Knowledge

Does NASA refuse to use a Hubble telescope to take pictures of the Moon rovers left behind previously?

Jacob Fox is completely correct.

The Hubble Space Telescope is not capable of taking pictures of the Apollo landing sites for 2 reasons:

  • It does not have (anywhere near) the resolution to do so (at its distance from the Moon, the smallest details it can resolve are 600 ft. in diameter)
  • The lit side of the Moon’s surface is generally too bright for Hubble’s sensitive cameras (Hubble can occasionally capture images in the shadowed transition region between the light and dark sides, and can capture images of the unilluminated surface)

As several others have written, lunar orbiters from several nations have captured images of the landing sites. Here is a nice picture of the Apollo 11 site from India’s Chadrayaan-2 orbiter:

And here’s the best picture I can find of a rover that was left behind.

The picture is of the Apollo 17 landing site, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The Rover is to the far right, labeled LRV:

The rover tracks are clearly visible to both ALSEP and SEP.


Let me tell you a nice story: shortly after NASA has landed people on the Moon, the Soviets have sent two unmanned rovers there: Lunokhod 1 in 1970 and Lunokhod 2 in 1973. This is what they looked like:

According to official data from the Soviet space agency, Lunokhod 1 travelled over 10 km and Lunokhod 2 almost 37 km on the Moon surface. They measured the distance travelled counting revolutions of an “extra wheel” dragged behind the rover (seen in the picture above). At that time there were no telescopes capable of seeing the rovers directly, so it was best measurement they had.

In 2013 high resolution photos of the Moon surface from the NASA LRO satellite were available. The resolution of those photos was good enough not only to locate the Luna 21 lander and the Lunokhod rover, but to see the actual wheel tracks and re-measure the distance travelled. This led to revising the distance upwards, to over 39 km, apparently the extra wheel was slipping occasionally and thus the original distance measurement was imprecise.

So, while as others said, the HST does not have sufficient resolution to see from the distance of Low Earth Orbit the actual rovers, we now have a telescope on the Lunar orbit, that has photographed the whole Moon and found all the landing sites and hardware left on the surface.

Related Posts

If an astronaut working on the International Space Station were somehow cut loose from his tether, would he fall back to Earth or orbit around it?

If an astronaut outside the ISS has his or her tether broken, they do not fall to the Earth. Before the tether was broken, the astronaut was in orbit at…

Escape velocity is supposed to be 24,000 mph, but our rockets never achieve this speed. How does that work?

Imagine you are sitting on a skateboard at the bottom of your drive and you need to get to the top. You could push off your garage door…

Can humans live on the side of a tidally-locked planet where neither day nor night exist?

Humans with their technology developed on Earth could live on a tidally locked planet where neither day nor night exists. We used to think that such planets become…

How did NASA make the shuttle safer after Columbia?

The problem was not just the piece of foam that struck the wing, it was a failure of imagination — NASA had seen foam fall before and decided…

Why do US Air Force fighters like the F-22 and F-15 place the engines right next to each other while Russian fighters like Su-27 always have a gap between the engines?

The United States has this thing where we learn from our mistakes. One of those mistakes was spacing twin engines as far apart as we did in the…

Is Mars too small to have a permanent atmosphere?

No, it is not. It used to have a thick atmosphere, perhaps thicker than Earth’s. It had that atmosphere for a couple of billion years and had oceans….