Is it possible to resolve lunar landing sites from an earth-based telescope?

A friend of mine are having a discussion about the new CCD to be installed at Cerro Tololo,
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/fe...-05-01/p4.html
and he thought it could be used to resolve lunar landing sites.

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work but it's the precise 'why' that has me puzzled. I'm sure atmospheric
dust would play a factor, but what about if this could be instaled in Hubble; would it even then be
possible?

Thanks for any insight youi can contribute to this,

Jon

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:18:24 -0700, Jon Danniken wrote:

A friend of mine are having a discussion about the new CCD to be installed at Cerro Tololo,
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/fe...-05-01/p4.html
and he thought it could be used to resolve lunar landing sites.

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work but it's the precise 'why' that has me puzzled. I'm sure atmospheric
dust would play a factor, but what about if this could be instaled in Hubble; would it even then be
possible?

Thanks for any insight youi can contribute to this,

Jon


I HIGHLY doubt it could. A little thing called resolution prevents us
currently from seeing anything left behind on the Apollo missions. Someday
we'll see things but right now we just can't.

No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

Ed

"P. Edward Murray" wrote:
No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

So it's the size of the telescope that limits us, then. How large would a telescope have to be to resolve
the landing sites on the moon?

Jon

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...
"P. Edward Murray" wrote:
No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

So it's the size of the telescope that limits us, then. How large would a
telescope have to be to resolve
the landing sites on the moon?

Jon


Apply 1.22 lambda/diameter = 1/400,000,000 (1-m resolution, 400,000,000 m
distance)

Assuming you wanted a resolution of 1 metre, at optical wavelengths it would
need to be about 250-300 metres across. From Earth, this could only be
achieved by an interferometer like the VLT or Keck.

Frankly, if this has something to do with Apollo Hoax belief, it isn't a
very convincing argument for construction or wasting valuable telescope
time.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

In message , Mike Dworetsky
writes


"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...
"P. Edward Murray" wrote:
No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

So it's the size of the telescope that limits us, then. How large would a
telescope have to be to resolve
the landing sites on the moon?

Jon


Apply 1.22 lambda/diameter = 1/400,000,000 (1-m resolution, 400,000,000 m
distance)

Assuming you wanted a resolution of 1 metre, at optical wavelengths it would
need to be about 250-300 metres across. From Earth, this could only be
achieved by an interferometer like the VLT or Keck.


Am I right in thinking that even an interferometer would have a hard
time doing this, because the contrast in the scene is too low? They'd
probably love to produce an image simply as a test and for PR.
Actually, it isn't quite as bad as you say. The lunar module probably
casts a nice long shadow at low sun elevation, like the infamous "lunar
spires" of the 1960s, so you could get away with a 25 metre mirror (or
better resolution over more than a few pixels with a 250 metre system)
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote:
"P. Edward Murray" wrote:
No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

So it's the size of the telescope that limits us, then. How large would a
telescope have to be to resolve the landing sites on the moon?


Apply 1.22 lambda/diameter = 1/400,000,000 (1-m resolution, 400,000,000 m
distance)

Assuming you wanted a resolution of 1 metre, at optical wavelengths it would
need to be about 250-300 metres across. From Earth, this could only be
achieved by an interferometer like the VLT or Keck.

Mike, thanks a TON for this; this is *exactly* what I was looking for.

Frankly, if this has something to do with Apollo Hoax belief, it isn't a
very convincing argument for construction or wasting valuable telescope
time.

Yes, I do realize this. This is an entirely theoretical conversation we are having among two friends, but
in any case this was the context it was brought up in, with my friend suggesting that we take a picture of
the landing sites to disprove the hoaxers.

Now obviously there is no use in entertaining the hoaxers, it would be a waste of resources in any case,
et cetera, but again, it's just a theoretical discussion.

Thanks again for the specifics,

Jon

Of course, one of the problems is that as soon as you get your picture
of one of the landing sites, you become part of the "hoax".

I agree that building something for that purpose, but it might be worth
building for planet seraching, etc.

Eugene Styer

Jon Danniken wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

"Jon Danniken" wrote:

"P. Edward Murray" wrote:

No, it's not. We don't have a telescope big enough to do it yet.

So it's the size of the telescope that limits us, then. How large would a
telescope have to be to resolve the landing sites on the moon?


Apply 1.22 lambda/diameter = 1/400,000,000 (1-m resolution, 400,000,000 m
distance)

Assuming you wanted a resolution of 1 metre, at optical wavelengths it would
need to be about 250-300 metres across. From Earth, this could only be
achieved by an interferometer like the VLT or Keck.


Mike, thanks a TON for this; this is *exactly* what I was looking for.


Frankly, if this has something to do with Apollo Hoax belief, it isn't a
very convincing argument for construction or wasting valuable telescope
time.


Yes, I do realize this. This is an entirely theoretical conversation we are having among two friends, but
in any case this was the context it was brought up in, with my friend suggesting that we take a picture of
the landing sites to disprove the hoaxers.

Now obviously there is no use in entertaining the hoaxers, it would be a waste of resources in any case,
et cetera, but again, it's just a theoretical discussion.

Thanks again for the specifics,

Jon