What detail can Hubble see on Mars?Inability of Hubble to clearly resolve nearby celestial objectsWhat “revolutionary” discoveries were made by Hubble TelescopeHubble HST scheduling algorithmClaim that 30-m class telescopes will have resolution far superior to Hubble: true?who invented the Hubble telescopewhat can I see with this telescope?Why can’t I see any detail on planets?What magnification is required to see detail on Mars / other local bodies?Can't see any detail on planets with my new Celestron NexStar 130 SLT Computerized TelescopeIf we had the right technology could we see a distant star in detail?

Can I combine SELECT TOP() with the IN operator?

What does the coin flipping before dying mean?

What is the thing used to help pouring liquids called?

Copper as an adjective to refer to something made of copper

Endgame puzzle: How to avoid stalemate and win?

Determine if a grid contains another grid

What do you call a painting painted on a wall?

Problem with estimating a sequence with intuition

Which version of the Squat Nimbleness feat is correct?

How to say something covers all the view up to the horizon line?

Was there a dinosaur-counter in the original Jurassic Park movie?

Why are condenser mics so much more expensive than dynamics?

How important are good looking people in a novel/story?

How do I download programs on Linux?

While drilling into kitchen wall, hit a wire - any advice?

My large rocket is still flipping over

Referring to person by surname, keep or omit "von"?

Is crescere the correct word meaning to to grow or cultivate?

Installing Debian 10, upgrade to stable later?

Collision domain question

Where did Lovecraft write about Carcosa?

How to preserve a rare version of a book?

Emergency stop in plain TeX, pdfTeX, XeTeX and LuaTeX?

Is there a reason why Turkey took the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire, instead of Greece or another of the Balkan states?



What detail can Hubble see on Mars?


Inability of Hubble to clearly resolve nearby celestial objectsWhat “revolutionary” discoveries were made by Hubble TelescopeHubble HST scheduling algorithmClaim that 30-m class telescopes will have resolution far superior to Hubble: true?who invented the Hubble telescopewhat can I see with this telescope?Why can’t I see any detail on planets?What magnification is required to see detail on Mars / other local bodies?Can't see any detail on planets with my new Celestron NexStar 130 SLT Computerized TelescopeIf we had the right technology could we see a distant star in detail?













2












$begingroup$


I'm researching a scene for a sci-fi novel in which the near-future protagonists observe earth through a station-mounted telescope in Mars orbit. My goal is to understand how much detail they reasonably could discern.



The Hubble telescope is probably a reasonable comparison for my purposes. I found images Hubble took of Mars during a close approach, but I don't know if those represent the best resolution possible or simply the resolution that was selected or available at the time, or indeed, if the whole planet was imaged at a higher resolution than the photo published in popular media outlets.



Can a Hubble-like telescope observe significantly greater detail than displayed in the article below? If so, what might reasonably be resolved? Large cities? Individual buildings?



From Vox.com's Hubble can see galaxies impossibly far away. Here’s what happens when it looks at Mars and Saturn.



Mars, ASA, ESA, and STScI



above: Cropped from Source NASA, ESA, and STScI



Mars, NASA/Hubble



above: Cropped from Source NASA/Hubble










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
    $endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    3 hours ago















2












$begingroup$


I'm researching a scene for a sci-fi novel in which the near-future protagonists observe earth through a station-mounted telescope in Mars orbit. My goal is to understand how much detail they reasonably could discern.



The Hubble telescope is probably a reasonable comparison for my purposes. I found images Hubble took of Mars during a close approach, but I don't know if those represent the best resolution possible or simply the resolution that was selected or available at the time, or indeed, if the whole planet was imaged at a higher resolution than the photo published in popular media outlets.



Can a Hubble-like telescope observe significantly greater detail than displayed in the article below? If so, what might reasonably be resolved? Large cities? Individual buildings?



From Vox.com's Hubble can see galaxies impossibly far away. Here’s what happens when it looks at Mars and Saturn.



Mars, ASA, ESA, and STScI



above: Cropped from Source NASA, ESA, and STScI



Mars, NASA/Hubble



above: Cropped from Source NASA/Hubble










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
    $endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    3 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


I'm researching a scene for a sci-fi novel in which the near-future protagonists observe earth through a station-mounted telescope in Mars orbit. My goal is to understand how much detail they reasonably could discern.



The Hubble telescope is probably a reasonable comparison for my purposes. I found images Hubble took of Mars during a close approach, but I don't know if those represent the best resolution possible or simply the resolution that was selected or available at the time, or indeed, if the whole planet was imaged at a higher resolution than the photo published in popular media outlets.



Can a Hubble-like telescope observe significantly greater detail than displayed in the article below? If so, what might reasonably be resolved? Large cities? Individual buildings?



From Vox.com's Hubble can see galaxies impossibly far away. Here’s what happens when it looks at Mars and Saturn.



Mars, ASA, ESA, and STScI



above: Cropped from Source NASA, ESA, and STScI



Mars, NASA/Hubble



above: Cropped from Source NASA/Hubble










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm researching a scene for a sci-fi novel in which the near-future protagonists observe earth through a station-mounted telescope in Mars orbit. My goal is to understand how much detail they reasonably could discern.



