confidence that if we work hard enough we can accomplish the impossible.
      * Got young kids excited about science and space. I was one of them who got hooked!

      1. DW

        Well it’s only something a govt could do that’s for sure. Anywhere else they get sacked for wasting that much and having such a tiny effect on humanity. I mean really look how few believe it even happened.

        1. astrobob

          7% (2013 survey) think the moon landings were faked – a bad enough percentage but far from a majority.

      2. The Pandacoon

        THAT’S the number one greatest achievement by mankind in the history of ever, our number one crowing achievement that really set the standard for human beings for the rest of time.

        To see earth as a “…small blue globe floating in the blackness of space”

        To think how far we made it in less than 100 years… at the rate we are growing in comparison to even 100 years ago… it’s really staggering.

        I’m so grateful to be living in a time of such technology, wisdom and intelligence. I’m saddened that even though we have nearly limitless knowledge at our fingertips, a majority of people would rather look at butts or cats on the internet than learn something.

        I’m just rambling at this point and while I am I’d like to ask if you believe in intelligent life outside our solar system and if so, how smart do you think they are? Smarter than us?

        1. astrobob

          I agree with you that the moon missions were a grand achievement. I sure hope we return soon. Yes, I think there are other intelligent life forms in the universe, some even smarter than us. We might not meet them for a million years but their existence is possible.

          1. The Pandacoon

            Oh, I have another question. Have you ever heard of “Kerbal Space Program”? I don’t know if you play video games but you should look into this one, I got a feeling you’d like it.

            There’s a quote you might like “We’re the middle children of history, born too late to explore the earth and too early to explore the stars”

          2. astrobob

            Hey Pandacoon,
            Thanks for the recommendation. No, I don’t play video games but will say there’s still much to explore on Earth and lots and lots of middle ground like the planets, moon, comets and asteroids before we set sail for the stars.

  12. Ben Reddick

    Watched it all on TV live never get bored watching videos again.
    It happened (the landing on the moon) wish I could have been there.

  13. Vince Earl

    For all you skeptics, I guess since things also accomplished in the same era that have not been repeated recently (in America), that are clearly visible to us, are somehow justifiable. Whether you approve of them or not, the building of nuclear power plants with 1950’s technology should be plenty of proof of what could be accomplished with a slide rule and pen and paper. Plants built back then are still in operation today. How about the building of the Hoover Dam (and many others), the Golden Gate bridge (and many others), the Empire State building (and many others), the lochs built across all our rivers, and finally, the massive interstates that connect all our major cities.

    Our “big business” government today would have no interest in fostering such an endeavor like these. America still has everything needed to accomplish almost anything, yet we sit back and watch the extinction of animals, global warming, mass consumption of our natural resources, and so many other sad things happening today while big businesses hoard money and stagnates our economy.

    I guess as long as we have our video games and cell phones to occupy our minds we will sit back a do nothing, dream about nothing, and take a skeptical view of everything. Perhaps Christopher Columbus was wrong, the world really is flat.

  14. Bryan

    Unbelievable that some people still don’t accept that the moon landings happened. The fact that it was all done with 1950’s /60’s technology only makes it all the more of an achievement for the brave men and women who have risked ( and lost ) their lives to prove it could be done. Some one asked what did it achieve and that was well answered. The broader question often asked is what has the whole space effort done for the human race? Well for a start if our robots had not gone to Venus we would not know half so much about what powers the so called green house effect.

  15. Chuck

    I want to pull my hair out…..folks who cannot accept the idea of moon landings as fact make me crazy. Consider this….the technology used in the 1960’s was very advanced for the 1960’s….you cannot compare technology today to technology back then and say things must not have happened.

    I cannot believe astrobob entertains these statments. Geez. the Egyptian pyrimads must not have been built because 3000 years ago they didnt have the tecnolgoy to move big bricks. Must be a hoax, the space station is a hoax, its all a hoax. My computer is a govt hoax too as is the internet. Wait a minute, in the 1960’s Star Trek used communicators…my cell phone must be a hoax too.

    One word describes this whole situtaion: EDUCATION……we need more of it.

    1. astrobob

      Couldn’t agree more. Anytime someone leaves a comment about the moon landings being a hoax I try to use the opportunity to educate.

  16. Kanman

    What funny about the tin foil hat brigade is that they choose to ignore hard facts.

    1. If we did not go to the Moon, how did we set up the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment?

    2. If Space is filled with deadly radiation, how is Richard Branson and Virgin going to fake taking the general pubic into Space next year? and how are the crew of the ISS still alive?

    I guess mad men relive what they believe.

  17. Chris

    I just saw a show on the military channel that said that Neil Armstrong admitted that when they took off from the moons surface, that the flag blew over. so whit gives?

    1. astrobob

      You can’t see the shadow of the Apollo 11 flag because it fell over. Flags and the shadows they cast are visible at other Apollo landing sites including 12, 16 and 17.

      1. Swarriner

        @ Kanman:

        1. Q: If we did not go to the Moon, how did we set up the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment?
        A: Experiments recording echos from lasers targeting the moon have occured since the 1950s. See pg. 876 of ‘The Lasers Bright Magic’ by Thomas Meloy

        2. Q: If Space is filled with deadly radiation, how is Richard Branson and Virgin going to fake taking the general pubic into Space next year? and how are the crew of the ISS still alive?
        A: Every space craft with humans aboard, beginning in 1961 to the present, all have maintained altitudes of one thousand miles well below the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Richard Branson and Virgin will not travel nearly far enought to pass through the deadly Van Allen Radiation Belts. The only space craft alleged to go through the 25,000 miles of those belts was the Apollo.

        1. Kanman

          Echos from lasers targeting is nothing like the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. As one uses reflectors. Clearly you dont know what you are talking about or you are grasping at straws.

          Also the Van Allen Radiation Belts belt begins around 8,400 to 36,000 miles above the the surface of the Earth. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo will be reaching a cruising altitude of approximately 68 miles. So once more you have been proven wrong.

          The ISS is on the middle of the belt due to its orbit of 25k above the Earth. Again you make no valid points and I really dont think you understated what you are posting.

          I suggest learning about the subject you are speaking on and not just copying and pasting parts of Wiki out of context.

          1. astrobob

            I did not refer at all to the Van Allen Belts or the Lunar Ranging Experiments in the article about seeing the flag on the moon. Perhaps you’ve confused my story with someone else’s. For the record however, the Inner Van Allen Belt extends from 1,000-8,000 miles up; the Outer Belt from 12,000 to 25,000 miles up. The ISS also does not orbit at 25,000 miles as you write but rather 250 miles — well below the Inner Belt.

  18. dan

    I too would like to believe the Moon landing was true, I would have called anyone who thought differently a nut, but after some very basic research it all is very questionable now. Even the proof positive Lunar Laser Experiment reflectors. But it too can be explained “The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon November 17, 1970″…still no proof. I have always questions the transmissions, they seem way to clear and nearly no delay, wish you could explain this…thanks

    1. Kevin

      Radio transmissions travel at the speed of light. The speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec and the moon is 239,000 miles away from the Earth. 239,000/186,000 = 1.28 seconds. At 1.28 seconds, talk would be just about real time.

    2. MBDK

      The conversations were recorded at mission control on Earth, where Houston’s responses would have been naturally recorded with zero time lag.

  19. Paul K.

    As a Navy engineer I saw several big contributions the Apollo program brought to electronics in general. Electronics in the 1950s were unreliable – the Apollo program put an extreme amount of focus on improving reliability simply because building in redundant systems added weight which was the enemy (100 pounds of rocket and fuel to orbit 1 pound payload). NASA developed very elaborate tests to select the most reliable parts and when no commercial products were acceptable, they paid for development of new technologies. The military took advantage of these new products. It became a big deal to have your products selected for spacecraft. This lit a match under the electronics industry that continues today, except huge the profits in consumer electronics is now the driver. An iPhone today contains 1 billion transistors – In 1960 that would have required 3 billion solder joints resulting in an extremely large and totally unreliable product. We wouldn’t have iPads, iPhones, PC, and Plasma screen TVs today if it weren’t for the Apollo program.

