Telescope acting like microscope

  • #1
I know this guy, and he say the Hubble telescope is worthless and has never done anything because it cannot take clear pictures of the Apollo landing site. This because he think it was a hoax and he wants proof:uhh: .

He is currently not convinced of the reason Hubble cannot take such photos as explained on the official Hubble site. I have tried convincing him that Hubble is not worthless, I told him to look up the Deep Field Images and told him about the new moons around Pluto.

So does anyone have anything to comment about why the Hubble cannot just zoom in like a microscope and take these photos of the Apollo debris on the Moon?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,669
Plastic Photon said:
I know this guy, and he say the Hubble telescope is worthless and has never done anything because it cannot take clear pictures of the Apollo landing site. This because he think it was a hoax and he wants proof:uhh: .
He is currently not convinced of the reason Hubble cannot take such photos as explained on the official Hubble site. I have tried convincing him that Hubble is not worthless, I told him to look up the Deep Field Images and told him about the new moons around Pluto.
So does anyone have anything to comment about why the Hubble cannot just zoom in like a microscope and take these photos of the Apollo debris on the Moon?
Do you or him know how over-subscribed the Hubble is? Practically every second of its existence is being used for a research observation, and there are tons of people and institutions waiting in line to gain access to it. Call me crazy, but looking at the moon for the debris of the apollo landing is NOT a research project of any degree of priority, not especially when it costs THAT much.

Besides, why would one need the Hubble to verify this? You CAN see the remnants of the apollo missions from ground based telescope. So get this person to one of the larger telescopes, pay for access, and see for himself! What's the big deal of only using the Hubble, especially when the Hubble was meant to look at something else with such dim intensities.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Modulo2pi
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,400
ZapperZ said:
Do you or him know how over-subscribed the Hubble is? Practically every second of its existence is being used for a research observation, and there are tons of people and institutions waiting in line to gain access to it. Call me crazy, but looking at the moon for the debris of the apollo landing is NOT a research project of any degree of priority, not especially when it costs THAT much.
Besides, why would one need the Hubble to verify this? You CAN see the remnants of the apollo missions from ground based telescope. So get this person to one of the larger telescopes, pay for access, and see for himself! What's the big deal of only using the Hubble, especially when the Hubble was meant to look at something else with such dim intensities.
Zz.
All that aside, isn't it simply a matter of resolution?
Plastic Photon said:
So does anyone have anything to comment about why the Hubble cannot just zoom in like a microscope and take these photos of the Apollo debris on the Moon?
The thing you and your friend need to understand is that the resolution of a telescope is dependant on it's aperature. Go to the astrophotography thread in astronomy and look at my pics of the planets, or look at a telescope advertisement and check for where it lists the resolution.

Also, afaik, the Hubble doesn't have variable magnification (though different instruments have different resolutions/fields of view) - so there is no "zooming". According to http://www.digibird.com/primerdir/primer0.htm" [Broken] site, Hubble's resolution on the moon is about 50-100m. Have your friend Google the distance to the moon and the aperature of Hubble and verify that for himself.

I suspect, however, that your friend will not listen to reason on this subject. I mean - if NASA is taking the pictures, why would your friend believe NASA about this, but not the Apollo missions themselves?

edit: http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html" [Broken] site goes through the calculation for him...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,400
One more thing - there is a difference between a telescope and a microscope that should be obvious: a telescope is focusing on objects, essentially an infinite distance away (as far as the optics are concerned) and a microscope is focusing on objects any where from a couple of milimeters to a couple of centimeters way. The optics work differently.
 

Related Threads on Telescope acting like microscope

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Top