I asked this because no telescope could view such a distance
138343
we have a hubble telescope. its actually a giant satellite that orbits in space. takes pictures. and sends them to computers on earth! neato!\n\nbut an intersting thing is, the pictures we get of other galaxies are what they looked like millions of years ago! thats because it takes millions of years for light to travel from THAT galaxy to THIS galaxy. :)
166208
Ah a question right up my alley...Moon - no you cant see the mirror, it would take 6 seconds for a light beam to get from here to there and back. Look for the crater Tycho (most notible because of the "ray" pattern) it is in the NE corner of the moon (you will see it in the SW corner because telescopes invert the image. Several other craters and mountains, make note of shadow positions. Using a lunar chart, find the Sea of Tranquility (Mare Tranquillium) where we first set down in 1969.\n\nSun - Using a white card held up to the eyepiece (some scopes have a bracket that can do this) Line the scope up so that it points to the sun DO NOT LOOK THRU THE SCOPE USE THE SHADOW ON THE GROUND. Focus the suns image on the white card and follow sunspots.\n\nOther planets Mars - track mars throughout the year and note the stars behind it.  As you see in just a few months mars will appear to go backwards in the sky then go forward again,  This is called retrograde.\n\nYou know of jupiter and saturn ring tilt, great spot moons etc.\n\nStar clouds and star clusters - you will need a star chart and not all are visable at the same time - M42 Orion Nebulae in his belt, M31 Andromada galaxy, the only object outside our galaxy visable to the naked eye located just above the second of third pair of stars coming off the great square pegasus - in the big dipper, second star in the handle should see a double star, this was used to test ship navigators in olden times, they had to be able to see the two stars with the naked eye.\n\nThat should keep you busy for one night LOL just kidding...email me anytime you need help
12195
Actually, despite what has already been said...you can. However, define "see". It is very difficult, if not impossible to see with the naked eye, but can easily been seen using hi res cameras on satellites.\n\nSee here from the European Space Agency:\n\nhttp://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Proba_web_site/SEMTTHGHZTD_2.html
86896
No matter how big or small a telescope is, photons of light still have to touch the 'scope mirror in order to be seen and/or photographed.\n\nIt's interesting, though, to realize that with these big telescopes we're seeing extremely distant objects as though we'd been physically transported thousands of light years closer to them. For example, if you're looking through a 20-power telescope at some galaxy that's 10,000 light years away from Earth, the view through the telescope is as if you're only 500 light years away.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
564487
see a minor distance creat such a difrnc, 10/10
663292
I have seen the space station go over my house several times. No telescope is needed, just your eyes. It looks like a bright star moving across the sky. You might mistake it for an airplane flying high if you were not expecting to see it, although there would be no blinking lights. It just takes a couple of minutes to fly over and is only visible just after sunset or just before sunrise, when the sky is dark but the station is still in full sunlight. NASA has a web page that will predict sighting opportunities for many locations.
159748
Depends where ur looking.  If you look at the right spot you will see nothing, because there wouldn't be anything obstructing your view.  Or you might see that bird that just crossed your view.
578946
If you were on a distant planet 50 light years away several things would need to be true to see the past.  \n1. You would have first of had to get there in less than 50 years.  That is assuming you could go faster than the speed of light and not experience a time dilation effect.  (for example, using a stable wormhole)\n2. There are no large gravitational fields in your line of sight that would distort the light.\n3. There is no other slightly significant light source nearby.\n4.  There is no other type of object blocking your line of sight.\n5.  Your telescope must be able to enhance light very significantly.\n\nIf all of these were achieved, you would be able to see past events, but keep in mind there would still be limitations\n1. The best views would be from above everything.\n2. Buildings, weather, smoke, and volcanic ash could block your view.\n3.  You would not have any sound to go with what you are seeing.*\n4. You're line of sight is very likely to be blocked by Earth's Sun for a large amount of the year.\n5. Solar flares on both sides will interfere depending on their size.\n6.  Your best vantage point would probably be from a stationary spaceship that is not in any solar system.  The planet you would be on will rotate and revolve around its star, thus making observations very difficult.\n\n*Unless the event is accompanied by a radio transmission, and you have the proper equipment to hear that as well.
