Europe's Very Large Telescope (VLT)

[Englishgrammar]

Can't wait for the Espresso instrument to be added to this telescope so that they'll be able to detect Earth sized planets around Alpha Centauri and all the other nearby stars. It will make the Kepler space telescope look quite primitive.

[marcopolo3001]

The top of the observatory looks like the bulbous head of my penis.

[Englishgrammar]

@marcopolo3001 Well, you should stop shoving things down it and then it might recover.

[0FaVoR0]

creative name

[vladika07]

They will never show the alleged Moon Landing site. Earth orbiting spy satellites can see stamp sized objects- but the moon orbiting satellites can't see anything? Also since allegedly the moon has no atmosphere the photos takes from the moon's orbit should be razor sharp. Where are such photos? It never happened!

[nwopropaganda]

@vladika07 I totally agree. Man was never on the moon. But the VLT is awesome!

[TheJomogogo]

@vladika07

earth satellies CANNOT see "stamp sized objects" that's another hoax bullshit claim,and the VLT CANNOT break out anything that small on the moon.

[cecasander]

@vladika07 There aren't any spy satellites orbitting the moon, and I think that do the few satellites that orbit the moon aren't really designed to zoom in on small objects like the lander modules (which were only a few meters side to side), although there are plenty of small-sized landing site pictures. The real question here is that if such detailed pictures existed, would you have accepted it as proof of actual landings?

[bildsturmVision23]

Anybody know where i could find quality dvd's about the Esa space station in Cerro Paranal?

[maclectic]

because no telescope provides enough magnification power to render such an image.

[uforeader]

it's not a magnification power problem. it's an atmosphere seeing problem which limits you to a resolution of ~0.1 arcseconds. however the vlt could probably do it now using IR interferometry. but costs a fortune. an hour of imaging time costs over $10,000. that would be a waste of time. plus, the detectors are too sensitive to look at the moon. the ccd would saturate, and you'd never see anything.

[a280281]

why cant they take a picture of the moon landing site for proof ?

[hogo1]

they have, just not with an earth based telescope. Earlier this year the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and a Japanese Orbiter have taken pictures of the landing sites. You can see the bottom halves of the lunar landers and footprints!! Look it up.

[lavendelbad]

ja, da schlägt doch das herz eines hobbyastronomen höher. den klaren nachthimmel da würde ich gern mal schaun.

[Pingletons]

Keck is at a much higher elevation than this.

[RBChoman]

Excellent.

[Metalistu94Vlad]

cool one guy man i like this fuck teh conquistadores that they destoyed maya they know n the secret of tiem at leasst is a teory .....

[talonCZ]

Great european technology. Thx for posting.

[gxyzd1]

Hawaii is higher than Cerro Paranal.

[SylvainABD]

Sure:

Paranal: 2635m

Mona Kea:4205m

But altitude is not,the only quality criterion for a telescope or for an astronomy site ;)

[yellaway]

SylvainABD, I believe gxyzd is referring to the video's claim that Paranal is "the world's highest optical observatory."

If it's true that Mona Kea is at a higher altitude, then Paranal is not truly the "highest." It may certainly excel in other areas, but the word "highest" seems to make a direct superlative claim about altitude.

[blobrana]

Very good

[turkeyjurker]

make science not war! ;) lol

[rabelai2006]

Excellent. Thanks for posting mate.