The Hubble telescope is probably a reasonable comparison for my purposes. I found images Hubble took of Mars during a close approach, but I don't know if those represent the best resolution possible or simply the resolution that was selected or available at the time, or indeed, if the whole planet was imaged at a higher resolution than the photo published in popular media outlets.



Can a Hubble-like telescope observe significantly greater detail than displayed in the article below? If so, what might reasonably be resolved? Large cities? Individual buildings?



From Vox.com's Hubble can see galaxies impossibly far away. Here’s what happens when it looks at Mars and Saturn.



Mars, ASA, ESA, and STScI



above: Cropped from Source NASA, ESA, and STScI



Mars, NASA/Hubble



above: Cropped from Source NASA/Hubble







telescope mars hubble-telescope angular-resolution






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 33 mins ago









uhoh

7,96522275




7,96522275










asked 4 hours ago









Eric J.Eric J.

1745




1745











  • $begingroup$
    First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
    $endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
    $endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    3 hours ago















$begingroup$
First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
First, you need to understand that magnification is not what you want to ask about, but angular resolution.
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The Hubble space telescope has a 2.4m mirror and is pretty much diffraction limited, so at near-UV wavelengths of say 240nm it has an angular resolution of about $10^-7$ radians. Mars' closest distance to Earth is about 54.6 million km, so the theoretical minimal resolution is between 5 ad 6 km. So large cities might be visible if they have lots of contrast. Since at closest approach an observer on Mars is looking straight at the night side of the Earth, a well lit city might be easy to spot, on the other hand, they are also looking more or less straight at the Sun, which might give some problems. Still there will be times when the distance is only 70 or 80 million km and the angle from the Sun is more manageable, so a resolution of 10km in the UV, 20 in visible light is credible.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Florin Andrei
    49 mins ago


















1












$begingroup$

Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.



Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.



Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.



The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but it varies all the time).



Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:



https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(0.04+arcseconds)+*+55000000



It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographical features.



To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are places several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror.



This would be similar to the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer near Flagstaff, Arizona.



NPOI



Some of the wide, flat parts of Valles Marineris might provide a good location for the interferometer. Acidalia Planitia would provide even more space for building huge interferometers, and should be a good place to build structures in general - flat to beyond horizon; it's the place where much of the book/movie The Martian set their story. But any big, reasonably flat field would work.



All of the above assumes the distance of closest approach between Earth and Mars. In practice, the distance is greater than that, so aperture must increase. You're contemplating an interferometer with a base of dozens of km if you want to distinguish structures such as buildings.



Conceivably, the interferometer could be built in orbit, but you must ensure that the distance between mirrors is maintained with extraordinary precision. On the surface, the ground provides that rigidity. In space you'd have to... I dunno, use space magic.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "514"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31775%2fwhat-detail-can-hubble-see-on-mars%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    The Hubble space telescope has a 2.4m mirror and is pretty much diffraction limited, so at near-UV wavelengths of say 240nm it has an angular resolution of about $10^-7$ radians. Mars' closest distance to Earth is about 54.6 million km, so the theoretical minimal resolution is between 5 ad 6 km. So large cities might be visible if they have lots of contrast. Since at closest approach an observer on Mars is looking straight at the night side of the Earth, a well lit city might be easy to spot, on the other hand, they are also looking more or less straight at the Sun, which might give some problems. Still there will be times when the distance is only 70 or 80 million km and the angle from the Sun is more manageable, so a resolution of 10km in the UV, 20 in visible light is credible.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Florin Andrei
      49 mins ago















    1












    $begingroup$

    The Hubble space telescope has a 2.4m mirror and is pretty much diffraction limited, so at near-UV wavelengths of say 240nm it has an angular resolution of about $10^-7$ radians. Mars' closest distance to Earth is about 54.6 million km, so the theoretical minimal resolution is between 5 ad 6 km. So large cities might be visible if they have lots of contrast. Since at closest approach an observer on Mars is looking straight at the night side of the Earth, a well lit city might be easy to spot, on the other hand, they are also looking more or less straight at the Sun, which might give some problems. Still there will be times when the distance is only 70 or 80 million km and the angle from the Sun is more manageable, so a resolution of 10km in the UV, 20 in visible light is credible.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Florin Andrei
      49 mins ago













    1












    1








    1





    $begingroup$

    The Hubble space telescope has a 2.4m mirror and is pretty much diffraction limited, so at near-UV wavelengths of say 240nm it has an angular resolution of about $10^-7$ radians. Mars' closest distance to Earth is about 54.6 million km, so the theoretical minimal resolution is between 5 ad 6 km. So large cities might be visible if they have lots of contrast. Since at closest approach an observer on Mars is looking straight at the night side of the Earth, a well lit city might be easy to spot, on the other hand, they are also looking more or less straight at the Sun, which might give some problems. Still there will be times when the distance is only 70 or 80 million km and the angle from the Sun is more manageable, so a resolution of 10km in the UV, 20 in visible light is credible.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The Hubble space telescope has a 2.4m mirror and is pretty much diffraction limited, so at near-UV wavelengths of say 240nm it has an angular resolution of about $10^-7$ radians. Mars' closest distance to Earth is about 54.6 million km, so the theoretical minimal resolution is between 5 ad 6 km. So large cities might be visible if they have lots of contrast. Since at closest approach an observer on Mars is looking straight at the night side of the Earth, a well lit city might be easy to spot, on the other hand, they are also looking more or less straight at the Sun, which might give some problems. Still there will be times when the distance is only 70 or 80 million km and the angle from the Sun is more manageable, so a resolution of 10km in the UV, 20 in visible light is credible.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    Steve LintonSteve Linton