224692
Pretty much any telescope will see 'to' Uranus. Occasionally it can even be seen without any optical aid. That said, do not expect to see more than a small blue dot, even with a fairly big scope (one past what you are willing to pay).\n\nGenerally speaking, refractors are better for planetary viewing because they allow a higher magnification (longer focal length). The problem is that they are subject to chromatic abberation (little rainbows around bright objects) unless you spend a lot to correct it with good quality lenses. Reflectors will more often have spherical abberation, which tends to blur out features, so they tend not to be as good for planets.\n\nNext, are you talking about just the telescope or is the $600 for the telescope AND eyepieces? The right eyepieces can make a huge difference, so don't neglect them when shopping. For planets, get a couple of medium to high power Plossl eyepieces.\n\nBelow is a site with some good refractors. Disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with Orion Telescopes.
589172
"Near close approach around 4h44m UT July 3, this 600-meter/yard diameter asteroid\n\n Passes only 268,873 miles from the Earth, only  1.1 times the distance to the moon away.\n\nPeaking at  visual magnitude 11.1 four hours later, users of telescopes of 6 inches (15cm)  \n\nor larger can enjoy observing a  rare celestial  treat.  At time of close approach, 2004 XP14\n\n races along at 8.323 degrees per hour, or a mean lunar diameter every four minutes!\n\nSuch a rapid speed results in direct motion becoming visible, second by second. Just \n\nas naked eye Earth satellites are seen crossing the sky, 2004 XP14 will both amaze and\n\nchallenge the observer, both visually and those taking images."\n\nFrom www.lpl.arizona.edu\n\nHope it helps.
260427
I suppose it would be possible in theory. You would need an insanely bright source to project anything easily visible from Earth though. Why would you even want to do that?
215956
A number of problems.\nMars and Earth rotate.. You couldn't line them up. However, as this is a theoretical question...\nSay it took two minutes for the light to travel from Earth to mars... \nTherefore if you had 20 mirrors you'd be looking at a 40 minute lag in what you see.\nTheoretically you'd be able to see a clock reflected so many times that it would be 40 minutes slower than it actually was but you'd need some damn good mirrors and damn good optical devices.\nHowever you could only see the light you trapped.. The light from the dinasaurs went away a long time ago.\nIn order to see that you'd have to get near to the edge of our known universe in an instant.. Not so easy.\nBy trying the experiment with the mirrors you'd be able actually to prove the speed of light.\nIt would be a pretty buzzy experiment to do though...
567588
Actually you could see right through the nebula. Nebulae are extremely thin and much clearer than the air on clearest day on Earth. The only reason we can see them at all is that they are trillions of miles thick. It wouldn't be like the movies at all, where the space ship is hidden in a dense fog, it would be more like space looking clear but the stars appearing somewhat dimmer. So you could just triangulate on a number of known stars outside the nebula to determine your position.
177439
Have you tried maps.google.com?  It's quite brilliant and can give you a map, satellite shot, or a hybrid view of both.  The only iffy part will be how far it will let you zoom in.  But give it a try.
599285
Thats why they asked theoretically.\n\nsame radius as the solar system\n1267650600228229401496703205376 kms\n\nOf which you allready knew, otherwise u would not be asking
282253
I dunno. Why don't you ask the stars up above?
436743
Canterbury - 1178 AD   Depending on the size of the explosion, you wouldn't necessarily need a telescope to see an event on the moon.\n\nAlso - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1182939\n\nIn the above story, the guy used a telescope and a camera to photograph a possible explosion - which is still being debated.\nAn observed moon "explosion" is very plausible, yet so is the wine!  While sampling some wines - for science purposes ONLY! - I think I may have observed a few "moon explosions" myself............LOL!