Comparison of Hubble magnification to other scopes -- for reference idea I have?

Question

Many people ask about being able to see the Apollo debris on the moon using Hubble or some other telescope. I had an idea for one way to answer that, but I need some help with it. How about using Google Earth to illustrate how things would look, using these telescopes, if they were as far away from earth as they now are from the moon? So I could say, "Using Google Earth, set your altitude at X, and this is how the earth would look if Hubble was as far from us as it is now, from the moon. Now set your altitude at Y and this would be how the Keck telescope would see us if it was on the moon, (without the atmospheric distortion.)"

I just need the magnifications in pixels or field of view. I'll do the rest. (I'll also credit you for your work.)

Answer 1

I googled a bit on Hubble, and it seems it is acknowledged a resolving power that corresponds to a maximum of 6000 magnification.

Since the moon is between 363000 and 406000 km away, a 6000 magnification would need to place an unaided human eye 60 km away to achieve similar visual performance. So your idea of Google Earth would likewise require the elevation to be set at 60 km to gage the level of detail that could be seen from a Hubble-like telescope located on the moon.

I do like your idea a lot.

I just tired it over my hometown, as I can recognize the runway of the airport (about 1 pixel wide...) typically those are 45 m wide; but any chance of being able to see even a 747 (let alone recognize it for what it is) is clearly hopeless. Even a stadium is reduced to an insignificant bunch of pixels. Any hope of spotting something the size of a pick-up truck is clearly beyond reasonable.