> something i've never bothered to research... > > fact: the hubble telescope cannot (because of distance resolution) photograph the > landing site.
Hubble was meant to look at stars, so yeah. It isn't a spy sat.
> yet, we left something reflective on the moon surface that we are capable of > accurately bouncing light off of, even while the moon is busy hauling ass in orbit? > also, isn't the moon itself reflective enough to use for this purpose?
Lasers, diffraction.
Not that I bothered doing any research either.
|