English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

As others have pointed out, no telescopes exist that can see objects as small as those left behind by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the moon.

For any telescope of a give aperature and focal length there is a minimum angular size, usually measured in arc-seconds or radians, beyond which it cannot resolve objects. (Hence the term "resolution") Objects smaller than this angular size will simply blend together with other objects nearby. It's possible to use this angular size to determine how big an object must be to be visible through the scope at a certain distance.

Take the Hubble space telescope. It has a resolving power of 3.2x10^-7 radians. At the distance of the moon (386,000 kilometers), it can see objects no smaller than 124 m wide. In other words, if the Hubble takes a picture of the moon at its best resolution, each pixel would be at least 124 m^2. The lunar lander was only 3 m wide, so even that is too small to see even with our best telescope.

The reason the Hubble and other big telescopes get such good detail when looking at extra-solar objects like nebulae and galaxies is that, despite being much farther away than the moon, these objects are simply enormous: their widths are measured not in meters or even kilometers, but in light years and parsecs.

And in response to Wicked's comment, the lunar landings were on the near side of the moon. All of them. They had to be. Otherwise there'd be no way to maintain radio contact with Earth. And don't call other people retarded, it's rude.

2007-06-22 07:10:38 · answer #1 · answered by stork5100 4 · 4 1

As the other answerers have pointed out, we can't actually see the debris left on the moon. But, in a way, we can detect at least one thing that (a) man left behind ... the astronauts left behind reflectors that can be illuminated by lasers from earth. The light that bounces back can be detected and analyzed. The catch is that this is all very technically demanding, so to try to do this you must have access to a world class telescope and a powerful laser.

Nonetheless, the reflection of laser light from the surface of the moon by a reflector left by the Apollo 11 crew does represent an independent verification of Man's visit there.

2007-06-22 09:55:25 · answer #2 · answered by 62,040,610 Idiots 7 · 1 1

Stars won't be able to be uncovered on action picture with the fast exposure cases needed to good seize the sunlit lunar floor events. in fact, you will no longer see stars in any image of a sunlit merchandise in area, for precisely that reason. As for the photograph that exhibits 'stars', and the rock with the letter on it, duplicate flaws are the respond. a famous individual can't seem in a image, yet a touch bit dirt on the scanner used to reproduce the pictures can. inner reflections interior the digital camera itself could additionally on occasion reason spurious factors of sunshine to look. The rock with the letter on evidently to have a C engraved on it. even nevertheless, there are various arguments against that being an extremely mark on the rock. Leaving out the technical, no-one that keeps that's an extremely letter carved into the rock itself has been able to return up with a first rate clarification as to why they might carve such an obtrusive marking on something and have it in the kind of widespread place interior the photograph, then certainly launch that image to the regular public at super with the kind of obtrusive blunders on it. that's certainly particularly straight forward between hoax theories: NASA is at as quickly as sufficiently spectacular that they are able to tug off the suitable hoax of all time, and yet on the comparable time stupid adequate to make schoolboy blunders that anybody can spot. attending to the extra technical factor, one factor that hoax proponents under no circumstances permit you already know (probable because of the fact they do no longer understand) is that there are certainly 2 photos taken that prepare that rock with the C on it, and considered one of them has under no circumstances regarded everywhere with the C modern-day on the rock. the only that does have the C on the rock exists in 2 kinds: with and devoid of the C. diagnosis of a intense-selection image confirmed that the C develop right into a small fibre that probably develop into on the scanner whilst the image develop into reproduced for booklet. Apollo pictures have been reproduced many cases, and that's an exceedingly uncommon factor for a hoax proponent to artwork from an early duplicate or something like the unique whilst 'analysing' the pictures. A low-res jpeg on an internet page isn't a competent beginning factor for a image analyst! So i've got faith the photograph develop into actual, however the C develop into no longer something yet a replica artefact.

2016-10-18 09:02:41 · answer #3 · answered by mytych 4 · 0 0

No Earthbound telescopes available to the general public have the capability to see landing sites. Maybe the Hilo Hawaii facility could view them, maybe a few other commercial locations.

Vince

2007-06-22 04:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by vinny_says_relax 7 · 0 1

No they are too small to seen by general Earth telescopes.

2007-06-22 05:11:53 · answer #5 · answered by JTK 1 · 0 1

No, they are all too small to be seen by any Earth based telescope.

2007-06-22 05:01:17 · answer #6 · answered by Jason T 7 · 0 1

if you look really hard,you can see a golf ball.It's near the man in the moons left eye.

2007-06-22 04:58:35 · answer #7 · answered by bobthebrowser 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers