Can the moon landing sites be seen from Earth ?

No. The Hubble telescope can not see something as small as the lunar lander on the moon. The important thing is the angular size of the image. The Hubble can see things as small as .015 seconds of arc. At a distance of 240,000 miles, this translates into about 86 feet. The lander is much smaller than that.

And, of course, the conspiracy theorists would just say that the photos are faked just like they say the movies are faked. Most probably wouldn't believe even if they went up there themselves.

By the way. ALL of the moon landings were on the near side of the moon. NASA wanted to be able to talk to them while they were actually walking around up there.

We can see the sites where the Apollo landings took place with the naked eye every time we look at the moon. All six landings were on the "near" side -- the side facing us.

Oh, you mean you want to be able to see the footprints, flag, and remains that we left behind? Oh, that's a different problem altogether.

No telescope in existence has the power to resolve such a small object at the distances we are talking about. Our best shot there is the Hubble Telescope -- no atmospheric interference.

The Hubble telescope has a diffraction-limited theoretical resolution of about 0.1 arc-second. At the distance of the moon (384,400 km, or 238,855 miles), 0.1 arc-second translates into a spot of about 68½ meters in diameter. And that is only true if the focal length can be adjusted so that Hubble can actually focus on something that close -- it was designed to be very far-sighted, not examine things right in front of it, so to speak. And then there's the complication with the fact that the mirror was ground incorrectly, so that Hubble needed "glasses" to correct the spherical aberration.

So, what was the largest thing we left behind? A footprint? Not hardly -- at most about 15 - 18 inches in the EVA suit boots. The U.S. flag and flagpole? Get real -- even blown over by the blastoff and lying flat on the ground-- the flag itself was no bigger than a 3'x5' flag. The lunar rover? 3.1 meters long, so that wouldn't be seen. The instruments we left behind? Nope -- they were all man-portable by necessity, so they were briefcase-sized at best.

The largest object we left behind was the descent module of the LEM -- with the landing legs and all that. The LEM was 6.4 meters tall, and 4.3 meters (14 feet) wide. And 4 meters is much smaller than the theoretical best that Hubble or any other telescope can do.

When they make a telescope of the proper focal length, and with an angular resolution of about 0.003 arc-seconds, we will finally be able to resolve objects on the moon the size of the LEM and Lunar Rover. And it ain't gonna happen with anybody's backyard amateur telescope, I guarantee.

At last a sensible question, I have wondered about this for years.

If you could then all the hoax theory's would be put to rest.

I did hear that the first telescope powerful enough to see the lander was being made in Mexico a few years back.

Hubble probably could if pointed in the right direction.

I'm still puzzled as to how the mirrors were placed on the moon for the laser measurements of distance from the earth were placed so precisely if we didn't go!?

you can only see a few of them : those who landed on the visible side of the moon. And yes, it SHOULD put an end to conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theorists just like conspiracies : it would be like take his bone away from a dog... mean and cruel

leave the conspiracy theorists where they are... They won't listen to you. After all, I spent 10 years trying to convince my mother god doesn't exist and even provided with some interesting proof that believing in his existence is dangerous and she still won't listen. People are like that : when they don't want to listen, they just won't.

After all, there's a even easier way to prove this mad conspiracy thing about the moon is false:

russians believed it!!!! And they had telescopes and communication equipement (and radars) good enough to follow the apollo missions from earth. And they saw them landing on the moon, or they would have exposed a fake landing immediately.

It would take a telescope with a mirror as big as a football field to be able to "resolve" something as small as the lunar lander at the distance of the moon. Hubble isn't even close. No telescope on earth exists that can do it either. Even if a telescope that big were built it still couldn't see it because of atmospheric distortion above and beyond the ability of "adaptive optics" to correct. This isn't a matter of opinion it is a matter of the science of optics.

No telescope we have now is big enough. Anyway, it would not change the conspiracy theories at all. The conspiracy theorists would just say the pictures taken with that telescope were fake.

You def can see the sites if you know the locations exactly - but not in to details as foot prints etc. It is too far and no such powerful telescope !

Hey coming to think of it - No - because we landed on the other side of the moon ya ?

Apollo 11 landed in a wharehouse in Huston Texas..did you ever see the tape of the moon landing,,,who was operating the camera when armstrong exits the craft??? why was there shadows on the moon when they landed...so if you want to see the site the 11 landed .. go to texas...

Yes, If you were to use one of the earths most powerful telescopes. The thing is they have much more important research to do then to waste there time with stupid conspiracy theories.

Hi Timbo,

if you are talking about actually seeing the artifacts left behind by the astronauts, no. About the only thing I can think of would possibly be one of the upcoming lunar orbiters. But then the conspiracy theorist wouldn't buy that either.

Ron