Can the hubble telescope show what man left on the moon???

Question

if the hubble can focus on things trillons of miles away and amaze us with clear photo's...why don't they show the stuff we've left on the moon ,,,like what........the car, the flag, the golf ball??....the thing's left there........and that will shut-up the people who say it's all a joke, that we never have been there..........????? how small a thing can could the hubble see on the moon surface???

Answer 1

last i heard, the hubble was broken again.  besides, some of our spy satelites have the resolution to count your shoelaces from space.  even if you did take the picture of the US flag on the moon those nuts would just say you faked that too.  never underestimate the power of a persons stupidity.

Answer 2

The smallest detail on the Moon that the Hubble telescope can  resolve is about 300 feet wide. The smallest detail in a distant galaxy that the Hubble telescope can resolve is many times larger than our whole solar system, but since galaxies are so large, that amount of detail still makes an interesting picture. Just like you can take a clear snapshot of a distant mountain range showing plenty of detail but a picture of an ant from 10 feet away shows only a little dot with no detail at all. The smallest detail on the distant mountain might be a large tree that barely shows as a small fuzzy dot in the photo, but as a small detail on a mountain it is important and interesting.

Answer 3

Ok, what most people don't get about the Hubble and the galaxies billions of light years away that it looks at is the following: These galaxies are HUGE. Thousands of light years in diameter. With some of them, they're almost impossible to miss.

Ok, here's a great comparison that actually follows some mathematical calculations I've seen:

Lets pretend YOU are the Hubble telescope. Your eyes are the lenses. Ok, right now you are sitting down, looking at Central Park in New York and you're a mile away from it. There is one tree in the center. Central Park represents the moon. A couple miles directly behind it is a huge tree. Now in Central Park, there is one penny located somewhere in the park. Now, you can see the tree clearly, right? That's because its a huge tree... its big, easy to spot. Now look at Central Park from the same location. Look as hard as you possible can... can you see the penny? Of course not! Why? Because compared to Central Park, the penny is way too small. The tree is farther away from the penny, but its also a whole lot bigger! Now, if Central Park was the moon, the penny is actually being very generous with the size... the penny is actually a couple hundred times too large for the comparison to fit... but I like to play devil's advocate.

So now you get the picture. That's an example, and hopefully you understand. Your eyes simply don't have the resolution to see the penny. Now here's some facts talking specifically about the Hubble Telescope, the moon, and the flag.

The Hubble telescope is the most powerful telescope in current use. It is capable of seeing galaxies millions, sometimes billions of light years away. But these galaxies are also HUGE! So large, that it takes light thousands of light years to travel from end to end... and light is so fast that a beam could travel completely around Earth about 7.5 times in a second. It travels so fast that we give its speed in miles and kilometers per second instead of miles per hour because the figure is just too big. Its travels about 186,000 miles per second. Now it takes light thousands of years to travel from side to side.... are you getting a rough idea on how HUGE a galaxies is?

If you have the specs on the Hubble, you can use math to calculate the approximate resolution it gets. Its about the size of a football field. This means that for every picture... every little block of solid color that makes up a picture, is equivalent to the size of a football field on the moon. Now that flag isn't even near the size of a football field. And even if it was, it would still be very hard to make out.

And even if we did get pictures, those moon hoaxer morons still wouldn't shut their mouths. They would probably say something like "Well they sent them up there later." or "The government altered the images!" There's no hope for these idiots... their blinded by a fog of self created ignorance.

Answer 4

no. the apollo stuff is too small.

ppl ask this over and over. as mr. scott said, you cannot change the laws of physics...

Answer 5

The Hubble Telescope's resolution is just not good enough for such small things on the Moon.

As incredible as it may seem, the distant galaxies and nebulae look bigger from the Earth's point of view than the small things on the Moon. The Hubble Telescope wouldn't spot two Boeings stanging side to side on the Moon.

Answer 6

No, the hubble is designed for long distance observations, not short distance.  It's like you using binoculars to try to observe the cell structure of a plant, it's not gonna work.

Answer 7

"Some dude"'s answer is not quite accurate.  The explanation about the binoculars has to do with focal length.  Most binoculars and telescopes cannot easily focus on anything that's closer than a few times their own focal length, which is why you can't see close-up plants sharply with binoculars.  But anything that's at least a mile away can easily be focused on with any good telescope (including the Hubble).

But still, there's another reason why the Hubble can't image the Apollo artifacts.  It has to do with a property of optics called the "Dawes Limit," which says that the ability to resolve small details is limited by the diameter of the telescope's mirror.  The Dawes Limit law says that, in order to resolve the Apollo artifacts from low earth orbit (where the Hubble is), the telescope's mirror would have to be something like 200 feet in diameter(!).  So the fact is, the Hubble is just not big enough.

Answer 8

Well, those things it *sees* millions of miles away are also incredibly large...

To see a lander on the moon, you'd need to be able to resolve down to about 20 feet, from 238,000 miles away.  The mirror on the hubble would have to be about the size of a football field for that.  As it is, it can see things down to the size of a few hundred yards  - which is amazing.  

Answer 9

The reasons given for the Hubble not to be able to resolve equipment left on the moon are mostly good. Take a look at these two websites for some actual images of the Apollo manned landing sites showing evidence that somebody was really there.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/...

This one is an image taken from the orbiting command module

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.pan9...

Answer 10

There are two problems with this: The main one being that these objects are smaller than the Hubble can see at this distance. People who point out spy satellites need to remember that those orbit around only 100 miles up - very low - so that they can get good pictures. The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away.

Secondly, no advocate of the Apollo hoax would accept photos from the HST as proof. They would argue that the same group responsible for faking it in the first place cannot be trusted to offer proof. This "proof," they would argue, is also fake.

I am very certain that even taking them to the Moon in person, and letting them touch the descent stages, hammers, golf balls, flags, lunar buggies, etc - and finding them all exactly where the photos showed them being over 36 years ago.... even THEN they would not believe. They want to believe that the government is 100% untrustworthy. (I tend to find it to be more around 75% untrustworthy, but 100% predictable) To accept that Apollo was not a hoax would turn their little worlds upside-down.

Liars who push the myth for their own financial gain (Bart Seibrel, for instance) would simply write another book or documentary about how their visit to the Moon was faked, or that the landing sites had been prepared ahead of time for their visit, etc - and make even more money out of the lie.

Belief is a strange animal that very often ignores facts because it just doesn't want to die.