    1. astrobob

      Thank you so much Paul for sharing this perspective on one of the (I’m guessing) little known benefits of the Apollo program.

  20. Cindylee

    Wow, “conspiracy theorists” are amazing. Do you folks think they lied bout the holocaust also? If we didn’t travel in space and land on the moon, maybe there isn’t a Van Allen Radiation Belt either. I mean if we haven’t been out there how do we know for sure there even is a space to explore? Maybe we are in a big fish bowl.

    If the USA fabricated the moon landings and everything that went along with it it would be the most elaborate and useless propaganda stunt ever conceived. And to what end? So we could emerge as a superpower. The Russians beat us into space. Were we supposed to get the stuffed carnival toy for making it to the moon first?

    Face it folks it happened. We have advanced more in the last 75 years or so than we have in recorded history. It isn’t such. Leap to think that we traveled to the moon. Maybe the naysayers think the Mars Rovers are hoax also. I remember watching the original Star Trek as a kid and thinking that the handheld communicators were so cool. Something inconceivable at that time. Now every fifth grader has a smart phone or iPad. Anything is possible if it can be imagined. That is true now and it was true in the 50’s and 60’s.

  21. David

    Viewing the ISS this morning (11/29/13) I noticed a bright object accompanying the station. It was around magnitude 0 or -1. What might that have been?

    1. astrobob

      Hi David,
      You saw the Russian cargo ship Progress 53. It’s making “flybys” of the ISS testing new rendezvous equipment.

      1. David

        Thanks! It was an unexpected and enjoyable sighting this morning. If the cargo ship has not docked by tomorrow morning, I hope to capture some photo images.

          1. David

            Unfortunately, the Progress is scheduled to dock this afternoon. So, perhaps after it has undocked and is in a station-keeping mode before reentry.

  22. matt chaney

    Thanks for this I applaud you too, as it has been said you truly do have great patience, i have used this to educate my friends who have doubts! keep up the awesome work and keep looking at the skies!

  23. dave

    wow a pictue of a dot and a blob yeah that totally proves it i mean of course thats a flag what else could it be? I once saw a black dot about 1 mile out from my house and i knew it was a flag because i read this article which is science and science is always correct

  24. ahon

    lol you americans really good at fooling people! or shall i put it this way that rest of the world always believes in what ever america says other wise they will be labelled as enemies/fools/illiterates/ …….
    The fact of matter is there is no way we going to find out if they ever went to moon,as all the evidence/videos/pic etc are provided by nasa themselves!
    Only thing which really bothers me is that there is NOWAY they would have taken a risk going through extreme radiations/cosmic rays and extreme temperatures on moon without first sending a monkey/dog to moon other wise ITS NOT HOW SCIENTISTS WORK! At least let conspiracy theorists interview the astronauts???
    well as far as i go i do not think they will/can ever goto moon or above few thousand miles in space due to technology and no protection. Even a close look at the thing they used to apparently land on a moon shows how cheap and thin material being used! Good thing i was not born when all this crap/comedy happened..

    1. astrobob

      And good thing I and many others were alive during the time we sent men to the moon. It remains a magnificent achievement. Maybe someday you’ll be able to appreciate it instead of belittling it.

      1. Jed

        That’s the problem Bob, those who defend the moon landing stating it’s a “fact” it happened are the same people who lived during the period the Apollo missions took place. Since you watched it “live” on TV, it means it must of happened right? Your brain has been trained to believe the info that was fed to you thus you cannot deny it didn’t happen. We’ve come a long way in technology and education Bob. People 50-60 years later have just that, 50 to 60 years more knowledge in the realm of being “realistic” than those who had the knowledge they had back in this era of the Apollo missions. So we have every right to believe this never happened given our newer generations didn’t live during that specific time frame to say otherwise. Just pointing out the obvious.

        1. astrobob

          I don’t have to go to Paris to believe that Paris exists. Nor do I have to take a time machine back to 250 BC to know that Rome and Carthage fought the Punic Wars. Likewise, I didn’t have to grow up during the Apollo era to know that we landed on the moon. There are far more substantive facts regardless of my experience. Try 842 lbs. of moon rocks, volumes of data and personal history from the astronauts and hundreds of others involved in the Apollo program. Good gracious, we can see the descent stages, flags and astronaut tracks on the moon. I could go on and on.

          What exactly are you waiting for? A personal journey to the moon to see the sites with your own eyes? If that’s what it takes, then perhaps you should take the next flight to Paris (or Rome or wherever you’ve never been before) to be sure they exist, too. Free your mind and revel in one of the human race’s greatest achievements.

        2. caralex

          Your comment is a sad indictment of the dumbing-down of the education received by the present generation, and the lack of critical thinking that has resulted from same.

    2. MBDK

      Your mind appears to be too closed to appreciate this, but here’s hoping:

      The world doesn’t care to look foolish either. The Russian Zond 5 mission returned to Earth on September 21, 1968. The mission included carrying a biological payload of two Russian tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter. These were the first Earth lifeforms to travel around the moon and return safely. Previous NASA missions had already measured the radiation levels expected for the Apollo missions. How close a look HAVE you taken at the LEM and Command Module? Please explain what scientific basis you have to repudiate its functionality, as I, and apparently thousands upon thousands of scientists and engineers can’t seem to find even one.

  25. ahon

    Dear responder when ever you have time please enlighten us with preperations and rocket(saturn)launch experiments done in 60s and just before apollo moon landing mission… What was the feed back then how successful the test launches were? Who were the major critics?

  26. TGD

    Why not believe a nation that has killed all important freedom speakers..?! Other thing that puzzles me is how on earth (lol) they could put so many “stuff” up there..and of course not only one picture of the stars..its like going to the great wall of china and say: “oh yeah, its really big ! See this magnified stone i took with my super telezoom lenses from one brick..?! Really bad i didnt take any wide angle lenses with me!…oh well maybe next time….”

  27. MoonChild242

    Astrobob, thank you very much for this informational banter! I do believe we went to the Moon. I am a fine artist, with firsthand knowledge of layers, shadows, light/dark, etc. I’m also a universally deep thinker, always pondering the unfathomable expanse of dark matter in which our species unbelievably survives within. Staggers me daily.

    I am wondering as the flags have a rod across the top coming from the pole. What is at the bottom portion of these flags, so as the nylon doesn’t rise up on account of the absence of gravity? How were the astronauts able to withstand the searing heat to frostbite cold in their suits? As well as the module to take such abuse and stay at an ambient temperature? I heard it was batteries. Wouldn’t such heat from the Sun continue to escalate within an object during long exposures? Also, being an illustrator and a photographer, how do portions of the cross-hairs in some of the photos appear to be behind and cut off by certain objects? Just curious is all….

    1. astrobob

      Of course if we hadn’t there would be no Apollo landing sites, all of which were photographed – including the astronauts’ footpaths and instruments they left on the surface – in the past few years by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

      1. The moon has considerable gravity – at least compared to weightless conditions – which is why the astronauts could walk on its surface. There was never any chance of anything just floating away including the bottom of the flag. You needed a top bar on the flags otherwise they would have gone limp in lunar gravity.

      2. The astronauts spacesuits were built to work within a range of -290 F to 310F, though the astronauts were not on the moon during those extremes. They never experienced the extreme cold of night on the moon (all time spent on the moon’s surface was during daylight) and if I’m correct, neither were they out during full moon when temperatures reached extreme highs. The temperatures when Apollo 11 landed during lunar morning were between 60 and 120 F — moderate. The suits they wore had were white to reflect sunlight and heat and equipped with internal cooling systems.

