Take you wondered why we tin can't encounter the Apollo landing sites from Earth? Moon is so far away that even the ISS at effectually 108 meters in length would span just over one pixel if Hubble were to photograph information technology on the Moon at its highest resolution. From NASA:

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?

No, Hubble cannot accept photos of the Apollo landing sites.

"An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be nigh 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution musical instrument currently on HST is the Avant-garde Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. Then annihilation we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST prototype. It would just announced every bit a dot."

HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs

By those figures, then 60 meters spans one pixel at the distance of the Moon. Only you tin can't run across a single pixel unless it is unusually dark or unusually bright. We tin can see afar stars fifty-fifty though they just span a single pixel, but that'southward considering they are very vivid indeed, confronting a blackness sky. It's like seeing a light at a distance, far too far away to make out any detail.

Simply the Moon is fairly vivid and the lunar module isn't that bright. There is no way we could get in out at a size of 0.xv% of a pixel.

Phil Plait goes into it in detail here: Moon hoax: why not use telescopes to look at the landers? - Bad Astronomy

He works it out as 0.05 arc seconds from outset principles. The reason for the difference is that he is using light in the middle of the visible lite range (400 to 700 nm). We could also utilise the simpler Dawes limit, which astronomers utilise for the resolving power of telescopes, which gives the resolution as 11.6/D where D is the diameter in centimeters. So that gives eleven.half-dozen/240 or 0.04 arc seconds.

They are using the specifications of the Avant-garde Camera for Surveys which is able to discover in the near UV, and so at a college resolution. Theoretically it could get down to 0.01 arcseconds at the shortest wavelength it tin find of 115 nanometers, but its pixel resolution is around 0.028 by 0.025 arcseconds.

This is all simple maths, so let's just do it, I'll explicate how you work out the resolution of 0.01 arcseconds at 115 nanometers, calculation indented and so it's piece of cake to skip.

You lot become the resolution from R = λ / D (Athwart resolution) The result is in radians. There are two * π radians in a full circle and 60*sixty*360 = 1296000 arc seconds in a full circumvolve and so the number of arc seconds in a radian is 1296000/(2* π) or 206265.

We accept to use the same units for the mirror diameter as for the wavelength of light of grade. And then, to keep the numbers manageable, allow's work in millimeters, so the UV light has a wavelength of 0.00015 nm.

Hubble's telescope is two.four meters in diameter or 2,400 mm. And so the resolution in arc seconds is 206265*0.000115/2,400, or 0.01 arc seconds.

It'southward likewise like shooting fish in a barrel to work out the angular bore of the descent stage from the altitude to the moon.

The distance to the Moon is 384,400 km. You lot get the angle in radians using 2*asin((width/ii)/altitude). Then the angle in radians is 2*asin(ii/384,400,000) or 0.0021 arcseconds

He points out that there is 1 way Hubble could photo a lunar lander - and that's to photograph its shadow. The shadow, when the sunday is low, would be many times more than 60 meters long. But - in improver to the problem of persuading anyone that this was worth photographing, as he points out, how would yous testify that it was the lunar module and not merely a large bedrock, from the shape of its shadow? Even if we can photograph a lunar module with the light and the surroundings just right and so that it has a shadow kilometers long, it would notwithstanding exist less than a pixel in width, so y'all'd meet no particular in information technology.

If they put the equivalent of 1 of our spy satellites or Hubble or the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (which has a resulotion of xxx cms for Mars) into orbit around the Moon they'd spot it easily.

Nosotros haven't sent anything that large to the Moon, but our Moon orbiting telescopes can run into the lander at very depression resolution.

Photograph of the Apollo 16 landing site past Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. I of several that showed that the Apollo mission flags are yet standing.

The tracks are very obvious and information technology'due south obvious besides from the shininess of the lunar module that it is not a natural object.

You can see also the trouble of detecting information technology by brightness. If y'all photographed information technology at full Moon, when the sun is direct on information technology with no shadow, could you notice a slightly brighter pixel?

Permit's try. Here is the brightest indicate in that image every bit a single pixel in the scene every bit photographed in the lower left corner

You lot take proficient eyes if you can run across it.

Now we take to resize by 15%. The image is 260 pixels wide then I'll resize information technology to 39 pixels

At present let's do a big zoom in so that the discoloured pixel will be four pixels wide, to 960 pixels

Can you meet it? That's what Hubble would see.

This is a massive zoom in of that moving picture, zoomed in so far that the pixel spans only short of 37 pixels here out of an epitome 254 pixels in width

Can yous option out the brilliant pixel of the lunar lander, right in the middle of this paradigm? This simulates the very best epitome that Hubble could have in optimal atmospheric condition at full Moon with no shadow around the lander, and it probably over estimates the effulgence of the lander.

