2006-09-30 00:42:23 · 7 answers · asked by arnelixsin 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Hubble is infinitely repositionable. It can be pointed to the moon, if fact it DID take picture of the moon
However, the resolution of Hubble, despite its sophisticated optic, is still 0.1 arcsecond, this means that each pixel of an image of the moon would be over 100 m wide. You'd be able to see a football statium as a clump of 10 pixels, but forget about being able to recognize anything.
To do better would require a much bigger mirror, one that does not fit in a speace shuttle -- Hubble is the largest telescope that fit in the shuttle cargo hold, it was designed to be the biggest that could be launched.
As you can see from the attached link, this question has been asked many times before, and several years ago as well.
2006-09-30 00:54:24 · answer #1 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Hubble space telescope could see the moon landing sites, but it wouldn't see much.
The short answer is that the Hubble cannot see objects as small as the Moon landing sites, because of diffraction.
The Hubble is not a large telescope---it is only 1.9 meters in diameter. This means that its diffraction-limited resolution is about 0.05 arc seconds. The moon is 380,000 km away. At this distance, 0.05 arc seconds corresponds to a resolution spot size of 100 meters. The objects left at the landing sites are at most a few meters across. So you can't see any human artifacts on the moon with the Hubble.
2006-09-30 04:36:47 · answer #2 · answered by cosmo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Hubble telescope CAN see the moon landing sites. They are in plain view to the naked eye from Earth.
The problems are:
1) The focal length of the Hubble is optimized for extremely long distances -- so in effect the telescope is a little far-sighted, and can't focus efficiently on something as close as a quarter of a million miles away.
2) The resolution of the Hubble is not good enough to see any of the objects we left behind. Based on the specs of the Hubble, the smallest object it could effectively resolve in a single pixel on the cameras is no less than about 10-20 meters in diameter. The largest piece of equipment we left behind on the moon -- the bottom portions of the LEM -- is only about 4 meters in diameter.
And things like the flag we left behind, or the lunar rover, or the other stuff are WAY smaller than that.
2006-09-30 00:47:47 · answer #3 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even if it could do so, why should it do so? The people who run the Hubble telescope have no reason to disbelieve the Moon landings and no need to prove them, either.
Other Moon landings are now proposed, and not just by the USA. It seems probable that one at least of these will seek out the original landing site, and add some memorabilia to it.
The Chinese have a plan to harvest the helium 3 that the solar wind has deposited on the Moon, with a view to using it for nuclear fusion to power space travel. And that idea will catch on. So independent verification should not be far away.
2006-09-30 03:57:05 · answer #4 · answered by Candice B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because someone or thing does not want us to know whats up there. telescopes have an adjustment from low to high and for the billions it cost to make, there is no reason why this can't be so.its all about BALLS. if those in charge will ever be able to comprehend that .
2016-07-08 13:31:24 · answer #5 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the same reason that it cannot look at spots on Earth; It's not built for that.
Build a telescope for that reason and you'll see it.
2006-09-30 02:25:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why can't you see the back of your head?
It's the same reason.
The hubble, like your eyes in my example, is pointing in the wrong direction to see that part of the moon
2006-09-30 00:45:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