      3. Ah, the crosshairs. Much nonsense has been cooked up over that one. Here’s the explanation: light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were “doctored” in, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.

  28. amritanshu johri

    Astrobob, Thanks for sharing the info, I was looking for the size of american flag put on moon bit, after a discussion on lunch table.I saw a bunch of folks here coming up with random data points based on pseudo science. Back in school we had this optics problem to prove how retro reflector work, thats when I came to know about the one on moon. Occasionally, putting a link from mythbuster helps. Keep up the good work! Cheers!

    1. astrobob

      Thanks for the link. Sometimes I find it doesn’t matter how much evidence you provide of the moon landings including photos taken of ALL the landing sites by LRO. The conspiracy crowd has often already made up their mind. Sad.

  29. SophieJade

    Wow you’re so awesome Astrobob. Thanks a lot for truly enlightening the mind blowing achievement us ‘tiny’ humans managed to accomplish. 🙂

    1. astrobob

      Aw, shucks, thanks SophieJade. Nice of you to write. We humans do OK for ourselves when we put our minds to it.

  30. Beth

    I didn’t read all postings. But how could we beat the” race”, but still can’t seem to orbit the earth without blowing up?

  31. Sanjay

    Your patience is admirable. And although this post is almost 2 years old, I still felt the need to tell you. Awesome write-up and further explanation!

  32. Gilly

    Over a year and the comments keep showing up. I am impressed.

    I came here via a search, wanted to know what I could see on the moon from Earth. Was really hoping, but I’ll take LRO pics.

    About this whole “faked moon landing” thing, some thoughts:

    I once saw a list, can’t find it now, of what astronauts die of. Job related incidents are high on the list. Cancer isn’t far behind.

    These men and women give their lives for this. Space travel is dangerous and there can be long term costs.

    Claiming the moon landing was a hoax is not only silly, because all the evidence says otherwise, it’s a grave insult to everyone who lost someone to furthering humankind’s reach.

    There will always be those who are medically inclined to interesting behavior. I am one of those people. At my strangest there’s not much to do but smile and nod and possibly call the white coat brigade.

    Those who claim the moon landing was a hoax willfully are doing a dis-service to those who worked hard and sacrificed sometimes everything in one of the greatest projects of humankind: Working together to extend our reach beyond our world in as many ways possible.

    1. astrobob

      Hi Gilly,
      Thanks for your comments. I agree. Denying the landings does a great disservice to all who worked so hard and risked so much.

  33. Bob

    Other than the obvious proof, the big thing that conspiracy theorists fail at is understanding human nature. You could never get that many people to help perpetrate a hoax that big. Most of those involved would have “come clean” decades ago. But flat-earth Neanderthals just learning how to read and write have to express themselves somehow. Just humor them.

  34. Another Bob

    The moon doesn’t rotate on its axis. Its has no days and only the position between the the sun and the earth correct ? Days are the rotation of a planet on its axis ? But anyway, did our current government approve a budget for a new satellite telescope ? Then we would see for sure…

    1. astrobob

      Another Bob,
      The moon does indeed rotate once on its axis once every 27.3 days. We do know for sure the flags are there not only because astronauts put them there but we’ve photographed them from very close lunar orbit. No current satellite telescope has near the resolving power of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. While not the largest telescope by any stretch, its proximity to the moon’s surface (about 31 miles) makes all the difference.

  35. calm down everyone

    It’s interesting to notice on this thread the old debate about whether the original moon landings were real or faked – for whatever potential gain at the time. Everyone is allowed to have their own ideas and opinions (where would we literally be in science/technology now if no-one ever questioned anything?). Personally I’m not 100% biased either way and read each argument from both sides (yes, BOTH sides) with an open mind as each piece of “evidence” is presented. I don’t claim to be an engineer or scientist in any way – but feel I have an adequate level of intellect to look at presented evidence from both sides and make my own personal judgement. However, what I do find most telling over anything else with regards to the “conspiracy” is the attitude time and time again from the “we did it” side of the argument – the fact that when questioned on facets of the evidence of the landing mostly have nothing more constructive to say than resorting to name calling and trying to poo poo “conspiracy theorists” as idiotic and mindless whilst trying to appear blissfully superior (I see the same old behaviour in this very thread) – I’m presuming the US Government never lied to any of you about anything?…ever? I just think that labelling the theorists as “loony lefties” as you seem to do doesn’t achieve anything at all. Has there ever been an actual constructive debate between the two “belief parties” in any shape or form? I would be interested to see how such discussions went – and hopefully that this didn’t turn into a schoolyard name calling exercise as usual…

    1. astrobob

      Calm down,
      There are logical, historical and scientific explanations to answer the questions and objections of those who think the moon landings were faked. I’ve calmly tried to answer questions like these over the years. The problem I’ve run into is that nothing satisfies the hard-core, pro-hoax folks. They’ve made up their minds and no amount of evidence will EVER suffice. They’ll debate even the most obvious of fallacies, say the question of why there are no stars in the sky in the Apollo photos, which has a simple explanation (the moon’s as bright as a landscape on Earth. A picture exposed to capture a landscape requires a fast shutter speed. Stars do no record in images taken with fast shutter speeds of 1/500 second.)

    2. MBDK

      I would like to add that, the “govenment lies” argument doesn’t really work. Just because the government has lied to us (and will probably do so in the future), they are always embarrassed when caught, LOVE to blame others, and endure serious fallout over serious matters (Watergate, etc.). To even CONSIDER attempting such a ludicrous course for the overwhelmingly most documented events in the history of mankind, should be proof enough that they wouldn’t have the brainpower to make it past even their first news conference without obviously spilling the beans. No, it’s just magnitudes easier to actually GO to the Moon.

  36. Ryan


    I was just looking at the daylight moon, just kind of watching it in awe. Suddenly, I saw a quick black object pass by. The object wasn’t a plane (I’m sure…way too high). It moved extremely fast and was only visible in front of the moon. What could it be? ISS or a satellite?? Is that possible?

    1. astrobob

      Hi Ryan,
      Were you using a telescope or was this naked eye? If a telescope, the ISS is a possibility. Another would be a bird. As the migration starts, they often pass in front of the moon in black silhouette. With the naked eye, the ISS might be visible as the tiniest of ‘flecks’ when it crossed in front of the light-toned areas of the moon. It has the apparent width of the crater Plato, which I’ve tried a number of times to see with the naked eye but have never succeeded. If you can tell me the date, time and accurate location, I think I can find out if the ISS crossed the moon at that time for you. Here’s a pic of the ISS in front of the moon by the way:

      1. Ryan

        Thanks! I saw it this morning with the naked eye somewhere around 7:30-7:45am ET. It was extremely fast (I mean fast) and disappeared immediately once it passed the perimeter of the moon. It almost looked like it wrapped around (or orbited) the moon although I’m sure that’s not the case.

        1. Ryan

          My gosh, Astrobob! I am all kinds of backwards on my times. It was 8:30-8:45 ET or 7:30-7:45 CT…just before my original post. Sorry, I haven’t had my coffee yet!

          1. astrobob

            Hi Ryan,
            Just got off the hiking trail. I checked and there were no passes for your area in daylight for the ISS this morning. Nothing close. Since it’s the largest satellite and would be a challenge to spot, that pretty much rules out satellites. Bird?

          2. Ryan

            I don’t think it was a bird just because it was way too high and too fast. But thank you so much for taking the time to research my question. I am going to assume was either nothing (like a dot you see after looking at bright light) or I will reach out there and say it could have been a faint meteor entering the atmosphere.

            Have a wonderful, blessed day!

  37. joe

    astrobob we need to go back to the moon with the tech we have now to prove to these idiots that it happened.All they really need to see is the out dated tech that was used to get there and maybe they would see what a huge deal it was.Plenty of examples in DC I have seen the stuff looks like rotary phone compared to what we have now!

