Why can't we see the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon from Earth ?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 дек 2016
- When you look up at a full moon, just remember that somewhere on the lunar face, the remains of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 along with 8 unmanned Russian Luna missions and 5 pre-Apollo unmanned American Surveyor missions are all still there….. silently looking back….. unless of course, you’re a NASA non-believer.
Patreon : / curiousdroid
Paypal.me : www.paypal.me/...
You can now translate this and other curious droid videos, see my video about it here • Curious Droid RUclips ...
so… why can’t we see these from the earth, why can’t we train our best telescopes on to the moon’s surface and see them there exactly where we left them the best part of 50 years ago.
Well, there a bit of a problem…. and that is that the moon is 384,000 kilometres or 238,000 miles away and the landers and all the other things left behind are just few meters across.
To give you an Idea how difficult a problems that it is….. it’s like looking for an object the size of a coin from 1000 miles away or the equivalent from New York to Florida…. so you going to need a pretty serious telescope.
One telescope that springs to mind is the Hubble space telescope, after all if it can see galaxy’s billons of light years away then it should be able to see the Apollo landers easily…. shouldn’t it ??
Well, as with many things to do with space it’s not that simple. Yes, the Hubble space telescope was indeed designed to look at very faint objects at astronomical distances but those objects are clusters of galaxy’s trillions of millions across, it was not designed the take high resolution images of small objects at fairly close ranges in astronomical terms like to the moon.
The problem is down to the resolution of the images that the telescope can produce and that is limited by the laws of physics. The resolution determines the size the smallest Picture Element is or pixel in the image. The higher the resolution more of the fine detail in an image can be seen.
In a telescope, the bigger the mirror, the more the magnification, so the closer the object will appear but at the very large magnifications the image is also affected by the wavelength of the light itself. The shorter the wavelength like ultraviolet light, the finer the detail that can be captured and the resolution increases but in visible light as we go from blue through green to red, the wavelength increases and the resolution is decreased.
The Hubble has a mirror which is 2.4 meters in diameter, that was the largest that could fit in to the Space Shuttle when it was placed in to orbit. This gives it a single pixel resolution in ultra violet light of about 43 meters across on the moon’s surface, anything smaller than 43 meters across will just be hidden in a single dot which cannot be resolved any further, in fact we need really 2 pixels or more to make out anything at all......
GTC footage ©2015 Gianluca Lombardi/GTC
Title: Adam Are You Free?
Author: P C III
Source: www.pipechoir.com
Nightingale sounds from Gerry Gutteridge flic.kr/ps/Mk2zU
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
If the Earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
True
Not if the flat earth is lets say 100.000 miles long.
How many times y’all gonna use the corny statement
If the Flat-Earth morons believe the Earth is flat, why don't they find the edge & jump off?!
DPImage Capturing because the edge is not in their mom’s basement or the inside of their car, so the “research” stops right there.
After an extensive study I have found two common things among flat earthers. They were VERY slippery at birth, and their parents
were very tall.
hahaha!
What
? What ? Could anyone explain
@@ishanghosh6604 They got dropped on their heads at birth
@@deanlindholm8663 ah ok
Think about it. If the Earth was in fact flat, the properties on the edge would be the most expensive because of the stellar views.
What edge?
I see what you did there haha
According to flat earthers there is no space.
@@bishalshakya7366 you’ve been to space?
@@JFK-ir7yz oh are we playing "you don't see, you don't exist"
For years I have wondered that very question. And the answer was so perfect! Thank you sir for illuminating that one pixel in my brain that had been in the dark all that time.
A flatearther’s greatest fear is sphere itself
Bear Knuckles
Not a joke, just a fact.
Stop stealing others’ comments.
conflectiz
I’ve been saying this for years, you twat!😂
Pretty good ! How do the explain the curve of the earth ? Rhetorical!
I thought it was diabetes.
I was a flat-Earther for five years, until I turned five.
Probably your father is flat earther.
LOL
@@harikishore2514 he is under the earth
Then you have been programmed for 5 years by education. And now you're scared to face the truth.
@@Tin.Man.Trading Why do all of you use the same language/words. You are a cult.
I had no idea Uncle Fester knows so much about space
That's FUNNY! Uncle Fester had a great smile & punch lines! I miss him! "THE ADAMS FAMILY" was great for the 60's..wait was it "THE MUNSTERS"??? I'm getting too old to remember anymore...
"But my iPhone takes great pictures, why won't it show me those landers?" Facepalm....people who don't understand how telescopes work but want to say we didn't go to to the moon because science. Oy!
And it comes mostly from people wo have not the faintest idea how photography works in the fist place. All that because the technicians that programmed the "Automode" actually know what they are doing...
Sprite Bonn Would you be kind enough to give the links, thanks.
@Mocco Mongananzo you underestimate the conspiracy nuts.
