Is it possible to see the gear left on the moon telescopically?

reply to post by hinky



Ahh you beat me to it.

You did a better job of it than my lazy butt would have anyways.

But ya, the Astronauts did leave radar targets up there, that we still hit today. We actually know that the moon is movieng away from the earth at a rate of close to one inch per year. It's supposedly, very precise.

Didn't read the article posted above so my measurements may be off, but that's what I remember hearing that Asian fellow on the Science channel say, I like that guy, he's like the new Carl Sagan, but he iceskates even!

After a little search with Google:

Aerospaceweb

Earth-based telescopes have similar difficulty trying to resolve manmade objects on the Moon. The best telescopic technology available today is interferometry that allows the images of multiple telescopes around the world to be combined together. In so doing, the multiple telescopes can produce higher-resolution imagery than a single telescope on its own. Unfortunately, even this capability is not yet sufficiently advanced to resolve objects as small as the Apollo landers. In order to see landers and other objects left on the Moon using present technology, it would be necessary to send a satellite to orbit the Moon that was equipped with high-resolution cameras. The cameras required would have to be comparable to those carried by military spy satellites or the civilian Ikonos satellite in Earth orbit.

A European spacecraft is currently doing just that. The probe SMART-1 is now conducting a detailed photographic survey of the Moon with high-resolution cameras capable of clearly seeing the Apollo landing sites.

Can't be seen from an Earth telescope, but SMART-1 will soon have the pictures, or should.

[edit on 26/1/08 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Heres a link to the Wiki for the Hubble Space Telescope
en.wikipedia.org...
And here is an excerpt from that-

"The mirror and optical systems of the telescope were the most crucial and complex part, and were designed to exacting specifications. Telescopes typically have mirrors polished to an accuracy of about a tenth of the wavelength of visible light, but because the Space Telescope was to be used for observations ranging from ultraviolet to near-infrared with ten times better resolution than the best previous telescopes, its mirror needed to be polished to an accuracy of 1/20 of the wavelength of visible light, or about 30 nanometres"

- Accoring to this- Hubble has TEN TIMES the resolution of previous telescopes-not to mention that there is no disturbance from the atmosphere- the bane of all earthbound telescopes. Her is another excerpt- seems NASA does not agree with the assumption stated in a previous post about "wasting time" on the big scope "Anyone can apply for time on the telescope; there are no restrictions on nationality or academic affiliation. Competition for time on the telescope is extremely intense, and the ratio of time requested to time available (the oversubscription ratio) typically ranges between 6 and 9." Is there anyone here well versed in these matters that can clarify any of this- please respond.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by Jbird]

Hubble doesn't have the resolution, it's that simple really. Resolution is the key, not magnification. You can magnify with any telescope to ridiculous proportions, but that doesn't mean you'll get a useable image. It would take a mirror 100 meters in diameter at least, to see anything we left behind, atmosphere or not. The largest telescope in the world is only 10 meters in diameter. We don't even have all the techniques and technology perfected to be able to produce such a large telescope. The mounting for such a mirror would be absolutely enormous and it would have to be more precise in its dynamic positioning of the mirror (to offset the atmosphere like some of the best telescopes do) than anything that has ever been built.

Originally posted by Nola213
reply to post by hinky

 

But ya, the Astronauts did leave radar targets up there, that we still hit today. We actually know that the moon is movieng away from the earth at a rate of close to one inch per year. It's supposedly, very precise.

Do people honestly believe that pointing out that their are "relectors" on the moon that this is some sort of proof that men were there? If a mirror on the Moon is proof of men being there then surely a robot on mars must mean that we have whole cities flourishing on the read planet.....

Originally posted by Keyhole
Can't be seen from an Earth telescope, but SMART-1 will soon have the pictures, or should.

Your link is a little dated and incorrect. SMART-1 has already finished its mission and is no longer around. And it didn't have resolution needed to see any remaining hardware. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that launches later this year, will have the capability to see the landing sites.

reply to post by Edn


I am glad you said that, because both India and Japan have sats orbiting the moon as we type. Japans has been taking photos for 10 months at close range......and not 1 photo of ANYTHING manmade.
there are no photos, because we did not leave anything, because we were not there.

I think it's funny that people believe that we were able to land 14 times in a row, we batted 1000 and when nasa talks about going back, for some unknown reason it may take 10 to 12 years to design and build something that can go.
why don't we just use the ship that batted 1000. for some reason in 1969 it only takes a few months and in 2008 it take 10 years.....interesting lol