    1. astrobob

      You know, I’d be thrilled if we went back, but 30 years after that mission, another group of naysayers would claim it was never done.

  38. john

    I’m glad you put up the picture of Astronaut Harrison Schmitt. that one is the very pic that made me a skeptic about the moon achievements. whoever doctored that photo didn’t do a great job regarding proportions: the earth from the moon has an angular size o 2 degrees, resulting in an actual AREA visible in the sky 15 times larger than that of the moon. this would make a magnificent view of the earth, larger than the astronaut’s head. I’m a photography enthusiast and no matter how you stretch it you can’t mend that gross error in photo manufacturing.

    1. astrobob

      Two degrees is not a large object in the sky. If you’re familiar with the Seven Sister star cluster (Pleiades), the Earth would just cover the cluster. That’s equal to 2 degrees. The Earth looms larger but hardly as large as you might imagine. Also, remember that the apparent size of the Earth in moon’s sky depends on the lens used to capture it and the distance of the subject in the foreground from the Earth in the background. It’s obvious a wider angle lens was used to include foreground and background in the shot, which necessarily will make the Earth appear relatively small especially in relation to Harrison’s head which is closer and in the foreground. It’s basic camera perspective and Earth’s apparent size (only as big as the Pleiades), not NASA trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

  39. Suspicious

    The moon has no atmosphere so the LRO COULD orbit just above the mountain tops if they REALLY WANTED a good look. You should then be able to see the nuts & bolts on a LEM even with a crappy telescope. Man you can almost read a stop sign with the naked eye at 1 mile with good lighting! They just need to fly lower with the LRO. Another point — your 15 inch telescope can see objects on the moon down to 1/2 mile across (2640 feet) and the Hubble telescope can only get down to 300 feet? Not much of an improvement for a multimillion dollar telescope I’d say. Let’s demand that we get a good look with the Hubble anyway just for the fun of it and to remove all doubt. Why all the stonewalling? Can’t the Hubble spare a few minutes or are they really afraid of what we may (or may not) see on the moon?

    1. astrobob

      Remember, the moon’s is not a perfect sphere and also has a lot of mountains and peaks. It would be quite dangerous to take an orbiter down to the level you’re suggesting. As for the Hubble, observing time on it is precious. Why should anyone bother using that coveted time to point it at the moon when we can see it in so much more detail with LRO? There is no stonewalling. Hubble is suited for so much more than my 15-inch telescope. As a probe of deep space able to observe across a much broader range of light (IR and UV) and take time exposures amounting to days, it’s far better used for deep space exploration or for details of planets, comet closeups, etc. It bothers me that people who deny the truth of the Apollo landings (not that you’re inclined that way necessarily) continue to look for ways to waste NASA’s time. No matter what NASA would could produce the most extreme close-up photos there will always be those who will say they’ve been faked. One thing is clear to me: NASA can’t win within this select group of doubters.

    2. MBDK

      Drive down the freeway doing 60 mph,and take a picture with a cell phone (just for consistency) of a house about 1 mile away. Now drive past the same house doing 60 mph (under safe conditions, of course) and take a picture of the same house with the same cell phone at the same angle from 30 feet away. Now tell me which picture reveals better details of the house. I believe you can understand where the closer is not always better reality lies.

  40. Matt Snyder

    AstroBob, you are magnificent! I love this article. I am intrigued with outerspace, especially the moon. I plan on purchasing a telescope. Nothing super high dollar. Just something to get me out there! Any suggestions on the magnify strength? I’m currently looking at a 400x70mm.

    1. astrobob

      Hi Matt,
      You are too kind! Thanks. Your scope sounds good but it wouldn’t hurt to go a little bigger if you can afford it. I’m a Dobsonian guy, so I usually recommend an aperture at least 100mm or higher. 150mm to me makes an ideal first scope. One that size in a Dobsonian setup goes for around $300. That may be too much for you, I don’t know. Once you have the scope, you can select different eyepieces to get any magnification you want. I like a low power around 50x and a high around 150-200x tops.

  41. Suspicious

    How much variation is there in altitude over mountains and such as the LRO orbits the moon? Is it in a circular orbit?

    1. astrobob

      The lowest LRO can go is 13 miles (21 km) above the moon’s surface. That’s how low it orbited when shooting the Apollo landing sites. Laser altimetry from the Clementine Mission revealed that the nearside of moon varies in altitude from about -4 km in basins to +5 km for the highest peaks/crater walls. It is in an elliptical orbit.

  42. CosmicCarl

    Some additional explanations for some of the suspicions people have about Apollo 11:
    1) The flag is waving because of the force being applied to the aluminum flag pole while the astronauts were trying to get it into the ground. The aluminum L-shaped frame had a certain degree of flexibility that caused it to bounce/sanp back when they were attempting to extend the telescopic sections. These movements in combination with the fact that the lunar surface was incredibly difficult to get the pole to stay in, meant that a lot of movement was caused directly by the astronauts even with small movements, and there was no atmospheric friction to help stop the flag from moving. Also, you can see in the video that an astronaut closely walking by the flag did not cause it to move at all. If that would have been done in a studio, the flag would have moved from circulating air.

    2) Light that is coming from directions other than the sun is clearly being reflected from the lunar surface onto the subject. The lunar surface is highly reflective. Photographers have replicated these lighting conditions before in the desert and have found that light reflected from a large stadium light behind a subject created enough light to clearly see that the front of the subject was not black but in fact discernible with details, just like the picture Neil took of Buzz with the sun in the background.

    3) The single greatest piece of evidence is right out of the lunar lander’s window, where you can see the various crater positions as they were approaching the surface for the landing. Google lunar mapping shown side by side with the video footage (during a presentation given by Neil Armstrong, I forget where) shows that the craters and surface pits seen out of the window precisely match Google’s mapping.

    Just wanted to mention a few notable items, there are so many more explanations available for those who are questioning the landing.

  43. CosmicCarl

    Took me a while to find it, here it is, Neil Armstrong’s presentation at the CPA Australia Gala Dinner on 8/24/11. Nasa footage side-by-side with Google imagery:

    And this one sums up proof in the physical environment:

    It should also be mentioned that when speeding up the movements of the astronauts, it is clear that their stride is not staged and is affected by the reduced gravity. Slowing down normal running in these suits doesn’t look anything like the strides of the astronauts.

  44. CuriousGuy

    Ahhh…. It took me more than an hour to read the comments. Really really appreciate your patience on the post. 🙂

      1. CuriousGuy

        Any idea about the next manned moon mission to moon? Why is there so much of gap if we have technology already built, last was Apollo 17 in 1972?

        1. astrobob

          Hi CuriousGuy,
          I don’t see any clear mission by the U.S. to the moon but India and Japan are planning missions for 2020 and China perhaps in 2025.


    Such great information, it is a shame so much attention is being placed
    on such a small minority not believing the moon landing happened. Would like to hear more interesting questions answered and less about
    why it did not happen.

  46. Lee riley

    To say the moon landings were hoaxes is preposterous. If they were indeed faked then it would be the biggest kept secret in history. You can’t keep a secret between a handful of people let alone the thousands involved with the landings. And not just Americans, Britain, Russia, etc were all following and tracking the launch. Faked landings? Blow it out your ass and give your head a wobble. It was one of mankind’s greatest achievements and to denounce it as fake is to insult those that risked everything. You should be ashamed.

    1. astrobob

      Hi Lee,
      I agree wholeheartedly. I’m assuming this was addressed to another person who commented, not myself.

