Originally posted by VoidSpirit
perhaps that other argument was about alleged footprints at another alleged apollo landing site. i think the same argument would apply. we have a low quality/resolution image where craters are barely visible as fuzzy circles offset by clear as day- footprints.
it was obvious they edited the previous image because we had a better quality image without v nology, there is no excuse for fuzzy images. it's like they had better cameras in the 60's.
Resolution is a matter of the size of the optics Vs the distance to the object in question.
The Hubble has a 2 meter mirror, roughly, and can parse a 360 degree circle into about 25 million slices. You can work that out for yourself, the res of Hubble in terms of arc seconds is about 0.05 arc seconds.
If that scope was circling the moon at say 100 Km, 100,000 meters, That represents a circle of about 600,000 meters, way rounded of course. So that kind of scope would be able to get something like 25 mm of resolution on the surface of the moon if it were 100 km from the surface.
The Hubble is about 360,000 km from the moon, a circumference of about 2.1 million Km or 2.1 billion meters. Divide by 25 million and you come out with about 90 or so meters of resolution of surface detail on the moon.
Clearly not even close to see actual hardware on the moon much less footprints.
If I knew the resolution of the photo's newly released I could calculate the size of the mirror used but my guess is to get lunar probes to the moon would limit the mirror size to more like 1/10th of a meter, 100 mm, maybe even 200 mm size.
Say the mirror was 200 mm, then it would at best represent 1/10th the res of Hubble, or able to parse a circle into just 2.5 million parts. So lets run the numbers on that:
We already know the Hubble 100 km up from the moon would give something like 25 mm, about 1 inch of res. so that would make the res of 200 mm 10 inches at that distance. But it was more like 20 km up, so the res would be 5 times better or so, then 2 inches of res for that mirror.
2 inches may be enough to visualize an actual footprint but there may be artifacts introduced by the camera movement, it would be sweeping by at a high rate of speed and some smearing would be inevitable so the res may be just what we see, it looks to me like a couple of feet or so, 1/12th of the res of a fixed camera. So that is about the best we can expect till someone walks around with a camera on the sites up close and personal. I assume that will be done maybe in the next century.