Even if nosotros had the ISS on the Moon it would only span a little under two pixels at Hubble'due south resolution of sixty meters to a pixel at that distance. The ISS is about the size of a football field, about 108 meters in length.

What size mirror would we have to fly into orbit to accept a hazard to see it in visible light? I'm going to work this out on the basis that we only need a 1 pixel descent phase. If it is significantly brighter, as it seems information technology might exist from the LRO pictures, then perhaps it would be possible to tell that it is artificial from a single pixel. If not, I'm not certain that ii pixels will assist.

Anyway, you tin multiply these figures by any number of pixels you think would be necessary to recognize it as artificial and not a bedrock. For instance, if you think a 4 by four pixel descent stage volition exist recognizably bogus, multiply the size of the mirror by four. For an paradigm as good as the LRO image of Apollo xvi above, the telescope would accept to exist 20 times larger.

Let's work it out for blue light (at 400 nm) as so we get a lower bound, it has to exist at least this big. Work in millimeters as earlier

So nosotros want 206265*0.0004/D = 0.0021.

Or D = 206265*0.0004 / 0.0021

= 39288 mm

So, we'd need a telescope of diameter at least 39.3 meters.

Or using the Dawes limit, we demand eleven.6/D = 0.0021 then D = xi.6/0.0021 or 5523 cms or 55 meters.

Information technology would have to be twenty times larger, 768 meters in diameter if you wanted an image like the one taken by LRO above of the Apollo 16 site, or 1.one km bore using the Dawes limit adding..

Fifty-fifty the James Webb with a diameter of vi.5 meters would not exist nearly large plenty.

This is the size of telescope we'd have to put into orbit to see the descent phase equally a single pixel:

Come across that little automobile at the bottom? The proposed "Extremely Large Telescope - Wikipedia " which is under construction in the Atacama Desert, with a primary mirror simply short of forty meters in bore.

If it was in orbit, it might spot the landing stage at full sunlight equally a single vivid pixel, if it was noticeably brighter than the surrounding landscape. At basis level, but possibly, with adaptive optics but it's a struggle.

Astrometry can achieve more precise measurements, Hipparcos managed 0.001 arc seconds for the nearest stars, but that's for bright pinpoint stars and the technique wouldn't piece of work for photographing the Moon. Gaia will accomplish fifty-fifty higher precision just over again it'south no good for photographing the Moon.

Adaptive optics can aid unblur the paradigm by keeping track of how the image moves and distorts, and countering the outcome of that. And so, ane idea, if we had very powerful lasers, perchance nosotros could utilise the lunar retroreflectors left on the Moon to help stabilize the images? Simply they only get ane photon back in ten17, then the signal is very faint.

You tin get beyond the resolution limit with optical interferometry. That increases the resolution by combining the upshot of several smaller telescopes further apart - but makes the things you see much fainter considering they don't catch much calorie-free. This musical instrument is used mainly for measuring widths of stars - only it's measured stars of width as pocket-size as 1.seven milliarc seconds: Navy Precision Optical Interferometer.. There are several other large ground based optical interferometers.

None of this is able to beat out Hubble, because if it did, they'd use information technology, e.g. to photograph Pluto, or Europa or other interesting distant targets. Our best image of the Pluto organization before the New Horizons flyby was from Hubble.

By combining many Hubble images they got this

Their photos of the moons were like this:

See Why NASA couldn't but use the Hubble Space Telescope to run across Pluto

At present, if nosotros sent an equivalent of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to the Moon we'd spot information technology easily as its HiRISE camera has a resolution of xxx cms, photoraphing Mars from high above its temper.

Artist's impression of MRO aerobraking into orbit around Mars. Its HiRISE camera tin image Mars with a resolution of 30 cms.

That's from an altitude of 300 km.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed the Moon from a elevation of 50 km. At that height HiRISE would have a resolution of 5 cms and would exist able to image the lunar landing sites with dandy detail.

Merely there simply hasn't been as much involvement in the Moon and then far equally for Mars and the LRO is a much less capable smaller satellite with a resolution of l cms. So it's got just a tenth of the resolution of HiRISE.

If we could put the equivalent of Hubble into the same orbit around the Moon, at a distance of fifty km instead of around 380,000 km then it would accept a resolution of 60*100*50/380,000 or 0.7 cms,

In that location's renewed interest in the Moon which is turning out to be far more interesting than previously thought.

Quoting from the blurb for my "OK to Touch?"