  47. Timothy Ready

    So, Hubble can (so you say) see back 14 billion LY in time/space, but it can only see something 300 feet across on the Moon- a scant 250,000 miles away, is that it? So…all the craters I CAN SEE W/ MY NAKED EYE from my backyard are the size of a football field, right? And we spent how much on this Hubble garbage?
    You apologists for the Science-Industrial complex are so full of beans it makes me SICK. There is only one- ONE- piece of evidence I’ll accept that we went to the Moon- a picture of the flag, and I don’t mean that pixilated garbage you posted above- the face on Mars is more legitimate…but, of course, you NASA apologists always have an excuse why that isn’t real, right?
    You are liars, cowards and frauds and you make me SICK.

    1. astrobob

      Telescopes have resolution limits depending upon the diameter of their mirrors and the quality of the optics. Your eye’s a good example. From Earth, a keen-eyed observer MIGHT see the crater Plato, which is 60 miles in diameter, as a dark spot – never mind trying to distinguish a shape or crater rim. I’ve never been able to do this despite trying many times. Craters surrounded by ray systems like Copernicus are visible with the naked eye because the rays “inflate” the crater’s size. In Copernicus’ case, that would be about 250 miles across. Most people can see this when it’s pointed out. With my 15-inch telescope (considered a large amateur scope) on the very best nights I can resolve craters 2/3 mile across using high magnification. The Hubble mirror is 94.5-inches in diameter (just 6.3 times larger than mine) and has a resolution limit of 300 feet for objects at the distance of the moon. That’s much better than the 15-inch but hardly enough to see things as tiny as the Apollo landers. The reason U.S. reconnaissance satellites can see details a foot across is because they’re only 150 miles above the Earth, 1,600x closer than Hubble is to the moon.
      As I’ve said before, Hubble wasn’t built to study the moon but to gather the light of distant galaxies. I encourage you to scroll down and read some of the comments made MBDK below regarding the moon landings.

  48. Animaniacs

    Astrobob, it is very well known that this isn’t a hoax. Its kinda sad how ignorant people don’t think that we went on the moon. In the comments, someone has gotten in a very long argument that I don’t think is worth it, but it gets really annoying. I posted your website because this is a great picture of our landing site. Thank you for sharing this Bob, and I hope you share more soon.

    1. astrobob

      Thanks for writing – the video was fun. While I’m sure the guys who made it have no doubt we landed on the moon, they finished the piece with an unfortunate statement: “The human race might not have landed on the moon, but we’re pretty good at making up stupid crap.” The first part of that statement isn’t a good way to sign off on the topic if you’re trying to convince disbelievers.

  49. Jeffrey George

    So… let me get this straight. You are going to use photographs produced by the same agency that is being accused of faking something to prove that it was real?

    Just want to make sure I am understanding your logic here?


    1. astrobob

      Not sure to whom your comment is addressed. If to me, the photographs are real. A minority of people think NASA somehow faked one of mankind’s greatest achievements, so yes, those few people think the photos are faked.

      1. caralex

        Bob, there are those, like the foul-mouthed Timothy Ready above, who will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is put forth, but for those sitting on the fence, so to speak, this may help. It’s a video of Neil Armstrong giving a talk, where he narrates the last few moments of the Eagle’s descent to the moon’s surface as he shows the film taken from the lander. Alongside it, he shows the very same landscape from the LRO images found on Google Moon. The craters and rocks are exactly the same, in the same position as they were in the Eagle film. This is probably the one single piece of evidence that proves that the landings were not faked.

        1. astrobob

          Great video and thanks for the link. I encourage others to watch it. I disagree with you however that this is the one single piece of evidence that proves the landings weren’t faked. There’s tons of evidence they really happened! Thanks again Carol.

          1. caralex

            Maybe I should have said it was the most convincing piece of visual evidence – it’s easier to relate to than the arguments about the makeup of the rock samples, or the intricacies of optics and shutter speeds, etc. The evidence is hard to argue with, unless you’re such a die-hard conspiracist that you think both the Eagle footage and the LRO images were both hoaxed, then carefully manipulated to resemble each other. 😀

            Unfortunately, you’ll find people who WILL believe that! 🙁

          2. astrobob

            I know what you mean. Of course, it would be very easy for hoaxers to say the LRO image was doctored. That the lay of the shadows from the craters are TOO similar for it to be real.

          3. astrobob

            I know what you mean. Of course, it would be very easy for hoaxers to say that the shadows, for instance, cast by the craters are TOO similar to the Apollo landing video and therefore it had to be faked. I agree that it can help some people on the fence, but the hoaxers are virtually unreachable.

  50. Unclegilly

    Possibly the worst photographic evidence of leftovers on the moon, and you present this as confirmation? no wonder the internet is rife with moonlanding denials.

    1. astrobob

      Indeed I do because the images are truthful and accurate. I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken. Not only did we go to the Moon and leave parts and pieces behind, but we’ll return as well.

  51. Johnno

    Astrobob – I started reading this long, long (and fantastic) blog page, then started skimming faster and faster toward the bottom as I noticed a highly repetitive pattern of comments trying to stir you up regarding conspiracy theories and disbelief of being able to see hardware on the moon etc.
    WOW! And you keep responding with the patience of a saint! Hats off to you sir, but I think these guys are just trolling and trying to get a rise out of you.
    Why conspiracy theorist are reading this site is beyond me. Anyways, keep up the good work, but forget about these time waters. Cheers

    1. astrobob

      Thank you Johnno. You’re probably right, but every so often I’m naive enough to think I might get one of these folks to realize the truth of it. I’ve also learned a lot of good comeback arguments from other posters.

      1. Troy

        NVidia made an interesting video simulating the Apollo landing site. The presenter is more programmer/engineer than space nut but the video does make an interesting foray into some of the odd photographic circumstances of the lunar environment that have been fodder for conspiracy theorists (usually teenagers who think they know everything…)

  52. I have a few questions I would like to ask you, with hope you will answer honestly. I get tired of these UFO queries pertaining to possible Alien habitat on the moon. I understand some of these blurred pictures are on the dark side. Since the Hubble can take clear pictures of the moons surface why not point the Hubble to these areas of interest. Also, lets consider NASA is reluctant to release information per US government requests to withhold this information. Would this pertain to your organization, since one of the reasons for the Hubble is to explore the possibilities, that life does exists on other planets.
    Thank you.


    1. astrobob

      Hi William,
      Hubble is not the best telescope to study the Moon. Besides, it’s booked by astronomers doing all kinds of research, much of it focused beyond the solar system and well beyond the galaxy. The best telescope for the Moon has been there for years – the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). It’s made a complete, extremely detailed map of its surface (see this link: It can photograph objects only about 3 feet across and continues to study all kinds of fascinating lunar features to this day. LRO has given us detailed views of all the Apollo landing sites for instance and even photos of the recent Chinese mission to the Moon. If astronomers wanted to study the Moon with Hubble, its 94-inch mirror could only resolve features 300 feet and larger on its surface. All the lunar UFO stuff is hearsay, junk science, and alarmist nonsense. Don’t be distracted by it. The true wonder of what THERE IS on the Moon is what it’s all about.

      1. caralex

        Well said, Bob. It’s hard to believe that people are STILL demanding that Hubble find things on the moon, while ignoring the LRO, in orbit round the moon for FIVE years now! Can people honestly never have heard of it???

  53. Jesse

    Honestly, I don’t think the flag is nearly as convincing as the fact that you can still see our astronauts footprints. If it were filmed anywhere on earth those would have been long gone, between rain, wind, earthquakes, animal and plant life, they wouldn’t have survived a year let alone over 40, when looking at that picture it looks exactly like I would expect. You mentioned moon quakes at the end and I think that is the only thing that might fill them in with time, ever little quake will shift a small amount of moon dust and over hundreds and thousands of years they will finally disappear. But who knows, maybe by then we will have a base on the moon, space vacationing, and a lot more footprints.

