Finding the Apollo Landing Sites (with Telescope)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2021
- In this video I use my observatory telescope to locate the landing sites of Apollo missions 11, 15, 16, and 17. At the time of filming, the landing sites of Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 were on the night side of the moon and could not be seen. Note that it is impossible to see any of the artefacts left on the moon by the Apollo mission with any earth-based telescope.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_16
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
Find me on...
Twitter: / wonkyastronomer
My other RUclips channel:
/ noswonky
Equipment used:
Telescope: Celestron CPC 1100 HD + Hyperstar (11-inch f/2)
ZWO ASI290MC Colour Camera - astronomy-imaging-camera.com/...
Pegasus Astro Ultimate Power Box - pegasusastro.com/products/ult...
Pegasus Astro Focus Motor - pegasusastro.com/motor-focus-...
NexDome Observatory - www.nexdome.com/
Software:
Sharpcap (capture software) - www.sharpcap.co.uk/
Sky Safari (planetarium) - skysafariastronomy.com/
CPWI Telescope Control - www.celestron.com/pages/celes...
POTH (Dome Control) - ascom-standards.org/FAQs/POTH...
Pegasus Astro Ultimate Power Box Controller - pegasusastro.com/support/
Music Intro:
➟ Music By KaizanBlu
➟ Track Name: Take Me With You
➟ RUclips: / kaizanblu
➟ Licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Music Outro:
Emotional Blockbuster 2 by Rafael Krux
Link: filmmusic.io/song/5639-emotio...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b... 
Наука
Nice!.. I saw Buzz Aldrin speak for an hour here in NZ in 2010 about his experience ON the Moon and in space.. thanks from NZ 👍🚀🇳🇿
Love this setup. Well done. Awesome to put the landing sites in situ. They sure got more daring.
Hi Peter. 49 years since the last Apollo landing, I feel ancient!
Sorry they brainwashed your generation into believing this bullshit, I liked cartoons when I was a kid too.
Very interesting, also to see your interactions with your setup.
The crazy are very upset you cant see a speck on a moon 240,000 miles away with a telescope in a guys shed.
This is just so cool!!!
I must have dozed off on Apollo missions as I can't recall 17 at all. Or I was at the pub. Most likely the latter. Very good info Peter. Avagoodday
I don't remember it either.
you deserve more Subscribers .
Interesting video.
I love it ❤️❤️❤️
how much did this setup cost? this would be amazing for me. i have a 10inch skyline dobsonian. when i move out of my house in the city i would love to have a small observatory like your set up.
Ah I want to see the lander so bad
I have a 6" Dobsonian currently, and saving up for a 10" now. I also have a short tube with the fancy apparatus on the tripod that I am trying to learn how to use. 😁
That is one impressive telescope
Hello ! Just found your Channel , and Subscribed , and I'm busy playing "catch-up" for a few days . Question...how do you get such fantastic stability from your CPC Mount ? I don't see a Guide Camera or if you are using PHD2 . You mentioned here that the Mount may need Calibrating ? How do you do that with that Mount ? I'm really enjoying the Asteroid Occulation Videos . I wish there was more info on your Reporting and the Spectroscopy Software you use . It's not listed in the Description . Cheers./SRK
Thanks for subscribing. As I'm only using short exposures (in this video and also for occultations) I don't need guiding. The mount's tracking is good enough on its own. Not sure what you mean by callibration of the mount, but sometimes if the goto is a bit off you can syncronise on a star to make it more accurate. I'm not doing any spectroscopy. The software I'm using is listed in the description (did you click the expand button?). Also note that I got rid of the CPC mount since I made this video. I now use an iOptron CEM120 Equatorial mount which is much better.
This is sooo coool. Would it look different if you were viewing it from a telescope in North America?
It would be upside down.
Love your setup in the garden. Just how close can you zoom in with that scope. I usually put my phone on my scope for added zoom , it give pretty impressive results, see people asking here about you didn't zoom in to show actual landing sites . But im thinking that is impossible from earth. People should check out the orbiting craft that has taken the pics which shows the tracks in the surface and more.
