assuming it could focus on an object so nearby, could you see relics of the moonlandings? It seems to me that it would be pretty easy to pick up reflected light from such polished metal surfaces, and least under some lighting conditions.
Inspired by the thread See the Apollo landing sites on the moon?
Ok, I’m almost convinced.
Still, with the sun in the right angle and a time exposure, mightn’t the landers should up as discernably brighter “spots”, unidentifiable in themsleves but indirectly identifiable because we do in fact know exactly where the things are parked?
Make that “mightn’t the landers show up”…
No.
The Hubble Telescompe focused on the moon in the best of positional circumstances and lighting could deliminate objects about eighty meters in diameter. The largest of the remaining objects at the lunar landing sites is far less than that.
Here is an article on this exact question from just yesterday. It includes a telescopic photo of the lunar lander taken from the lunar orbiter, with a smaller telescope, from much closer.
“As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.” ~ Josh Billings ~
You’re right. If the sun was reflecting off a large polished lander surface, and the exact pixel coordinates of the lander was known, then it might be possible to discern some difference between the moon and the lander. (For example, by comparing two pictures, with the sun at different angles.)
As the Hubble site article pointed out, though, any object smaller than the minimum resolution shows up (at best) as a point. Meaning one pixel. Doesn’t get you much, except to disprove the wankers who maintain we never went to the moon.
Reviews answer after-the-fact. Makes adjustment for literalists.
<sigh>
In a square array, a single pixel could be on the border where four sensors touch. So a lander’s flash could show information, and useful information at that, over 4 pixels.
Then, take in account that more than one sensor array may be operating at the same time, and even more resolution would be obtained.
All that being said, the best that’s going to come out of this is a tiny, indistinct blob.
Nitpick: The above assumes that the resolution of the telescope system is limited by the detector. That’s a stupid way to design a telescope, because the optics is almost always more expensive and difficult to build than the detector. You design the best optics possible, and stick in a detector which has a higher resolution than the optics. In such a telescope, a single point of light in the sky will always appear as a multi-pixel blob.
Telescopes are designed to make the best of lots of restrictions imposed on them. There are lots of factors: mirror/lens size and freedom from distortion, sensor/camera quality, etc. Also there’s the ability for the platform to stay stable (the Hubble isn’t perfectly still, ever), ability to point, ability to stay on target, etc.
Seems to me the flavor of the OP (and a question I didn’t know the answer to until I went to the above NASA site) was “Since Hubble has great resolution, where are the high resolution pictures of the moon?” Seems a reasonable question, since I seem to remember there being some link between the Keyhole spy satellites and the Hubble technology.
The follow-up question is interesting. It didn’t occur to me for years, that all stars except the sun are one pixel wide to the naked eye, at least they would be without atmospheric blurring. If enough photons hit your eye from a point, even if the point is a million light years away, it can be seen.
On the subject of why no moon shots from Hubble, the problem is that the moon is, to the Hubble, a moving object. The design of the Hubble is all directed at holding a single point in the sky absolutely still, for as long as possible, to collect light very faint objects at a very great distance.
The Moon is very bright, and it wobbles around a lot. I know it doesn’t look that way to us, but then, we can’t see a galaxy at fifteen billion light years, so our frame of reference is different. Putting in a stop action shutter wasn’t in the design specs.
“Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty.” ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
I’ve always thought that any future manned mission to the moon should include some kind of project which could be visible from Earth with the naked eye, or perhaps a good telescope. Perhaps several square miles of reflective cloth laid out on the lunar ground in some kind of obviously non-natural pattern, like an “x”. Or, a rotating beacon or strobe… something to light up the crater floor brightly enough to be visible from the Earth during a new moon. Sure, there are some serious engineering and logistical problems with this plan, but I think it can be achieved within the cost and weight restrictions imposed by a lunar mission. Implementation of this project would provide conclusive proof to even the thickest naysayer that we’ve visited the moon… although it would probably inspire a whole new group of paranoid fanatics to insist that we’re being invaded by martians.
–jhw
There are moon shoots from Hubble, like this one.
Put the nit back, I was saving that one.
OK, there are moon shots. The best shots of the Moon however are not from Hubble. Wide area shots of the Moon are possible with the Hubble camera, but the resolution is not noticeably better than a good quality telephoto shot from Earth.
“It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure.” ~ Horace ~
Actually, that really reminds me of a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called Venture to the Moon. In the story the firt lunar mission did an experiment where they used a high-powered nozzle to shoot sodium into the (very thin) lunar atmosphere. The idea was that when the sodium hit the ionosphere it would fluoresce - somehow this was supposed to tell them something important about the atmosphere. This glowing sodium was visible from earth (either by naked eye or with binoculars, I can’t remember which).
However, persons unknown tinkered with the experiment the cut a stencil to put over the nozzle. The story mentions it very obliquely, but says that they weren’t sure how they got the “A’s” and “O’s” right, but the “C’s” and “L’s” were perfect. One can only guess that this was a brilliant marketing strategy. 
I guess there were probably a few wingnuts back on Earth who just decided that Coca Cola has been taken over by aliens. :rolleyes:
Although I’ve heard of the legendary Clarke, I’m not familiar with his “Venture to the Moon.” I should look it up.
Come to think of it, I would be surprised if a very large lunar neon sign was not already on the books at some major corporations. I don’t think there’s any laws against making the entire moon your own personal billboard.
Are you kidding? The Tick would nail your ass for that!
“The Man Who Sold the Moon” by Robert Heinlein mentions threats to use pyrotechnics to disperse dust in the same manner, including the reference to soft drink manufacturers. Only threats, though, no real attempts. (No fictional real attempts, that is.)
“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” ~ T.S. Eliot ~
Been there, done that. One of the things Neil and Buzz left on the surface was a corner reflector, for exactly this purpose. You shine a high-power laser at the Moon, and you can get back a faint, but detectable (to the aforementioned good telescope), reflection. It’s used primarily for ranging experiments, to determine the exact distance to the Moon.
Just another nit: the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) does indeed have a “stop-action” on it. Two of its detectors can actually count the photons as they come in and note the time they were detected. This is called “time-tag” mode. It’s very useful, because after the fact you can bin the photons up into whatever time intervals you want.
In other words, a one hour exposure can be broken up into 12 five minute exposures, or 60 one minutes ones, etc. This has lots of uses, none of which would be looking at the Moon. 
Unfortunately, this is only done on the ultraviolet detectors, which are very sensitive to overlight conditions. They are high-voltage instruments, and would fry (literally, ouch!) if too much light were to hit them. They shut off automatically if they sense they are being abused. In some cases, a 20th magnitude star would be enough to trip the safety protocol, so you can imagine what the Moon would do to them!