    1. astrobob

      You’re right about the footprints – another sign of the truth of the Moon landings. Not only will moonquakes work to erase them, but bombardment by dust-sized meteoric debris over the centuries will help to smooth and level them.

  54. Jesse

    It really is incredible, probably some of the best pictures of the moon that I’ve ever seen, and that same LRO should be able to take pictures of the other landing site, which, was on the dark side of the moon right? Well, dark side from our perspective, technically the moon has days and nights just like the earth just with much longer days. It should also be able to document the dark side of the moon better than previous missions, we will finally see if John Lears forests and rivers are there (of course I know they aren’t), along with a billion people as he says, I feel bad for his father, and what John is doing to the legacy of the Lear name, but things like the LRO should help to finally stop the conspiracy theorists, sometimes things are exactly as they seem, and mankind makes some great achievements. Can’t wait till they put one of these around Mars and we can see the rovers bomping around.

  55. Jesse

    It really is incredible, probably some of the best pictures of the moon that I’ve ever seen, and that same LRO should be able to take pictures of the other landing site, which, was on the dark side of the moon right? Well, dark side from our perspective, technically the moon has days and nights just like the earth just with much longer days. It should also be able to document the dark side of the moon better than previous missions, we will finally see if John Lears forests and rivers are there (of course I know they aren’t), along with a billion people as he says, I feel bad for his father, and what John is doing to the legacy of the Lear name, but things like the LRO should help to finally stop the conspiracy theorists, sometimes things are exactly as they seem, and mankind makes some great achievements. Can’t wait till they put one of these around Mars and we can see the rovers bopping around.

  56. Jesse

    This is the first time hearing of the MRO, very interesting, how close can the MRO safely go to surface before you run the risk of dropping out of orbit? 31 miles from the moon is really close in terms of orbit, but the moon is tiny compared to a planet like Mars, I would guess that speed is the important factor here, because you need to go fast enough not to drop down to the planet, but slow enough that you don’t end up escaping the sphere of influence. Also, what is the resolution on the MRO compared to the LRO? Thanks for the quick replies by the way!

    1. astrobob

      Hi Jesse,
      MRO orbits between 125 to 250 miles above Mars. Good question about how low it can go – I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that one. MRO’s HiRISE camera can distinguish 3-foot objects in the visible spectrum and 4-8 feet in the near-infrared.

  57. Jesse

    Wow, very cool, thanks for everything, some stellar pictures from both orbiters, can’t wait to see what else comes up in the future, I’ve been eagerly awaiting the launch of the TESS Space Telescope, but I’ll be waiting a few more years before it goes up into space, but hopefully we will start finding exo planets that are the same size as earth, rather than all the super earths out there.

    1. astrobob

      We’re found a few Earth-sized exoplanets, but like you said, TESS should uncover many more. Launches in 2017, so not too long to wait.

  58. Jesse

    Exactly our current tech is just too limited, it’s really hard to confirm anything the size of earth o smaller, but that’s why I’m so excited for TESS, it should show us a lot of new exoplanets. You might be able to answer this, will the TESS scope have a better chance of seeing an exomoon? Or is that something that’s still farther off?

  59. Jesse

    Can’t wait, it’ll be exciting to see the capabilities when it launches, it’s things like this that make me wish I was born 100 years from now, I can only imagine what we will know by then.

    1. astrobob

      Think of all those who passed a hundred years ago when the largest telescope was 100-inches, the universe was only as big as the Milky Way and the first rocket that would reach outer space wouldn’t be launched for another 28 years. Yes, a lot can and will happen in the next 100.

  60. Terry

    It’s a shame when they left the flag on the moon, a solar powered light that flashed once in a while. Would have left no doubt.

    1. astrobob

      There is no doubt that we went to the Moon. Even if we’d left a solar-powered light bright enough to see binoculars, people would almost certainly claim that it was a sign of alien intelligence. If NASA denied that, they’d accuse the government of a cover up. If the lunar orbiter (LRO) took pictures, they’d say they were Photoshopped. And on and on and on.

  61. Jon Gritton

    Hi Bob, firstly let me like so many others congratulate you on your incredible patience; I’d have snapped like a dry twig years ago.

    Anyway, little to offer this thread other than light relief – have you seen this sketch by the UK comedy duo Mitchell & Webb?

    1. astrobob

      Hi Jon,
      Oh, that was so funny! I loved it. Made my day – thank you! I encourage everyone to click on Jon’s link and enjoy the bit.

      1. caralex

        A pity though, that the comments had to descend into vulgar, juvenile acrimony, as they so often do, on Youtube.

        1. astrobob

          Half the time I don’t look at the comments anymore. They often start out on the level no matter what the topic and then descend from there.

      2. Jon Gritton

        Thanks Bob, I thought you’d enjoy it.

        Like you, I rarely read the comments as I know what the content is likely to be. I try desperately to steer clear of these “debates” online but every now and again I can’t help but post and then I have to go for a quiet lie down for an hour or so before I can face the world again.

        There’s another of their sketches in the same vein about aliens, which I hesitated to mention in case it spawned its own “debate”.

  62. quilvio

    The LRO photos prove nothing for many reasons. 1. They are provided by the same organization tht fakes the landings in the first place. 2. We know unmanned Russian and American craft crashed on the moon years before the the manned missions. The artifacts in the photos could easily be one of those craft.

    Those who say if the landings were faked how could the secret be kept hidden for so long, ignore the fact that evidence has been around for 50 years or so that proves the landings were faked. It took hardly any time at all for the secret to come out in the open. And thousands of scientists involved with NASA have come forward and blown the whistle on the hoax. Even if you choose to ignore the anomalous photos, the deadly radiation belt, even the video of one of the Apollo crew staging shooting out of the CM window, how can you ignore so many scientific experts. Perhaps one day we will have the technology to get to the moon but we didn’t have it in the 1960’s.

    1. astrobob

      Sorry you feel that way about it, but the evidence of the landings is incontrovertible. And if you think LRO faked its pictures too, then I suspect the only way you’ll ever be convinced of Apollo’s reality is to go there yourself. That’s exactly like someone saying there’s no proof the Eiffel Tower exists unless they were to see it for themselves. Please share with us the list of scientific experts – and their credentials – who claim the landings were faked. You and other readers might also be interested in this Wiki entry:
      Makes for great reading and demolishes many of the conspiracy arguments clearly and concisely.

      1. quilvio

        If a third party such as Russia or China or India’s space agencies or the ISS provided clear photos of the landing sites I would be convinced.

        1. astrobob

          Are you sure – or might not someone argue that we were in league with the Russians and Chinese or paid them off so they wouldn’t talk? Not necessarily you, but I’ve known others who will never be convinced. All can be faked or deals made under the table. All the lunar conspiracy talk reminds me of the famous Mars face. Remember that? Early low-resolution images from Viking showed what looked like a face in a small hill. Some folks, notably Richard Hoagland, wrote books and made money saying it really was a face and the work of an earlier Martian civilization. NASA actually targeted the hill with the much higher resolution camera on a later Mars orbiter (MGS I think) to finally settle the controversy. The superb images clearly show the eroding hill and nothing more. The face was imaginary, part of the human penchant for seeing patterns. Did that convince Hoagland? Of course not. Now he’s seeing exotic, non-natural materials atop the hill.

          I think it’s time to recognize the fantastic achievement the moon landings truly were and give due to the astronauts and 400,000 people involved in everything from building the Saturn-V rocket (was there another reason to invest millions in a rocket powerful enough to free astronauts from Earth’s gravity?) to bringing back 842 pounds of moon rocks, which to this day are being studied by scientists around the world.
          As the wonderful video shared by Jon attests, it’s far easier to just go the moon instead of faking the whole effort.