The smallest details visible on the Moon from Earth as a _single pixel_ are about 100 m wide for the Hubble telescope and 10 m for the new ELT telescope under construction in northern Chile.
The largest pieces of hardware left by the Apollo missions are the 4 m wide lunar module descent stages, so we are not going to see, let alone _recognize_ man-made objects on the Moon from Earth anytime soon!
The Apollo landing sites can be seen in Roswell, New Mexico.
Brilliant video !! I have Manged To Observe the Apollo landing Sites in Ky Scope !!
No telescope n earth is strong enough to see something that small on the moon.
@@petersearls4443 your right I'm not talking about seeking the exact craft, just seeing it's location
@@avt_astro206 oh you can do that. I believe google has long distance images of the landing sites. No detail but the general area on the moon.
@@petersearls4443 exactly what I was talking about! Its pretty fascinating
What telescope could see the lander and flag?
None. Not a high enough resolution with any telescope including Hubble.
@@petersearls4443 it is not true. the hubble would see, if there was anything.
@@tiborszalay8349: No. The Hubble telescope, with its 2.4 meter diameter mirror, has a resolving power of 110 meters on the lunar surface, 350,000 kilometers away. Impossible to see details of 5 meters (diameter of the LM descent module) and less!
Just wondering why couldnt you zoom in and see the flag or the lander?
That is prohibited by the laws of physics.
Uh huh, and you don't care to explain it eh? When you come up with a working theory of how the astro-nots traversed the Van Allen belts without being microwaved to death, then I'll start believing we went to the moon.@@TheWonkyAstronomer
They went through the least radiated section of the van Allen belt they were only in there for a couple hours. And the Neil Armstrong did die of cancer in his 70s
Additionally even the most powerful telescope one pixel at a distance of 234,000 miles would not be able to show any of the landing equipment that is still on the moon.
In the year 2010 NASA sent a moon orbiter which took up close pictures of all of the landing equipment that is still on the moon.
We started sending rovers along with Russia in the 1950s that landed very hard on the moon ever heard of Pioneer and Ranger?
These moon landing deniers slashflat earth ers are unintelligent
@@Chris-kq9lb ... forget the Van Allen belts, they are there to protect the Earth and all lifeforms from the Sun's radiation and is still considered part of the Earth's inner space, ... so please answer how they survived the radiation soup of outer space once past the VAB 🤔
Why can't you see the flag or the lander (3:25) using a telescope?
They are too small. See: ruclips.net/video/QkaNqud_VxU/видео.html
Uh huh, when the JWST can see billions of light years into the universe but can't show a small area of the moon makes no sense.@@TheWonkyAstronomer
@@bernarddougcook6787It's not about the distance but rather the angular resolution. Here's a good explanation. www.askamathematician.com/2015/12/q-why-cant-we-see-the-lunar-landers-from-the-apollo-missions-with-the-hubble-or-any-other-telescope/
Bullsh*t! I researched and posted the source evidence to support my statements and you simply erase them!! That's b.s. Professor Know-Nothing!
@@TheWonkyAstronomer Cope.
Did he see the rover, maybe aliens stole it..
Only the wheels.
Thought you had the lens cap on there for a sec mate…
i'm from vietnam
Didn't see any proof of nassa space Craft at all
You're literally an Imbecile if you were expecting to.
nassa was never in space!
nasa on the other hand........
@@mho... Indeed neither the Bangladeshi conglomerate nor the gastropod have space craft that landed on the moon
Unfortunately for the above fellow NASA did have a few... Who knew nassa meant something
@@mho... Spelling police at work 👮
It's spooky how you never see any evidence of man being one the moon
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
👍👍💯
And you say that looks like a landing site??
@@TheWonkyAstronomer ... is that the best they could offer 🤔 .....thats laughable at best 🤭
..... there were clearer pics of the face on Mars that were explained away as an optical illusion 🤔🤫
got any links to better pics?
Can someone look at the equipment left on the moon,I have seen pics of the moon by people on RUclips with awesome telescopes very close to the moon so close looking you could reach out and touch the ground,I would love to see the looner lander,can you do that?
