![gonnabstarstricken[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HNbtbkH.jpg "gonnabstarstricken[1].jpg")
How big would a telescope need to be to be capable of viewing the surface of a planet in clear detail? Not just the topographical features of the planet, but down to the grain.
>>7963231
pic related looks like me
ayy lamo
>>7963233
*sigh*
>>7963231
very big
>>7963231
let me guess. You want to see the stuff we left during the moon landings?
Well you need a fucking long telescope. So long, we dont have it and will likely never have it. Not even the Hubble can see with enough detail to see the moon landing shit. The only way so far has been to send stuff into lunar orbit to take pictures "upclose"
>>7963246
actually it simply cannot be done physically. information is scattered and lost, there is no telescope that can recreate detail of a specific resolution from beyond a specific distance.
>>7963251
would add, thats even without something horrible like two atmospheres (one from each planet) in the way.
Angular resolution decreases (gets better) linearly as the area of the telescope increases.
It depends on the wavelength of the light too, but that's constant.
Ask Google:
>"how big of a telescope do I need to see the flag on the moon?"
Answer:
>"The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10 meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter."
>>7963271
Also, the Earth's atmosphere is in the way, so you'll either need to put it in space or have really, really good adaptive optics.
>>7963233
So basically Shrek
>>7963231
With a telescope like that he's got to be compensating for something.
>>7963413
bully
