Location of and seeing human items left on the moon's surface

File: aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxMS84OTQvb3JpZ2luYWwvYXBvbGxvMTctbW9vbi1sYW5kaW5nLXNpdGUtbHJvLWltYWdlLmpwZw==.jpg (226KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1333x1000px

example pic

File: 627885main1_M175252641LR_ap15-673.jpg (267KB, 673x673px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 673x673px

>>8982256

Either out of focus or too much light going in. Put cardboard as improvised iris. As for size, it has to be huge ass and beyond the atmosphere.

File: DSCF2754c.jpg (493KB, 1068x712px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1068x712px

>>8982260
How big is huge ass.

The problem with the camera is that it can't autofocus very well due to how dark things are. You have to trick it. Like this was the best I could get of a lunar eclipse with an older one.

File: hqdefault.jpg (3KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 480x360px

>>8982266
the bigger problem is atmospheric distortions blurring everything to shit. its even hard to get a non-blurry image of something as large as the ISS. you can identify it as ISS, but you cant make out anything as small as a single module.

now, taking an image of something that's as tiny as a apollo descent stage from earth is borderline impossible. the pictures posted above were done by lunar reconnaissance orbiters sent up into a moon orbit. from earth you won't even make out a spec, even with the best telescope, since atmosphere blurs these details into nothingness

>>8982266
Your eclipse pics aren't horrible, Anon. Just not display worthy on a site trying to impress people.

Yes, you need a big scope. Larger than any on Earth. Getting above the atmosphere helps, but even Hubble would not be able to resolve anything more than a bright pixel or two with a couple of dark ones adjacent where a shadow falls.

How big? Well, I don't know offhand, but here's how you calc it: the lander is (guess here) 10m across, and the Moon is 220,000,000m away at closest (ballpark figures, ok?), so take the inverse sine of that ratio and you get an angle of about .01 arc seconds. Hubble has a resolution of .05 arc seconds. So these objects are pretty tiny as seen from Earth.

File: Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.svg.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

>>8982324
>>8982348
I figure 100m would be what is needed to resolve objects on the moon. I don't see that really happening anytime soon. Hubble really isn't a very good telescope as far as telescopes go. It just happens to be in a good place (off Earth).

>tfw there will never be a 100m optical telescope in space

>>8982382
>pic
>Very Large Telescope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope#Scientific_results

>Results from the VLT have led to the publication of an average of more than one peer-reviewed scientific paper per day. For instance in 2007, almost 500 refereed scientific papers were published based on VLT data.[12] The telescope's scientific discoveries include imaging an extrasolar planet for the first time,[13] tracking individual stars moving around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way,[14] and observing the afterglow of the furthest known gamma-ray burst.[15]

>Other discoveries with VLT's signature include the detection of carbon monoxide molecules in a galaxy located almost 11 billion light-years away for the first time, a feat that had remained elusive for 25 years. This has allowed astronomers to obtain the most precise measurement of the cosmic temperature at such a remote epoch.[16] Another important study was that of the violent flares from the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. The VLT and APEX teamed up to reveal material being stretched out as it orbits in the intense gravity close to the central black hole.[17]

>Using the VLT, astronomers have also measured the age of the oldest star known in our galaxy, the Milky Way. At 13.2 billion years old, the star was born in the earliest era of star formation in the Universe.[18] They have also analysed the atmosphere around a super-Earth exoplanet for the first time using the VLT. The planet, which is known as GJ 1214b, was studied as it passed in front of its parent star and some of the starlight passed through the planet’s atmosphere.[19]

>In all, of the top 10 discoveries done at ESO's observatories, seven made use of the VLT.[20]

Fug, we need MOAR.

>>8982382
Very nice graphic - good find!

>>8982413
It is from here, fyi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope#Astronomical_research_telescopes