They can not be seen from Earth with current equipment. However they have been photographed by spacecraft orbiting the moon. Have a look at this page: curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner
Also: ruclips.net/video/_WZ26s4ik2w/видео.html
You nor anyone else has shown us any picture that where you can discern anything looking like a landing site or any of the debris left behind.
@@bernarddougcook6787 We did, actually, but you folks have disregarded them as fake, because they contradict your fantasy.
@Jan Strzelecki, you know good & well that none of the purported pic of Apollo landing sites show anything of the sort, you can discern nothing.
Moon landind was real or fake
For those wondering why you can’t see anything. Our telescopes from a technical aspect are not capable of zooming up on something as small as the flag or the equipment left yet. In aspect to the size of the moon to the size of a flag with taking into the account of how far the moon is. We need to improve our telescope technology greatly to see that much detail so far away.
Think of when you fly on an air plane and just how small everything is. You can barely see people, if at all. At that distance still, without a telescope. We see more detail than we can with the best telescope we have available currently looking at the moon.
I don't believe that for one minute! That is such an idiotic response, smdh.
@@bernarddougcook6787
It’s true,
😂You equate looking through the JWST at the lunar surface with looking at the ground from an airplane??? Wow, your sense of logic astounds me! I just reposted a photo purportedly from NASA, of a close-up of the surface of an asteroid where the detail is amazing, yet you & the Wacky Telescope guy tell me they can't photograph the lunar surface with the same detail, tho the moon is relatively stable & probably the same distance or even closer than the frkn asteroid!!
@@bernarddougcook6787
You need to do some research
@@bernarddougcook6787
The moon is 230,000 miles away, the asteroid was photographed at tens of miles away.
Do some research.
Coud have sworn I posted a lot of info concerning why we never got to the moon and the explanations thereof, but now I see nothing, did the Wacky Astronomer remove them?
Same old debunked BS.
What, exactly, in my comment is the same old bs?
@@bernarddougcook6787if you posted anything “proving” that it was faked then everything you presented has been thoroughly debunked. Do some honest to god research from reliable sources not nut jobs.
@@petersearls4443 Ha, yeah, debunked eh? Nothing has been debunked, the W.A. says the JWST cannot see the lunar surface to take a picture of the "landing site" when it would be easy for it or one of the ground-based observatories to take one or for one of many NASA lunar flyovers to take one showing everything clearly, that is if it actually existed. NASA has released at least two videos telling us they cannot send a man any further than low earth orbit, therefore if we can't protect one of them now from the deadly radiation of the VAB, space itself or the lunar surface, then we damned sure could not in 1969-1972! But you fools don't want to answer the legitimate questions about that or anomalous photography, unflyable payload size, archaic 60's technology, etc., etc., etc.
This doesn't show anything and why doesn't he zoom in on the so-called Landing sites.
Exactly! Same thing with earthbound powerful observatory scopes or the JWST, when they just reiterate over and over that they're not powerful enough then turn around and show us something from, oh say Mars, Venus or something 100 million light years away, then it all sounds like b.s.!
Come on guys, we all know why..
Earth based telescopes are not powerful enough to see the landing sites. That’s what the LRO is for!
@@bernarddougcook6787
Yah I agree.
Ooooh look at that special raised area surrounded by the other raised areas and THERE YOU HAVE IT...the Apollo landing site. :)
There are NO VIABLE "Apollo landing sites" still able to be seen even if it did happen and it didn't.
The claim that they can see rover tire tracks and boot print after 50 years is preposterous.
Search:
Solar Storms Can 'Sandblast' Away Moon's Surface
. "The model predicts 100 to 200 tons of lunar material - the equivalent of 10 dump truck loads - could be stripped off the lunar surface during the typical two-day passage of a CME
wikipedia: Coronal Mass Ejection
Near solar maxima, the Sun produces about three CMEs every day, whereas near solar minima, there is about one CME every five days.
Google maps shows everyrhing on the earth.
You spent a lot of money and time for a look at nothing. Bart Sibrel would be proud of you!
