• Deme
      link
      fedilink
      98 months ago

      You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

      • @cheddar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        19
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Isn’t this because Hubble is actually made to look deep into space and not under its nose? I’m sorry, but I’m not watching a 14 minutes video for that.

        • Deme
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

          It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

          Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.