Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/12/2004 1:50:40 PM EST
I was pondering this when I was watching the History Channel. With the technological advancements in optics and such, is it possible? Thanks
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:53:19 PM EST
tagged....though i am thinking no....
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:54:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:55:58 PM EST
Can it be seen with the Hubble telescope?...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:57:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:58:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:58:24 PM EST
One would think that high-quality scopes could see something like that on the moon.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:58:44 PM EST
Don't know about the hubble, but a backyard scope will not resolve any of that detail.

GoGo
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:58:57 PM EST
Go to nasa.gov and ask.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:59:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:00:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:02:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:03:59 PM EST
I asked the question on a professional astronomer's website a couple of years ago.

The bottom line is that our groundbased telescopes are not capable of resolving that small an object. Hubble, for several reasons I can't remember, can't do it either.

If you're looking for proof that we've been there, we have left reflectors for lasers to measure subtle distance changes.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:48:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:
I asked the question on a professional astronomer's website a couple of years ago.

The bottom line is that our groundbased telescopes are not capable of resolving that small an object. Hubble, for several reasons I can't remember, can't do it either.

If you're looking for proof that we've been there, we have left reflectors for lasers to measure subtle distance changes.



Hubble doesn't need to resolve anything that small, after all, it's ment for imaging Freak-in' stars and Galaxy's....And they ain't exactly small little things.

Tall Shadow
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:55:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 3:57:50 PM EST by kindstranger]
Do a Google search for Diffraction limitations or Dawes Criteria, and you can quickly determine the angular size a certain sized telescope can resolve. Theoretically speaking, and optical telescope in low earth orbit would need a mirror 40 meters across to resolve human artifacts on the moon.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:57:06 PM EST
We have laser reflectors or whatever, but since people can't do that in their backyard they won't believe it. Eventually we'll be able to "see" it from Earth, but people won't believe that either because that equipment will be just as unreachable. Maybe one day you'll be able to set up a dish or something attached to a laptop in your backyard, and see crystal clears images of the site from your back porch, but people won't believe that either because computer are too easily compromised. The people who don't believe we went there don't believe because they don't want to. You could fly them there and let them walk around Tranquility Base and they'd say you drugged and hypnotized them.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:57:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:11:43 PM EST
I was at Palamar observatory and we did a focus on the area in question.

The only thing we could see was.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
John Kerry's medals
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:39:47 PM EST
At that distance, one mile covers about one arc second of sky, which is 1/3600 of a degree. An average telescope, such as a 4" reflector, can see details up to around an arc second or perhaps a little smaller. The bigger the light-gathering area of a telescope, the smaller detail it can resolve. The lunar lander, the biggest manmade thing on the moon, is only about 20 feet in diameter. That's 1/264th of an arc second. Even the Hubble wouldn't be able to see something that small.
Top Top