Why can’t we see the lander? Should be able too today!
ruclips.net/video/QkaNqud_VxU/видео.html
The moon is bigger than it looks. It will require a more powerful telescope.
Yeh, funny that isn’t it?🤫
You mean to tell me that he can't zoom in any closer? This proves nothing. I was hoping to see conclusive proof of the moon landing. I have a lot of doubts now.
The Chinese flew a craft close enough to see the Apollo crafts left on the surface. They mapped the lunar surface.
@@stevenstyles7602 Bullsh*t, you saw nothing in the way of "Apollo landing sites" or tire tracks or anything looking like junk left behind, there's no way you can tell what any of their photos are supposed to show! And you know that! So stop with the lies!
@@stevenstyles7602 😂😂😂 '.. Yep another brain washed PAN: Pro Astronaut Nutter..
@@bernarddougcook6787on some of their photos you can absolutely see land rover tracks. The objects are small but they labeled the landing module and flag location.
@@bernarddougcook6787have you looked? If you weren't so AFRAID of facts you could actually see for yourself, most of these research projects make their data available yet you're too fragile too look as you will be proven wrong every time
Here's one of the photos of the purported "Apollo landing sites," now I want you to tell me how you can believe for one second that any of these photos show anything looking remotely like a landing site! You cannot tell what any of this is beyond normal geological structures on the moon's surface, it could be anything, now how in the name of all that's possible, can you begin to tell us what this shows? Well there you have it, there's no way to show the whole audience here the so-called landing sites photos, YT doesn't allow, I assume, one to post photos in comments.
So what is the track of the rover if it isn't from the rover? From the Apollo 17 landing site.
@@Bnslamb What track? If you can show me something in the photo which is unmistakably a rover track or a track from any piece of machinery from the earth, then by all means I'll shut up, but I don't think you can, none of the photos show anything resembling a track, a flag, a piece of debris clearly left behind by Apollo astronauts or a flag planted on the lunar surface. But preceding all that is the fact that no one has yet given me an answer to how the astronauts survived going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, or the radiation of space itself or that which constantly bombards the lunar surface. NASA has released at least 3 (that I've seen) videos where scientists, engineers and astronauts themselves telling us that they cannot send a human beyond low earth orbit now, that's around 250 miles from the earth's surface.
@@bernarddougcook6787
What is it? Those tracks are where the buggy is.
I'm sure you can use google to find that picture.
_"I'll shut up"_
Of course you won't. You'll just call it FAKE CGI.
_"But preceding all that is the fact that no one has yet given me an answer to how the astronauts survived going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts"_
Only moonlandings deniers claim it is deadlig the way it was passed, van Allen himself said it wasn't.
@@Bnslamb Not only is your response nothing but troll fodder, you blatantly lie!! Not only does that picture not show anything resembling any "rover tracks" or anything else associated with Apollo, you lie about the VAB, Dr. Van Allen NEVER said it was not "deadly," he responded in a letter to someone about the Fox News Special on the hoaxed landing by telling the press, "It's a bunch of hogwash," that's it, he never retracted any statements or any research findings he made back in the late 50's as to the deadly effects of the radiation in the belts. Besides, you cannot refute a bona fide scientific study which has been published and peer-reviewed by writing a letter or making a statement, you know and I know and all God's children know it is NOT done that way, only another published study with verifiable scientific criteria is acceptable for that. But you also know that NASA has done further studies on the VAB with other craft they have sent through them. Now, stop with the bullsh*t lies, you are fooling no one but, well hell, not even yourself because you know you're bullsh*tting.
@@bernarddougcook6787
_"Not only does that picture not show anything resembling any "rover tracks""_
There are clearly visible paralle tracks on the Apollo 17 landing site.
_"you lie about the VAB, Dr. Van Allen NEVER said it was not "deadly,""_
The way it was passed.
_" But you also know that NASA has done further studies on the VAB with other craft"_
Satellites has worked perfecty well inside the VAB for years.
I notice you’re pulling out where everything is but you don’t actually show any proof of anything actually up there. There’s all these craters and everything so I’m sure a footprint wouldn’t be hard to find if you knew right where they landed and I’m sure we’d still be able to see the flag if it was truly up there.
curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner
No telescope on earth is powerfully enough to see something that small on the moon.