          1. quilvio

            I’m not at the fantasy end of the spectrum that believes in aliens and alien conspiracies. Also, I watched all the Apollo broadcasts and had a suitcase full of NASA material from my teenage years. I was very excited at that time. I am not a disciple of Kaysing or Percy or Sibrel. I have done my own research. Much of what they say is bunk but I have discovered what appears to me to be undeniable evidence of a huge hoax.

          2. astrobob

            You and I share a few things in common – I also watched the landings and had a suitcase of Apollo (and Gemini, Mercury) material. I’m going to point you to Carol’s links (below) and also ask what is the undeniable evidence you have?

          1. caralex

            I posted this in October, above, but it’s worth posting again.

            It’s a video of Neil Armstrong giving a talk, where he narrates the last few moments of the Eagle’s descent to the moon’s surface as he shows the film taken from the lander. Alongside it, he shows the very same landscape from the LRO images found on Google Moon. The craters and rocks are exactly the same, in the same position as they were in the Eagle film. I hope Quilvio will take an unbiased look at it.

  63. alex

    I’m sure you will laugh at the questions but what is your view on the moon being a spacecraft controlled by reptilians that control the earth? like said in the book the biggest secret written by david icke.

  64. Giulio Pic

    Hi Astrobob,

    Do you agree that planting any flag representing something else than Earth and humankind after a manned landing on any future extraterrestrial destination would be completely wrong?

    1. astrobob

      That’s a good question. Flag-planting is a time-honored tradition, but assuming it will take more than one nation’s efforts to reach Mars, it would be more appropriate to come up with a flag design representing Earth and humankind. However, if China is the first to Mars and they do it alone, I doubt they’d be open to planting anything other than a national flag. National pride and all.

  65. njack

    Well if I was on the go government payroll I would come up with explain a tons too. The only thing I have to say is after the blood moon explain to me how the moon and the sun are hanging above earth and how in the hell do you explain we didn’t see the moon four four days after because the moon was so so called casting a 24 hours the world rotates. Day on one side of the world dark on the it her. We all see the same moon give or take a few hours. What I want to know is what the hell are yall paying in front of the moon for us not to be able to see it. Few locations on earth it is day time 4 to 5 months out of the year give or take..I ain’t no scientist. ???,,,*****????? I am more fascinated about how they can’t figure r how the longest light bulb is running non stop in the world without being cut off. Google it!! My question is if we turned it off do you think it would turn back on?? And you geniuses ask yourself. How if the Mayan calendar ended in 2012 did you know know when the blood moon would happen in the first place?? Stop feed g us bullshit and tell the people the truth…wake up America!!

    1. astrobob

      The moon “disappears” for a couple days around New Moon phase because it’s too close to the Sun to see in the daylight sky. Nothing weird’s going on with the moon. It’s the same old moon the Mayans admired. Also, the moon will “run forever” as long as it has the Sun to light it. That’s how we see the moon – by reflected sunlight.

  66. Lee michaels

    How do you explain the video shot by nasa that pro ports them showing the earth from 130,000 miles on the way to the moon (their own exact words) then you see in the video that the transparency of the earth is removed from the window and blinding sun light is now shinning thru that very same port is not my claim of them being out 130,000 miles but their exact words in the video!!! How is sunlight that bright possible being out 130,000 miles??? I can send you that video . I am not a conspiracy nut but just want the truth !!! Did you know that it was announced that NASA “lost” the original Apollo film !!!! And the moon rock given to the Norwegian ambassador by aldrin,Armstrong and Collins turned out to br petrified wood!
    ,!! This gift was kept in their museum before they realized it was fake. How is it possible that Armstrong, Collins and aldrin not to be able to see ANY stars at all ??? That is exactly want Armstrong and Collins said in their first press conference!!!
    , it is videotaped. How could Collins not see stars while orbiting the moon???? I have pictures of stars shown with the iss!
    ,!! And a scientist stating that yes he can see stars while looking out !!! There are other things I could also say such as no crater blast under the lem or even moon dust on top of the lunar legs. Thank you. I wish we could have an intelligent discussion about all the available evidence. The truth will come out. Nobody has explained how the film held up in such a hot and irradiated environment . The designer of the hasselblad camera is on video stating his concerns about why ALL the rolls of pictures are all in frame with no signs of radiation effects. This is his comments not mine. What did they use to protect the camera from radioactivity?? Again thank you!!!

    1. astrobob

      1. Sunlight at Earth is identical to sunlight at the moon. Like being blinded by sunlight coming through a window on Earth, the same can happen as seen through a window in a space capsule.

      2. There was never any claim the rock given to the ambassador was a moon rock, and it was not given to him by the astronauts but by someone in the state department. See story here:

      3. Collins and Armstrong saw plenty of stars at the moon, when their craft orbited around the lunar farside, but not from the day-lit surface. This is exactly what the ISS astronauts see when they orbit Earth’s NIGHT SIDE. When they’re on the dayside of the planet, NO STARS ARE VISIBLE. The Apollo astronauts were essentially in complete daylight on the surface, making the stars extremely difficult to see. Only the Earth was obvious in the sky though Alan Shepard did spot Venus and attempt to take a photo of it near Earth in the lunar sky.

      4. We’d been shooting film (even developing it in orbit) for several years before the Apollo astronauts took cameras to the moon. Just check out the hundreds and hundreds of Lunar Orbiter pictures as well as those taken on the surface by Surveyor. One of my favorite moon atlases was created with orbiter images. Film did fine for the spacecraft and worked splendidly in the specially-built Hasselblad.

      We hope someday you’ll come around to accepting the incredible hard work by thousands of people that created and sustained the Apollo program, one of humankind’s greatest achievements.

  67. Lee michaels

    Why was there no moon dust on the top of the leg pods? And why was there no rocket sound in the back ground while Armstrong speaking before landing the first time on the lunar surface? Mind you I have spoken at length to 2rocket engineers who are familiar with the engine on the lunar module. They told me that they produce 10000 pounds of pressure with sound decibels of 140. They are not acoustic experts but they told me that there should be at least some rumbling notice comming from the rocket engine loud enough to be included in armstrong’s transmission. I can actually give you their number if you need to ask any technical questions. I am serious about getting to the truth about these lunar abnormalies!! Thank you

    1. astrobob

      I don’t know about you, but I see plenty of dust on the pods touching the lunar surface. I have no idea about decibel levels on the rockets used. For sure, no one would have even heard a whisper outside the landing module. Are the decibel levels what the astronauts would hear? How much of that would be transmitted through the frame of the lander? I don’t know, but assuming it did rumble, the sound may have been muffled by their helmets.
      May I ask – Why is it so hard to accept the veritable mountain of firm evidence that we went to the moon?

      1. caralex

        Forty-six years on, and they just can’t acknowledge humanity’s greatest achievement. Sad, disturbed people, Bob.

        1. astrobob

          Sad is the word. It not only diminishes a great achievement for humanity but it’s shameful given that 12 astronauts risked their lives to go there.

  68. Thomas Henry

    Set aside all of the facts out there to debunk the crazy theories. From a very early age… About 5 I realized two things about the moon landings. 1. There were simply too many people involved to get them all too lie about it until they died. Someone would find some reason to tell and have kept evidence. And 2. Someday. Some other country will land a rover there and take more pictures. They will have no reason to cover it up, and actually would have some to gain by exposing it.

    1. astrobob

      Thanks Thomas for your thoughts. You’re realization of how many people were involved is a sound argument against the debunkers.

  69. riomar2017


    1. astrobob

      He’s only speaking within the context of sending people up using the Orion capsule. He’s not negating the Apollo program. Also, whenever we build a new spacecraft we always try to employ the best technology available (in regard to radiation shielding), so scientists would of course want to improve on what was used during the Apollo era. Current cars are equipped with sensors, computers, seat belts, Bluetooth and CD players or do you still prefer just an AM radio? That Van Allen thing’s an ancient argument. We did it – we went to the moon with shielding – and we did it with knowledge of the belts.

