You have overpowered your view with too much magnification -- thats why much of it is fuzzy or seems out of focus. You should use a less powerful eyepiece and get smaller but sharper images.
It's not about the quality of the camera. It had a lot of different optical instruments on it. The visual camera instrument had a resolution of 80m (one pixel on the image represents 80 meters of lunar landscape). Look it up on wikipedia.
The images from that probe don't have the resolution to show something that small on the surface, so I have no idea how it can make any case for anything.
Also, do you think the same people who doubt all the current evidence in existence that say we landed there are going to placated by photos released by the selfsame agency that provided all the previous evidence they ignore?
the europions space agncey had the smart-one map the moon for two years and the pictures they have released makes the case for the conspircey people stronger very dissapointed with what they released
The largest effective aperture telescope we have on Earth is only 11.8 meters in diameter. The Hubble is only 2.4 meters, and being in low orbit of the Earth is not notably closer to the moon than we are on the surface. What this means is that it's probably safe to say that we will not have an instrument capable of viewing the apollo leftovers on the moon from Earth within our own lifetimes.
BTW: I share your opinion that we should be able to spot the merchandises that was left on the moon - like the moon rover and other stuff.
What would be the resolution using the largest optical telescope seen from earth or hubble? 1 mile? 100 meters? 10 meters? 1 meter?
Does anyone know? And what about the smart-1 satelite that was crashed on the moon? The purpose of its mission was to take close up pictures of the moon surface while orbiting very close to the moons surface.
makes you wonder they seem to see what they want i read were they said the hubble was to close to get good pictures they think there is no intelegent life
out here say whatever they want and were to buy it
Fortunately, whether or not we can do it is not a matter of opinion. If we use 5 meters as the width of the lander on the moon, then from the surface of the Earth, it would subtend an angle of arc of about 0.00289 arc seconds (1/3600th of a degree) when the moon was at perigee (closest to Earth). Using the dawes resolution limit formula, a telescope would need an aperture diameter of about 40 meters to be able resolve the lander as a completely featureless, tiny dot on the surface.
Arkalius, does that mean that if the object had 50 meters diameter, using that resolution limit formula, the telescope is only needed to have a 4 meters diameter? Would the resolution very blurred in this example?
That's a telescope ! NICE
09victoryrc 9 months ago
great shot from 1:32 to 1:47 very nice..
804performance 2 years ago
Great, would like to see more people doing this.
GRIDKEEPER 3 years ago
You have overpowered your view with too much magnification -- thats why much of it is fuzzy or seems out of focus. You should use a less powerful eyepiece and get smaller but sharper images.
LunarDSO 3 years ago
OH that scope view RULES!!!!!!!!
keep em coming, less shaky tho
odin422 3 years ago
the rovers are parked in 2 garages in Hollywood California behind the old lot sirs..
johnsmdm 3 years ago
Stain, did u searched for anything strange, as all those legends about abandoned ruins of cities in Mars, very tall towers, etc?
aenigmate 4 years ago
It's not about the quality of the camera. It had a lot of different optical instruments on it. The visual camera instrument had a resolution of 80m (one pixel on the image represents 80 meters of lunar landscape). Look it up on wikipedia.
Arkalius80 4 years ago
The images from that probe don't have the resolution to show something that small on the surface, so I have no idea how it can make any case for anything.
Arkalius80 4 years ago
it flew as low as an airplane would be around earth why would you not take the best camera money could buy makes no sence to me
stain22 4 years ago
Also, do you think the same people who doubt all the current evidence in existence that say we landed there are going to placated by photos released by the selfsame agency that provided all the previous evidence they ignore?
Arkalius80 4 years ago
the europions space agncey had the smart-one map the moon for two years and the pictures they have released makes the case for the conspircey people stronger very dissapointed with what they released
stain22 4 years ago
The largest effective aperture telescope we have on Earth is only 11.8 meters in diameter. The Hubble is only 2.4 meters, and being in low orbit of the Earth is not notably closer to the moon than we are on the surface. What this means is that it's probably safe to say that we will not have an instrument capable of viewing the apollo leftovers on the moon from Earth within our own lifetimes.
Arkalius80 4 years ago
Wait one ques did u use a special eyepiec?
JJ2422 5 years ago
LOL. Those craters are miles long. With that telescope, you wouldn't be able to see a Walmart if it were there, nevermind a tiny rover.
jackcarterog 5 years ago
which celestron telescope is this?
JJ2422 5 years ago
its a schmidt cassegrain 8 inch about 10 years old
stain22 5 years ago
Nice footage.
BTW: I share your opinion that we should be able to spot the merchandises that was left on the moon - like the moon rover and other stuff.
What would be the resolution using the largest optical telescope seen from earth or hubble? 1 mile? 100 meters? 10 meters? 1 meter?
Does anyone know? And what about the smart-1 satelite that was crashed on the moon? The purpose of its mission was to take close up pictures of the moon surface while orbiting very close to the moons surface.
viktorhansenoslo 5 years ago
makes you wonder they seem to see what they want i read were they said the hubble was to close to get good pictures they think there is no intelegent life
out here say whatever they want and were to buy it
stain22 5 years ago
Fortunately, whether or not we can do it is not a matter of opinion. If we use 5 meters as the width of the lander on the moon, then from the surface of the Earth, it would subtend an angle of arc of about 0.00289 arc seconds (1/3600th of a degree) when the moon was at perigee (closest to Earth). Using the dawes resolution limit formula, a telescope would need an aperture diameter of about 40 meters to be able resolve the lander as a completely featureless, tiny dot on the surface.
Arkalius80 4 years ago
Arkalius, does that mean that if the object had 50 meters diameter, using that resolution limit formula, the telescope is only needed to have a 4 meters diameter? Would the resolution very blurred in this example?
aenigmate 4 years ago