    2,9391323




    2,9391323











    • $begingroup$
      What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Florin Andrei
      49 mins ago
















    • $begingroup$
      What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Florin Andrei
      49 mins ago















    $begingroup$
    What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Florin Andrei
    49 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    What's not clear to me is whether the minimum Earth-Mars distance coincides with the transit of Earth over the solar disc, seen from Mars. Since the orbits are not exactly coplanar, the coincidence is not guaranteed - at least that's my intuition. I could be wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Florin Andrei
    49 mins ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.



    Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.



    Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.



    The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but it varies all the time).



    Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:



    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(0.04+arcseconds)+*+55000000



    It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographical features.



    To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are places several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror.



    This would be similar to the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer near Flagstaff, Arizona.



    NPOI



    Some of the wide, flat parts of Valles Marineris might provide a good location for the interferometer. Acidalia Planitia would provide even more space for building huge interferometers, and should be a good place to build structures in general - flat to beyond horizon; it's the place where much of the book/movie The Martian set their story. But any big, reasonably flat field would work.



    All of the above assumes the distance of closest approach between Earth and Mars. In practice, the distance is greater than that, so aperture must increase. You're contemplating an interferometer with a base of dozens of km if you want to distinguish structures such as buildings.



    Conceivably, the interferometer could be built in orbit, but you must ensure that the distance between mirrors is maintained with extraordinary precision. On the surface, the ground provides that rigidity. In space you'd have to... I dunno, use space magic.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.



      Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.



      Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.



      The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but it varies all the time).



      Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:



      https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(0.04+arcseconds)+*+55000000



      It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographical features.



      To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are places several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror.



      This would be similar to the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer near Flagstaff, Arizona.



      NPOI



      Some of the wide, flat parts of Valles Marineris might provide a good location for the interferometer. Acidalia Planitia would provide even more space for building huge interferometers, and should be a good place to build structures in general - flat to beyond horizon; it's the place where much of the book/movie The Martian set their story. But any big, reasonably flat field would work.



      All of the above assumes the distance of closest approach between Earth and Mars. In practice, the distance is greater than that, so aperture must increase. You're contemplating an interferometer with a base of dozens of km if you want to distinguish structures such as buildings.



      Conceivably, the interferometer could be built in orbit, but you must ensure that the distance between mirrors is maintained with extraordinary precision. On the surface, the ground provides that rigidity. In space you'd have to... I dunno, use space magic.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.



        Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.



        Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.



        The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but it varies all the time).



        Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:



        https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(0.04+arcseconds)+*+55000000



        It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographical features.



        To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are places several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror.



        This would be similar to the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer near Flagstaff, Arizona.



        NPOI



        Some of the wide, flat parts of Valles Marineris might provide a good location for the interferometer. Acidalia Planitia would provide even more space for building huge interferometers, and should be a good place to build structures in general - flat to beyond horizon; it's the place where much of the book/movie The Martian set their story. But any big, reasonably flat field would work.



        All of the above assumes the distance of closest approach between Earth and Mars. In practice, the distance is greater than that, so aperture must increase. You're contemplating an interferometer with a base of dozens of km if you want to distinguish structures such as buildings.



        Conceivably, the interferometer could be built in orbit, but you must ensure that the distance between mirrors is maintained with extraordinary precision. On the surface, the ground provides that rigidity. In space you'd have to... I dunno, use space magic.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.



        Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.



        Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.



        The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but it varies all the time).



        Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:



        https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(0.04+arcseconds)+*+55000000



        It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographical features.



        To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are places several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror.



        This would be similar to the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer near Flagstaff, Arizona.



        NPOI



        Some of the wide, flat parts of Valles Marineris might provide a good location for the interferometer. Acidalia Planitia would provide even more space for building huge interferometers, and should be a good place to build structures in general - flat to beyond horizon; it's the place where much of the book/movie The Martian set their story. But any big, reasonably flat field would work.



        All of the above assumes the distance of closest approach between Earth and Mars. In practice, the distance is greater than that, so aperture must increase. You're contemplating an interferometer with a base of dozens of km if you want to distinguish structures such as buildings.



        Conceivably, the interferometer could be built in orbit, but you must ensure that the distance between mirrors is maintained with extraordinary precision. On the surface, the ground provides that rigidity. In space you'd have to... I dunno, use space magic.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 45 mins ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        Florin AndreiFlorin Andrei

        13k12945




        13k12945



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31775%2fwhat-detail-can-hubble-see-on-mars%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її