with all the powerful telscopes in the world, why cant we see anything that the USA has left on the moon????

Answer 1

Resolution

Even the most powerful telescope in the world can not resolve an image that small over that distance.

If there was a telescope that was powerful enough to resolve an image that small, how would you be able to point it at the object an maintain a clear image without picking up the vibration from the drive mechanism that would have to keep the telescope aimed at the object? It is difficult enough with a 600 power telescope.

Answer 2

There are actually laser reflectors on the surface of the moon left there by the Apollo astronauts. These are regularly checked by scientists at places like Jodrell bank. As other members have pointed out, the objects left on the moon are relatively too small to be seen by even the most powerful telescopes due to resolution problems.

Answer 3

Its a question of resolution, the ability to actually resolve an object viewed. Earth based and Earth orbiting telescopes are simply not big enough, thereby lacking the resolution needed to pick out objects a few feet in size. Therefore, we cannot see what the Americans left on the Moon (yes, we did go there). Some Moon orbiting satellites have picked out lunar lander remains however, but even then the images are fuzzy but the lander is visible nonetheless.

Answer 4

the international's greatest optical telescope, the Mt Graham great Binocular Telescope in Arizona, has an angular decision of twenty-two m^-a million, which means it may spot an merchandise as small as 8m on the exterior of the moon, assuming that the ambience would not get interior the way. mild waves attaining the earth from any gadgets smaller than which could not be separated by a telescope, so as that they are going to be seen, yet look as fuzzy blobs. edit: to make sparkling, for the reason that somebody right here would not understand what I suggested.. you'll be able to desire to no longer examine 8m-severe lettering on the exterior of the moon. yet you'll be able to desire to examine textual content cloth printed in 8m-diameter pixels. If an merchandise approximately 8m for the time of grow to be heavily contrasty with relation to the history, it may be fuzzy, yet seen. A smaller merchandise might look like a fuzzy 8m blob. You in all probability could desire to no longer distinguish the lunar rover from a rock or its shadow. however the Apollo Lunar Module, being approximately 4m for the time of, may be recognizable if it forged an prolonged adequate shadow.

Answer 5

we don't have the resolution, if you would actually do some research you would find that even hubble does not have high enough resolution to see things that small on the moon.

secondly another answerer asked about satellites on the moon photographing every part of the moon except for the landing sites... interesting i have never heard of such a satellite. there have been some up there i know. maybe they didn't take pics of the landing sites because they know nasa was up there and those areas are studied, maybe they wanted to look at different places.

i would need to know what satellite he is talking aobut to say more about that.

also we have been there, the people who say we haven't been have no clue truly, look at the actual evidence, not what the hoaxers claim is evidence but the actual evidence.

Answer 6

Every thing is too small to show up on photographs. To show up in a photograph the equipment would have had to been at least 50 metres across and more. Nothing left on the moon was even near that size

Answer 7

I dont know what to believe any more. Most of you are sceptical about astronauts landing on the moon and if they had any respect..they would not leave any junk. Has any of you kept fish tanks and have any of you seen moon rock being sold in the shops...is it real. Cmon I wanna know.

Answer 8

The moon is 250,000 miles away (roughly) and our telescopes cannot resolve an object say ten feet long at that distance.

They can, however, see objects 250,000 miles wide at extremely vast distances...

There is just a small matter of ten feet or so versus 250,000 Miles to provide you with your answer.

Answer 9

Because they are still too small to have that kind of resolution. For that, we would need to put satellites in orbit around the moon.

Answer 10

A better question would be why the satellites that photograph the moons surface, record every square foot of the moons surface with the exception of the six landing sites? If that doesn't provide proof positive of a massive hoax then what does?