Why can we not see the Lunar Rover on the Moon with a powerful telescope? (asked with Arnold accent)?

Answer 1

Hi. You could. You would need optics capable of resolving to what ever size object you wished to detect. And a way to eliminate atmospheric distortion. It would be cheaper, I think, to go up and get closer to the Moon.

Answer 2

Telescopes can not see element smaller than a fee concerning to the wavelength of sunshine and the diameter of the telescope reflect. this is a diffraction result due the the wave nature of sunshine. A rule of thumb, referred to as Dawe's decrease, says the smallest element that could bee considered with the help of a reflect D inches in diameter is 4.fifty six/D arc seconds. as an occasion, the Hubble area Telescope has a ninety 4 inch reflect, so 4.fifty six/ninety 4 = approximately .05 arc seconds. (approximately 13 millionths of a level). A 2 foot rover 240,000 miles away is basically approximately .00033 arc seconds huge, so which you will choose a telescope a hundred and fifty cases as super because of the fact the Hubble to be certain it! with the help of how, there's no working rover on the Moon. The previous Soviet rover went ineffective some time past. the only working rovers are on Mars now.

Answer 3

Telescopes cannot see detail smaller than a value related to the wavelength of light and the diameter of the telescope mirror. It is a diffraction effect due the the wave nature of light. A rule of thumb, called Dawe's Limit, says the smallest detail that can bee seen by a mirror D inches in diameter is 4.56/D arc seconds. For example, the Hubble Space Telescope has a 94 inch mirror, so 4.56/94 = about .05 arc seconds. (about 13 millionths of a degree). A 2 foot rover 240,000 miles away is only about .00033 arc seconds wide, so you would need a telescope 150 times as large as the Hubble to see it!

By the way, there is no operating rover on the Moon. The old Soviet rover went dead long ago. The only operating rovers are on Mars now.

Answer 4

Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.

Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.

Answer 5

I think its not powerful enough.

By the way tell you some jokes. And the jokes goes:

-Doctor! I have a serious problem, I can never remember what i just said.
-When did you first notice this problem?
-What problem?

One more joke:

A guy calls his vet and says "What should I do with my cat?Vet says "What do you mean? Guy says "I had a leak in my lawnmowers gas tank and the cat drank the gas. Then the cat began to run around and around the yard, climbed a tree. then fell out of the tree stiff. Vet says "Is the cat dead? Guy replies "nope he ran out of gas.

Last of all just want to tell you that whatever you do, just don't give up. Also you must love and care for the people around you. In that way they will also show you the love that you show to them. Just be yourself and happy everyday. Wish you all the best and good luck!!

Answer 6

The really big telescopes can only see features that are a mile and a half or more in diameter.

Answer 7

Because we've never been there.