Of course, the damned thing is upside down in Australia.
I’ve always thought that the term was “captured rotation” and I found another term gravitational lock
With all those angular size statistics being bandied about, here’s a calculator for you to check them OR compute even more on your own.
http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm
Well I guess all is not Utopian here. The last thing I ever want to happen (especially in SDMB) is to pass on bad information. In my own defense my knowledge of the moon came from an alleged amateur astronomer. He probably gets a chuckle every time he thinks about me repeating what I was told, which by the way I have done more than once in these forums.
I try to do for others what has been done for me. And that is to pass on knowledge. I have been appropriately corrected and for that I thank the group. :o
Jim
yeah, that’s one of the best things about this place - all of us are smarter than any of us. One big self-correcting organism. xo, C.
JimMacMillan
No problem. We don’t make fun of posters here. (Well at least not in General Questions). Everybody can’t possibly know everything. So now you’ve learned a little bit more about the Universe.
I can’t believe that amateur astronomer friend of yours would deliberately give you erroneous information. Either that or he was seriously lacking in astronomy knowledge. Either alternative isn’t very pleasant.
Getting back to the OP’s question, perhaps the stuff left behind is way too small to be resolved, but how about the shadows they would cast with an oblique sun angle? How tall were the lander platforms, anyway?
DD
No sweat. You just got tripped up on one of Rumsfeld’s “facts that are unknown-unknown.” It happens to all of us, and now you know. 
There are facts that are known, there are facts that are known-unknown and there are facts that are unknown-unknown.
-D. Rumsfeld
That depends on how you look at it. Just standing and looking, the opposite pole would appear nearer the horizon than in the northern hemisphere. However, if you laid on the ground with your head pointing north, the moon would appear oriented the same as anywhere else, just higher from your perspective (more northward) the farther south you are.
I pronounce it “KOY-per”.
I believe it’s pronounced Mangrove Throatwarbler.
Just an estimate from seeing the model but the landing section was 6-8 feet tall but the section that would leave a significant shadow is raised off the ground on thin legs.
Do the math. Even if an object cast a shadow a full 100 feet in diameter, and nothing left on the moon is more than a small fraction big enougn, it would only be 0.015 arc seconds in diameter which is half of what the the Hubble can resolve.