2007-12-17 07:28:55 · 16 answers · asked by dodgerfan_two 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Too darned small to be resolved by any telescope.
The Hubble Telescope, our best available, can only resolve an object of about the size of a football stadium on the surface of the moon. Anything smaller doesn't cover enough pixels to be anything more than a small part of the overall image recorded, and is washed out by the light averaging process.
The largest object we left behind on the moon was the bottom portion of the LEM -- which was about 5 meters across. And that's way too small to be resolved.
And the photos of the Rovers on Mars were NOT captured by the Hubble telescope, but were, in fact, collected by a satellite orbiting Mars. **IF** we had a comparable satellite orbiting the Moon, the landing sites would be easy to see.
2007-12-17 08:06:35 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Despite what anyone who believes in the moon hoax hypothesis (we need to stop calling it a theory as they have no testable and repeatable facts to base it on), it can't be seen for two reasons. Size and light.
The size is too small to be seen by telescopes. But let's say, just for arguement, than you can. Then you run into another problem. Light. The moon's surface has a unique ability to reflect light. The sunlight reflected off of it is so bright that I've watched many people turn away after looking at it in even a small telescope because their eyes can't handle it. At that point, camera's would be recording so much light that they wouldn't be able to properly distinguish the difference between the rover and the rest of the surface.
Oh, and the Mars rovers can't be seen by Hubble. The person who said that was quite wrong. Any photos you've seen from space were taken by the satellites currently orbiting Mars.
2007-12-17 08:27:47 · answer #2 · answered by TripCyclone 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
three reasons for this...
1. The rover is this size of a small dune buggy, and the moon is around 250,000 miles away (ten times the distance to circle the Earth at the equator).
2. Even the largest telescopes don't have resolving capability to see such a small object.
3. The surface of the moon is so reflective that when you look at it with a telescope the image is too washed out (try reading the manufacturers label on a 100W lightbulb while its on with binoculars standing 100 yards away).
I hope this helps. Good luck.
2007-12-17 09:08:19 · answer #3 · answered by ngc7331 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's far too small to be able to be seen by any telescopes here on Earth. You'd need a mirror about 1/2 mile across for the rover, and at least the size of a football field to discern the lander portion of the lunar module.
2007-12-17 08:27:03 · answer #4 · answered by quantumclaustrophobe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
WAY too small. In fact, despite what many people believe, you cannot see the great wall of China from orbit. And it is wider than a rover, as well as closer to the shuttle is than the rover to Earth.
2007-12-17 14:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey Dodger Blue!
Excellent question. When CIA space based telescopes can read a license plate why shouldn't we be able to see the Rover or the flag for that matter? Maybe it isn't there!
My wife worked with Buzz Aldrin's son (yeah, sure! And everybody knows somebody that has an aunt or uncle that had a relative that knew somebody that came over on the Mayflower!). When she and he got around to the "moon landing" he shut up and said he couldn't discuss it.
Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald shot it off the moon from the Dallas book depository! Where is that Zapruder guy when we need him?
Hey! Could the Rover and flag be behind a "grassy knoll". If 1 is not included in the Warren Commission conclusion (which , by the way, is the place that the bullet that killed Kennedy came from) then maybe that knoll is on the moon.
Yes, I know that grass won't grow on the moon. If it could, it would be a freakin' golf course by now.(¦<)>
2007-12-17 08:34:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
The diameter of the full moon when you look at it is the same as the distance across the lower 48 states. You think you can see a small vehicle at this distance?
It seems some people have no idea of the size of the moon and how distant it is.
2007-12-17 08:07:52 · answer #7 · answered by Choose a bloody best answer. It's not hard. 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The moon is 400,000 kilometers away, and the rover is 3 meters long.
A really big ant is a centimeter long. So why can't you see an ant from a mountain top, 13 kilometers away?
2007-12-17 08:51:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know the moon is a few thousand miles accross right? Do you also wonder why you cant see the american flag, or neil armstrongs footprints?
Or yourself on NASA TV when they show the satelite overhead??
2007-12-17 07:32:40 · answer #9 · answered by mishi h 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Too small to see. On the other hand, Hubble Space Telescope did identify the two rovers on Mars. I guess that's why there has not been any conspiracy theory for Mars so far:-)
2007-12-17 07:43:26 · answer #10 · answered by OrionA 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