2
$\begingroup$

There are interferometers, which are combining multiple telescopes together, with 0.001 arcsecond resolution. With changes, couldn't these observe the Landers? Is the reason why nobody is seeing the Landers related to effort and not actual technical limitation? Besides atmosphere interference, brightness, time use and other general issues.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Another reason is that nobody with an ounce of intelligence could be bothered with doing so? The detritus of the Moon landings have already been imaged from orbit. What do you think the purpose of obtaining some more grainy images would be? $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Sep 4 '19 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Sep 4 '19 at 7:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What would be the point of such an exercise? The promulgators of the "The Moon landing was a hoax" meme would reject such imagery, just like they have rejected Every. Other. Piece of evidence that humans did land on the Moon. There is no doubt that humans did land on the Moon, six separate times. Time on those expensive telescopes is allocated judiciously, with the primary metric being the expected scientific payoff. Pointing such telescopes toward the Moon would be an absolute waste of those very precious resources. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Sep 5 '19 at 13:21
3
$\begingroup$

Is seeing the apollo moon Landers via earth telescope that hard?

Yes, it still is.


If the resolution of an interferometric telescope is really 0.001 arcseconds, that translates to 4.85E-09 radians. At a perigee of 362,600 km that's 1.8 meters.

The top part of the Lunar Modules is about 4.2 meters wide which is a little more than double the resolution, so if there is some good contrast then it might appear in a reconstructed interferometric image.

However, those optical interferometers are not designed for imaging of extended objects. They only have a few telescopes and so are mostly limited to resolving more than one point-like object from each other, such as a double star or a star and an exoplanet.

With so few telescopes in an optical interferometer, a complex image like lunar terrain would be difficult or impossible to reconstruct without a model. For example, the images of the accretion disk of a black hole by the event horizon telescope required some input modeling to interpret the interferometric data.

Near sunrise or sunset however, the shadow of a lunar lander will be much larger. The lander is about 7 meters tall, so the shadow could be 4 or more meters wide by several tens of meters long. Since the Moon's orientation, as well as that of the lander and the local terrain is extremely well documented, then at each moment you could estimate what the shadow would look like in size, shape, and orientation. With that model, an interferometric image based on a few telescopes could be used to confirm the shadow.

However, using a model like that won't appease conspiracy theorists.

enter image description here Source

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it true that the longer the lander isn't observed, the less likely it is to be real? $\endgroup$ – user29247 Sep 4 '19 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ @user29247 Unless your cat is doing the non-observing $\endgroup$ – Carl Witthoft Sep 4 '19 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ But if telescopes continue to improve/get larger will it happen? $\endgroup$ – user29247 Sep 4 '19 at 18:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.