    2. BCstargazer

      here we go with the `TRUTH`again… riomar, does writing in caps somehow re-enforce your delusions. have you even watched or understood what the topic of the video you link to is ?
      The Apollo spacecraft, just like Orion, is not designed for a sustained stay in an environment similar to what is found in the Van Allen belts. but if you go through fast, you can limit the negative effects by using shielding.
      For the 9 manned trips of the Apollo program to the Moon (8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) the exposure to the radiation belts were limited to about 15 minutes each way, limiting exposure to the astronauts, who knew the risks.
      After the first couple of flights, a series of experiments were devised to learn more about the effects on the human body. One of them involved one astronaut wearing a blind fold while another was recording the subject as he was seeing colour flashes and light streaks that were later attributed to cosmic rays hitting the optical nerves.
      Now if you have some new evidence, feel free to present it without the uncivil attitude please.

        1. A toasty warm moon

          Do you think that humans can make a 1km telescope in space? Imagine what humanity would be able to see. Including a flag. I understand that a 1km telescope is a bit… large. I’m sure it could be done somehow. At lease a 200m telescope, still very large. I googled my home and saw that 200m would cover my whole street. That’s just the lens! The facility to house such a telescope would be massive. About the size of a football stadium, so a 1km telescope would HAVE to be in space. Yet, The ability to see SO much would be worth the time and money. A global effort for sure, could it be done?

          1. astrobob

            I’d love to see a kilometer scope! What will probably be done is multiple smaller scopes will be combined in orbit to make the equivalent of a 1-km scope. We already use multiple scopes (and combine their apertures) to create much more powerful instruments.

  70. riomar2017

    FACTS: In 1959 a Russian study discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding. How did the NASA astronauts account for the Van Allen Belts and Moon’s radiation? How were they able to walk on the Moon in such flimsy suits? On top of this, every 11 years the Van Allen Belts varies through cycles of radiation and 1969-70 during the Apollo missions they were at peak intensity. NASA has never provided an adequate explanation for this.
    On the first video which I referred you to, the NASA aeronautics engineer Terry Smith, explains, clearly, and without a shadow the truth about this FACT!

    I Believe you Bob A, intended to respond to someone else but got mixed up with email address?

    Anyway, in case you didn’t get my email, which you probably did, but maybe you just didn’t want to respond to it, cause I got a response, but not to what I had posted, and which is what I’m going to try posting here so you can check out. Hopefully this time it will go through from this page?
    It’s irrefutable evidence you asked for. If you’re still not satisfied with this other piece of TRUTH, then I still have another one which is still more disgusting than this one I’m posting today and asking you to check out. Hope you can accept the truth with this one, even though I doubt you will be able to do so? Best regards

    Enjoy and pay close attention to what the guy says and Please don’t twist it around to what’s convenient for you K? He, just as Terry smith on the first video, tells it like it is, and there’s no way around it. so please don’t cop out by saying…he misspoke!

    The arguments for NASA’s Apollo going to the moon can sound convincing, because like the JFK assassination, the established government and media both cooperate in altering the facts.

    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” -Adolf Hitler

    1. astrobob

      We grow tired of your anti-Apollo rants based on old information and videos with commentary that take what good people say out of context. Your video (or whoever did it) literally puts words in their mouths with its snarky remarks. Do you really think astronaut Terry Virts, commander of the ISS, believes we’ve never been to the moon?

      I thought hard about whether to include the video link but decided to let it go if only so others can see how blatantly it twists the truth. Once again, both men are referring to the simple fact that we can’t get beyond Earth’s atmosphere at the moment because we have no way to do so until Orion is completed. They’re talking about the PRESENT, not the Apollo era. Because we can’t leave Earth orbit now doesn’t negate the fact that we DID build and fly Apollo to the moon between 1969-72. NASA’s mission changed after Apollo to space shuttles and building an orbiting space station (ISS). We have not flown to the moon since 1972 because there’s been no lunar mission program and no money allocated to start over again. All that was ended back in the Nixon era for political (we “won” the space race) and economic reasons.

      Times are now changing. With Orion, we may again fly to an asteroid or the moon. Not that it will make any difference to the Apollo-denier mindset. I predict that no matter how or when we get to the moon next, the next generation of Apollo deniers will be there to tell us it never happened. It’s clear you think the government and media are out to get us, so I have no illusions about changing your mind. But please, spare us any more of these links that disrespect the achievements not only of Apollo but the current generation of scientists and astronauts.

      1. BCstargazer

        So a 1959 Soviet study guessed that we couldn’t do it Bob. End of story. Why question it? No point investigating the question further just in case someone made a mistake, sending probes with instruments such as the Soviet Luna series, The American Lunar Orbiters, Rangers & Surveyors. No point for the Soviets to build a giant Moon rocket (the N1) and develop a manned moon lander, Lunar EVA suits and equipment at the cost of valued resources and hundreds of lives.
        By the way Bob, since you’re part of the big conspiracy, can you tell us where did all the Saturn V go?

  71. Paul

    Nylon melts at 220 c, the flags used were standards issue nylon, how come they have not melted by now when temperatures on the Moon reach 250 c?



    1. astrobob

      The Apollo 11 flag was blown over by engine exhaust. Aldrin saw it fall. Of the five remaining flags, only Apollo 12, 16 and 17 are still there as revealed by their shadows in LRO images taken in August 2011. They’re no doubt bleached and colorless because of UV radiation as well as extremely brittle because of the extreme heat and cold. There are no signs left of the Apollo 14 and 15 flags. They probably fell apart in the heat and extreme environment. It’s unlikely the three remaining will last for much longer. BTW, nylon melts at 500 F, much hotter than lunar high temperatures.

  72. Anonymous


    Your patience and dedication are exceptional.
    Thanks for spending precious time, in sharing above information and replying to curious comments.

  73. Mark

    Apollo 11 lifts off from the Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969. This double exposure to include the American flag was taken as the Saturn V launch vehicle flies toward space. The vapor that circles the rocket near its center is caused by the difference in temperature between the super-cold propellants and the atmosphere.

    This is how NASA writes in 2015 a bit strange to caption a picture like that

    1. astrobob

      It’s an accurate caption up to the point that the vapor cone is described. This occurs when a rocket or aircraft is flying extremely fast, causing a drop in air pressure, cooling and a lowering of the dew point causing water to condense as a small cloud. More here:

    1. astrobob

      Yes, better than the Hubble, but that won’t be its purpose. It’s optimized to see in infrared light with a focus on comets, the Kuiper Belt and a host of far more distant objects in the universe. Even though its segmented mirror is almost 10x the size of Hubble’s (and probably could detect traces of the Apollo landings) I doubt whether astronomers would consider using it on the moon because the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still superior since it’s so much closer to the moon.

      1. caralex

        I get the feeling that there are still a large number of people out there who have never even heard of the LRO and the high quality of the images it’s been sending back from the moon over the past six years. Do you get that impression, Bob?

        1. astrobob

          You’re right. It’s almost unknown. Everybody knows Hubble (good PR thanks to the beautiful imagery) but I think those photos make people think that if it does so well on distant targets, why not the moon? LRO gets little coverage in newspaper and TV media in general but does does better in online blogs, etc. I’m a bit surprised how little of the public is aware of the LRO close-ups of the Apollo landing sites.

          1. caralex

            Yes, the very fact that this one blog article of yours is still going strong over three years later, would give the impression that there’s still an actual debate over whether the moon landings occurred, despite the incontrovertible evidence that they did, including the photographic evidence from the LRO.

            This evidence alone should have put the matter to rest years ago.

          2. astrobob

            Weird, isn’t it? It amazes me every week when I see that blog still getting hits. But as you know, people ARE skeptical all the same. I do think it’s a mindset of fear and distrust at the bottom of it all. A lens through which the world is seen.

Comments are closed.