Why haven't they used the Hubble telescope to get photos of a lunar landing site?
534809
Think about the angular size that anything we left on the moon would have when viewed from earth. The Hubble telescope is in near earth orbit, so it wouldn't make a difference that it is in space. So let's see.\n\nI don't have the exact figures for the LEM on the moon, but let's say it was 30ft across. The moon is 238 thousand miles away, so the LEM would have an angular diameter of .005 seconds of arc. The angular resolution of the Hubble is .05 arc seconds. This means that the LEM would have to be about 10 times its actual size to be detctable by Hubble.
1020049
Try the link below. \nHere's some of what they're up to:\nVery High Resolution Coverage\n\nConcurrent with the global project effort is the task of digitizing and archiving many of the near-side, low altitude photography. LO mission III photographed areas primarily to locate and confirm suitable landing sites for the Apollo program (designated as primary (P) and secondary (S) sites). The most promising landing sites were certified during LO mission V, which also imaged a number of sites of scientific interest. Ground resolutions for both data sets ranged from 1 - 40 m. Status Maps & Data Download page for scanning status.
948414
Because Pluto is too small and dim.  Pluto does not emit any light of its own, rather it reflects sunlight.\n\nThe best images Hubble takes are from objects much, MUCH larger than Pluto, that also emit their own light, so that even at the immense distances involved, there is still more energy being collected and focused by the mirrors onto the CCD cameras which record the image.\n\nIf you look at the Hubble images of Pluto, you can easily see the pixelation from the camera -- those are the squarish boxy shapes superimposed over the images.  Go to the referenced site and look at the image -- each of the pixels shown is more than 100 miles across the face of Pluto at the distance of 3 billion miles.  And that's the best photo ever made.
1041835
go to the NASA website www.nasa.gov  and you can get awesome pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope of stars!! FOR FREE!!!! They are very good.
100366
Not even hubble can achieve the resolution to see a flag on the moon.
217005
as it is not possible to post pics i would assume that u understand\n1.Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line. But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon, which is not possible.\n \n2.The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources. \n\n3.There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon. \n\n4.In some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut's visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source. There  is no possibility of external light source in moon\n\n5.How could NASA take TV images of the LM ascending on Apollo 15, 16, and 17 if there was no one on the Lunar surface to man the camera? \n\n6.There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Any  film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature\n\n7.The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not leave a crater below the spacecraft? Why didn't it kick up any dust when it landed?\n\n8.The footprints left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake. This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints. Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent shapes and sharp outlines\n\n9.There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust\n\n10.The pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew\n\nTHERE ARE MANY MORE ISSUES ON THIS, \n\nBUT \n\nTHOSE ARE TOO TECHNICAL FOR US. \n\n  \n\n…..NEIL ARMSTRONG WAS NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO LAND ON MOON\n\ncheck the refrences on these sites
1141479
The ISS doesn't take very spectacular photos, that's done by specialised satellites.\n\nThe easiest way to get a good view of anywhere is by downloading and running Google Earth...
1139401
Due to atmospheric interference, it would not be possible to see any mad made object left on the moon from a telescope on the surface of Earth.\nHowever, there is a very powerful, Earth orbiting, telescope which is free from atmospheric distortions…the Hubble space telescope.  However, even this telescope, as powerful as it is, could not possibly see the flag left on the moon.\n\nUsing a little math and common sense, it would not nearly be possible to see the flag on the moon with the Hubble space telescope.\n\nFirst, let’s get some basic facts straight.\nThe Diameter of the Hubble telescope is 2.4 meters and the distance from the Earth to the moon (on average) is about 3.84 E8 meters.\n\nPretty much the only thing limiting what Hubble can and cannot resolve is diffraction through a circular aperture (i.e. how light waves interact with each other when they get to Hubble's mirror.\nThe minimum angle which a circular aperture can resolve is given by the formula,\nTheta_min = 1.22 Lambda / D\nwhere Theta min is the minimum angle, Lambda is the wavelength of light we are using, and D is the diameter of the opening.\n\nIf we assume we are using light at 500 nm (roughly the middle of the visible spectrum) and we know that Hubble's diameter is 2.4 meters, we can find the minimum angle to be,\nTheta_min = 2.54 E-7 radians.\nThis is quite a small angle by Earthly standards, but will it compare to the angle to the flag on the moon?...we'll see.\n\nHere is where I have to make an assumption, but it is a very reasonable assumption and one that will assure us that out answer is correct. Watching the moon landing videos, one can see that the astronauts placed a moderately sized flag on a pole on the moon. Although I don’t know the exact dimensions of the flag, I can assure you, it was definitely no bigger than 10 ft. But for the sake of argument and to make the numbers easier, let’s assume it was 10 feet (~3 meters).\nIf the distance between the flag and Hubble is the same (about) as the distance from the Earth to the moon, then we can calculate the angle between the top of the flag and the bottom of the flag pole as seen by Hubble orbiting Earth. The angle comes out to be about, 7.81 E-9 radians, about 30 times SMALLER than the absolute minimum angle Hubble can resolve...and this is if we assume that the flag is 10 ft, which it obviously is smaller than that in reality.\n\nPlus, Hubble was specifically designed to look at VERY distant object. Although the moon is far away, it might as well be right next to us compared to the stars/galaxies/.. Hubble is supposed to be looking at. Therefore, I don’t know exactly how it will respond looking at such a close and bright object.\n\nOne this is sure through, you could not see the flag, even with one of the best telescopes ever built operating perfectly under ideal conditions using visible light.
