… the matron goddess of the island of Hawaiʻi, where the Mauna Kea Observatory is located. In addition, she is identified with Pāpā, the goddess of the earth and wife of Wākea (space), which is appropriate because 2003 EL61 is thought to be composed almost entirely of solid rock, without the thick ice mantle over a small rocky core typical of other known Kuiper belt objects. Lastly, Haumea is the goddess of fertility and childbirth, with many children who sprang from different parts of her body; this corresponds to the swarm of icy bodies thought to have broken off the dwarf planet during an ancient collision. The two known moons, also believed to have been born in this manner, are thus named after two of Haumea’s daughters, Hiʻiaka and Nāmaka.

Via Wikipedia link excluded here for avoiding moderation’s sake.

Haumea was also officially listed as a dwarf planet along with Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Ceres. That’s the IAU approved official list at the time of writing this anyhow – more such as Sedna, Quaoar, “Buffy” (2004 XR190 ) and others will likely be added eventually and perhaps – hopefully- become accepted as “proper” albeit small planets one day.

Also note that spy satellites are a LOT closer to the Earth than any satellite we have is to the moon. Most are not geosynch, but what is called a Keyhole satellite. They travel in very elliptical orbits, so the high point might be near geosynch, but the low point drops almost into the atmosphere. This puts their low point only a couple hundred miles above the Earth’s surface, which is where the resolution is best.

Contrast that with the moon where these observation satellites never get closer than 220,000 miles. Do you see why there’s a difference yet?

Randall – link brings up no information.

http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?mode=results&sid=1a7e0bf8cf3640c1c1714bc45a841a5c

http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?mode=results&sid=1a7e0bf8cf3640c1c1714bc45a841a5c

It’s not no much a matter of size that makes theese faint objects visible- but of how bright they are- the big telescopes can image reallly faint things not really small things. If you see what I mean?

i don’t like bulletin boards i like blogs.

No, no telescopes on Earth or in orbit can see any human remains on the Moon. The smallest objects that they can see are about 90 metres across. A telescope which could see them from Earth or Earth orbit would have to be at least 10 times bigger than what we have now.

Why can’t our telescopes see the flag on the Moon when they can see stuff way out in the universe? Because the flag is small. A flag is, what, 1 metre long. A galaxy is around 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 metres across (I think the maths is right). It’s the same way that you can see a building that’s 10 kilometres away, but you can’t see a pin that’s 10 metres away.

By the way, many other people have asked this question on the Bulletin Board. If you got no answer, you might be having the same problem as me – for some reason I can’t get the search facility to work, even if I get it to search for words I *know* are on the board.

So, as an alternative, you might like to join the Bulletin Board and post your questions. Your questions will definitely be answered.

It seems to me that if we have telescopes here on earth that can see all this great detail billions of miles out on asteroids and far planets and stuff that it would be a simple thing to see the United States flag on the moon.

I wonder why it is that no telescopes can see the flag on the moon.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1539933,00.html

It seems to me that if we have telescopes here on earth that can see all this great detail billions of miles out on asteroids and far planets and stuff that it would be a simple thing to see the United States flag on the moon.

Are there any telesopes here on earth that can see the United States flag on the surface of the moon?

I dunno if that would be possible- It would be too bright for the CCD camera’s….
I don’t think taking quick exposers would work either…

Why do you ask?

Why did you ask 3 times?

BTW, the third bright KBO announced Friday, 2005 FY9, should be slightly brighter (some 0.3 magnitudes) than 2003 EL61.

Turns out the object pointed out is indeed El61. We took observations Saturday night, and it moved! I’ll post the image when I get a chance.”

Way to go! Nice catch!!

Presumably 2003 EL61 will get catchier name at some point? As this object has now entered the realm of popularity, I can’t see people referencing it as “2003 EL61″ all the time? Am I wrong?

“What sign are you?”

“2003 EL61?”

Nah . . . just doesn’t have the same ring!