"It's the easiest place to visit for space explorers, tourists, and for unmanned telerobotic exploration from Earth. At that place's much there to interest scientists too, who could explore it direct from Earth, or from bases on the Moon like the ones in Antarctica. It's also a natural place for passive infrared telescopes at the poles, long moving ridge radio wave telescopes on the radio quiet far side, and eventually, huge radio dishes and liquid mirror optical telescopes spanning its craters. They can also written report the lunar geology, searching for ice, and precious metals like platinum, exploring the caves, and searching for meteorites in the polar ice for unaltered organics and even preserved life from early on Globe and other parts of our early solar system. It's turned out to exist far more interesting than we thought as recently as a couple of decades back."

"Our Moon is also resource rich. The lunar poles specially may be the easiest places to fix an astronaut'southward village in the almost future, as suggested past ESA. It has sunlight bachelor 24/7 most year circular on the "peaks of nearly eternal lite", and water ice likewise close by in the permanently shadowed crater. If you compare the Moon point by point with Mars, and so the Moon actually wins over Mars equally a place to live on only almost every point, probably at least upwardly to a population in the millions, and quite perchance further if we can build habitats in the vast lunar caves."

So perhaps we will too have loftier resolution cameras similar HiRISE in orbit effectually the Moon in the near future.

Also - the lunar X Prize will have many smaller missions go to the Moon, commercial ones. Nosotros may see the first of them towards the end of this year. There are 5 teams in the competition, SpaceIL plans to use the SpaceX Falcon 9, merely it'southward had problem plumbing equipment its mission into their faring. Hakuto has made a pact to land with Squad Indus and both volition use the Indian rockets - it's proven technology but they are having trouble raising the funding. Moon Limited will launch on Rocket Lab's Electron, and Synergy Moon on Interorbital Organisation's Neptune. All are sharing the olfactory organ cone with other payloads on their rockets.

Will Anyone Win the Google Lunar XPRIZE?

Astrobiotics, the top favourite for a long time, have pulled out proverb they can't be ready to launch until 2018. But they are planning a "FedEx service to the Moon" - their Griffin lander will carry other lunar missions to the lunar surface.

In the future we may see tiny rovers epitome the landing sites.

Artist's impression of a Google Lunar X-Prize rover at an Apollo landing site. Image Credit: Google Lunar X Prize

(I actually got the image from: Team Indus joins Google Lunar Ten-Prize finalists, Astrobotic drops out)

That was actually one of the challenges for a bonus prize for the Lunar X prize rather controversially, some retrieve the area immediately around the celebrated landing sites should be kept pristine and the rovers not permitted to bulldoze over them.

That's specially considering of the prospect of them landing by accident on top of the flag or some such:

""I'd like to meet them demonstrate their ability to practice a precision landing someplace else before they try it next to the Apollo 11 site," Logsdon says. "You wouldn't have to be very far off to come up downwards on top of the flag or something dramatic like that." "

Preserving Tranquility

The Lunar Legacy Project say in their Introduction

"Our goal is to preserve the archaeological information and the historic record of Apollo 11. We besides hope one day to preserve Repose Base for our planet as a Earth Heritage Site. We need to fix for the hereafter considering in l years many travelers may go to the moon. If the site is not protected, what will exist left?"

Another group with a similar mission aim is "For All Moonkind".

However none of the finalists plan to have up this part of the challenge as far every bit I know. So this is not an event for a while.

Perhaps in the future so nosotros will get Lunar Parks ready up, recognized world wide, and rovers and humans will only be able to arroyo within some set distance of the landing site. Nonetheless, even if photographed from a kilometer away they would be able to take high quality photographs.

The lunar landing sites occupy only a tiny role of the moon'southward surface. It's sometimes called our The Eighth Continent, the 2nd largest after Asia, at 37.9 one thousand thousand square kilometers, it'southward larger than Africa, and five times the size of Australia.

So information technology seems reasonable to protect them, to me.

They are as well valuable for planetary protection scientists,every bit places to report the furnishings of a brief human presence on the Moon several decades afterwards, which is important when planning other missions to the Moon and elsewhere - what practise we exit by way of organics and other contaminants on the Moon (rocket exhausts for instance) which could confuse science experiments? How far practise they spread? Besides for studies of panspermia, are there any microbes even so viable there? Experiments since then have suggested some should survive in fallow state just this is an unplanned experiment in long term survival of microbes in lunar conditions, in a state of affairs of humans walking around on the Moon as well what's more.

They are:

"valuable and express resource for conducting studies on the furnishings of humankind's initial contact with the Moon" (quote from page 774 of this paper).

See also my

  • OK to Bear on Mars? Europa? Enceladus? Or a Tale of Missteps?
  • Case For Moon First
  • Why Humans on Mars Right Now are Bad for Science. Includes: Astronaut gardener on the Moon

You might also be interested in

  • When we colonize the moon, will people on earth be able to see the settlements' lights on its surface facing us fifty-fifty during a crescent moon?

To become alerts of my posts on facebook, like my folio here: Robert Walker - Science20 Blog Alerts