Hi
Hello
Yet when no one can answer what is the most fundamental question about Apollo, i.e., how could the astronauts traverse the Van Allen radiation belts and live to tell the tale, then all this discussion about seeing or not seeing the landing sites in pictures isn't germane to the discussion at all.
It's pretty easy to find the answer with google. Simply, they flew through very quickly and the doses of radiation they received were not very high. Here are a couple of links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel and blogs.esa.int/orion/2022/12/10/the-van-allen-belts-are-they-dangerous/
Here are the calculations that show the dosage astronauts would receive travelling through the belts: spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf I genuinely want to know why you say that "no one can answer" this when it just took me a couple of minutes to find many sites which provide the answer including these detailed calculations.
What do you say about the fact that NASA has released two videos of their own scientists saying that travel outside low earth orbit today is impossible, we have no way of protecting astronauts from the deadly radiation of not only the Van Allen radiation belts but also that of deep space and the lunar surface which has nothing in it's tiny bit of atmostphere to stop the sun's radiation as we do. What do you say about astronaut Alan Bean's remarks to Bart Sibrel to wit: "why I don't think we went far enough out to reach the VAB?" Lol@@TheWonkyAstronomer
Professor you lie! Then when i prove you and NASA are spinning a fictitious web, then you simply erase what I post, that's really showing them!@@TheWonkyAstronomer
@@bernarddougcook6787 _What do you say about the fact that NASA has released two videos of their own scientists saying that travel outside low earth orbit today is impossible,_
One can only say "NASA has not, in fact, released any video that features any of their own scientists saying that travel outside low Earth orbit today is impossible".
_we have no way of protecting astronauts from the deadly radiation of not only the Van Allen radiation belts but also that of deep space_
That is also factually incorrect.
_What do you say about astronaut Alan Bean's remarks to Bart Sibrel to wit: "why I don't think we went far enough out to reach the VAB?"_
He was talking about _Skylab._
Maybe this man can't see the landing sight because it does not exist.
If you looked at the explanation with the video. There is no telescope powerful enough on earth to get a high enough resolution view to see the landing sites. One pixel would cover an area larger than the landing site.
*NEXT CHANNEL".. failed now our fellow Australian is gettn brain washed all for financial gain, don't be suckn in...
From: Melbourne,Australia 🇦🇺
Of course we can't see any of the equipment
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
@@TheWonkyAstronomerthe nuts will just say this is fake too.
Yep give Western Australia an OSCAR"...Come mate? us Aussies aint going to believe there BS, where smarter then that..
I love the moon landing deniers. They keep saying they are smarter than that when actually it proves the exact opposite.
😂😂😂".. Yeah ok 👌 if you say so,".. 🙃🤫🤓🤥'..
Disappointed you couldn't zoom in to see the landers.
FAKE
What a pointless video. You showed nothing except your contempt for reality
LIES
You can't. There aren't any. Get over it.
Keep sooking about it, seems you're the only one who needs to get over anything
@@sebastianfischer2082 It's pretty lame that people refuse to understand the universe that they live in. Like you for example. We can't go to the Moon, never have, and when taken in conjunction with the stupidity that runs rampant in "civilization", we never will. I don't need to get over anything except for accepting the ignorance and stupidity of my fellows, which is difficult. Safety, comfort, convenience, and entertainment is not the intention of your creator, Dupe.
We never went to the moon. Dont fall for this lie.
Why haven't anyone seen the moon rover, did aliens stole it....
I blew his b.s. claims away with sourced evidence, what does he do? He simply erases whatever I posted in my replies. He's fulla sh*t up to his eyeballs!
Yeah, even the astronauts dont believe it.
LoL
Shouldn’t there be ‘ beach buggy’ tracks all over the place?
So where’s your proof,this guy is off his rocker,can see the same thing with my own telescope,still can’t find 3 football sized junk fields,Moon landing is bullshit,never happened.
I was hoping to see flag and foot prints still interesting though