272885
No you would not be able to see them through the largest telescope on earth because they are too small an object to be  seen. You can see the area on the moon where they are very well and clear but not the lunar rovers.
260642
The hubble space telescope
583787
If satelites can read a lisence plate number from space, I can't see why it can't read things left on the moon.
98059
The short answer is: No one really knows, since the details are classified. Also, the current satellite performance is probably not as good as what it CAN be. \n\nI think that comparing what astronomers are able to do with what the best satellites are able to do can be a bit misleading. \n\n1. The space telescope does not have to look through the air, with the water vapor and turbulence and dust. The space telescope has only the very outer reaches of the atmosphere to look through. \n\n2. The space telescope and ground-based astronomers do not have at their disposal anywhere near the resources that governmental organizations do. For example, the space telescope was not even calibrated, because there was so little money! It was only because of heroic efforts and a few minor miracles that the space telescope was brought into focus. The space telescope is basically a toy, and has barely been able to get funded for the last few years, and might be soon decommissioned. \n\n3. Astronomers just do not have the interest, the background, the training, the knowledge, or the resources to command the type of bleeding-edge technology that governments do. Astronomers for the most part are mired in phenomenology, and do not worry much about the details of pedestrian things like optics. Optics is, in general, disparaged by astronomers and left to the "engineers" and other lesser beings like mathematicians, physicists, statisticians, computer scientists, etc. Basically, astronomers hurt themselves with their attitudes and their culture. \n\n4. No responsible government is going to announce what they are capable of seeing with their satellites. All of this material is very closely held at best, and most likely highly classified. \n\n5. It is well known (or at least often reported in the newspapers, so it might not be correct) that spy satellites are so big and so heavy because they bring a large reserve of fuel with them so that they can be lowered and raised as needed to see various features and details. Apparently, they do not always orbit at the same altitude. \n\n6. It is quite possible to combine imagery from platforms such as multiple satellites, planes, high altitude balloons, etc. to improve resolution considerably. It is hard to know the extent to which this is done, or if it is done, because of course the area is shrouded in secrecy, so we do not know. But the question was, how detailed CAN it be? Well you COULD use multiple sensors on multiple platforms, unlike the Hubble telescope (in fact, multiple sensors on the ground are able to beat Hubble now). \n \n7. As a gross upper bound on resolution limits, look at the mutually agreed upon limits on size of warheads etc by the Russians/FSU/USSR and the USA, for example (typically, the silo doors would reportedly be opened to permit treaty inspections, according to newspaper accounts anyway). These specifications in the treaties imply MUCH higher resolution than the some of the numbers given here by others. And remember, these are the mutually agreed-upon resolutions by two very suspicious adversaries, who do not want to give anything away. Both have to be able to achieve these resolutions, and probably are capable of far better resolution. \n\n8. Having looked at Dawe's limit, and knowing a bit about resolution, I can tell you that it is not particularly useful as an indicator of achievable resolution. How close we are able to come to ultimate resolutions depends on how many resources we are willing to spend, and again since it is classified, it is difficult to know.\n\nTherefore, to answer the question how detailed can satellite imagery be? The answer is, VERY. How detailed is it? We do not know, since it is classified.
16010
Definitely, we've even used Hubble to detect the flag & footprints. Our gov. would never lie about something on that scale. Considering the size of the universe, Its really not that big of an accomplishment to warrant an elaborate network of lies\n\nFor an incredibly in-depth analysis of pictures, facts and commentary please see the source link.
1045091
QUOTE-----"The photo must be by telescope from the Earth to the moon! If no one can find any recent photos then the moon landings are a massive hoax!"\n\nTo remind u and other readers...we CAN'T see the lunar rover or whatsoever using our telescope on earth.No matter how BIG the telescope is, we still CAN'T see it because of atmospheric blurring.\n\nEven HUBBLE can't see it...because that landing site (flag and all that) is so SMALL.... and MOON is MOVING so fast.\n\nIt's just like trying to see a COIN when you are travelling with an AEROPLANE high in the SKY\n\nDID U GET IT? OR U NEED ME TO REPEAT IT AGAIN?
646534
because they never went.\n\nthey have satellite images of mars rovers (tracks in the sand an all!), but not of the lunar landing artifacts.\n\nactualy i'd like to challenge any astronomers out there with the biggest telescopes to zoom in on the landing site during an eclipse or whenever there is no sunlight shinning on it. let's see what comes up.
643921
Sean is right but it was manufactured that way as a perfect observation post from the aliens inside it observing us.\n\nthe moon is an artificial satellite and is hollow.
827240
Canterbury - 1178 AD   Depending on the size of the explosion, you wouldn't necessarily need a telescope to see an event on the moon.\n\nAlso - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1182939\n\nIn the above story, the guy used a telescope and a camera to photograph a possible explosion - which is still being debated.\nAn observed moon "explosion" is very plausible, yet so is the wine!  While sampling some wines - for science purposes ONLY! - I think I may have observed a few "moon explosions" myself............LOL!