It’s lag
@Sprite Bonn what about the slug tracks and the railroad tracks and the thumb tracks... lol
I find it kind of touching seeing the tracks of the astronauts on the moon, left 50 years ago. Imagine going back to a beach you visited as a child and see your footprints in the sand still there.. we may be long gone but we left a mark on the universe. Touching
*@Conor M* There is a tiny, crude picture of a penis on the Moon, drawn by artist Andy Warhol.
Apollo 12 took up a miniature "art museum" on a wafer. Famous artists were asked to contribute. Warhol drew a tiny cock-and-balls.
And then one day when we finally have space tourism to the moon, some fat guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt eating an icecream is going to trip over and ruin all the footprints for everyone.
@@bartonez123 Dennis Nedry?
@micah lynn Love the way no one got your point. Sure hope you did. i.e. sand, dust, collisions, 50 years and still footprints. Preserved. Perfectly. Just like your childhood beach would be... of course. ;)
ruclips.net/video/dTQoNcHTUSw/видео.html
Flatearthers: "We have members all around the globe."
LMAO 😂
Translated: we have fooled idiots all over the globe
Brilliant! lol
Jason Huang I was never a what people call a glober didn’t didn’t give a damn about round earth or flat until I started realising the lies of nasa and the indoctrination in schools from early childhood and the media even Hollywood then I started to critically think and truly examine what they call evidence, once you do it all falls into place. The scariest thing now is the technology we have now they can make anything look real but the truth is it’s all plastic and the last thing they want is critical thinkers. In truth they are saying shut up and believe what I’m saying shut up and just get into line.
Why are you guys calling flat earthers bad names? I am one and I never call a globe believer retard.
Why this anger?
You do realise most flat earthers did believe in the spinning ball theory before we opened our mind to reality. It's not a cult or psychological state of mind. It's just fact
Why would anyone thumbs down this? This is the best answer to this question I’ve wondered about for many years. I wanted so bad to buy the telescope that could view some of the debris on the moon. I love space and all the wonders waiting for us to learn out there. Thank you for posting this for us.
Because sadly, so many believe a BS and unsupported claim that man was never on the moon
@@James-rc6qq I like the challenges they provide and the rebuttals. I've learned a lot about the lunar missions through the doubt cast on it.
@JFK Clone High Presumptive. One reason to dislike is to get it out of recommendations. Also no video is perfect and some people don't like aspects of a video. You can't really expect to please everyone. I like these videos but don't get butthurt because some people don't.
Because there's enough evidence to show we never went to the moon, even the moon rocks were found to be petrified wood. It was all staged but I know you aren't ready for the truth
_No, no._
It is the _Earth_ which is a hologram, and the _Moon_ which is flat.
Get your facts right. *:-)*
I love the sarcasms at the end. Spot on!
STIGZ .... you must be an ignorism lover and follower then....
Flat Earth people are crazy.
piss off NASA just pissss offfff
bullshit..... with all the billions NASholes have burned through and continue to waste faster than the fed can print one would think you'd want to prove yourselves. The simple truth is its all one quintessential bunch of crap. I spent my youth idolizing nasa and the like I bought into all of the lies we were sold. I hope and pray that the truth with come out one of these days...when I think of all the ways that money could have been better spent and invested I get myself so worked up I get miserable and out of sorts. ain't that a bitch
craig carlson Get a job and it will ease your mind. NASA has made many advances in medicine and technology over the years. ..When you grow up you will see.
The Lunar landing was supposed to be shot in a Hollywood basement, but they hired Stanley Kubrik as director; and he's such a stickler for accuracy he insisted they shoot it on location. That is why the U.S. went to the moon.
@felix mendez It's not a joke it's song lyrics dumb ass. The Red hot chilies are musicians not comedians.
@@johnsmith-eo3nz Typical Alinsky Fascist... attack and demean anyone with an opinion different than your own. His joke was funny, you just attacked out of malice. Grow up, Junior.
Yeah, and they have made great comedy with that fictional scenario. And it was shot in Britain, by the way, in the basement which has huge vagina instead of doorway.
Pretty good Miklos !
@@michawojciak1837
I MUST FIND THIS DOORWAY!!!
Well done!
Not to mention that the Soviets would have called us out had the telemetry been from anywhere else other than on the moon.
If you had a powerful enough receiver at the time you could even tune into the moon landings live yourself to prove its real.
Russia absolutely didn’t believe we went to the moon. Most Russians still don’t believe it. At this point, with all of the information that is available, you have to be willfully stupid to believe it. Look at the “craft” they used. Look at the fact we can’t do what they did then… today with modern tech. If you think we landed on the moon still, you’re willfully naive.
@@zackattack635 Wherever you get your news, you need to find a better source.
@@ElenaGeorge1 as opposed to you, someone who thinks we went to the moon in 1969 and played golf… but can’t come close now. 50 years of insane technical progress, just can’t match the comically dumb “craft” they used to do the impossible? Stop being so gullible sweetie.
@@zackattack635 You suffer from Dunning-Kruger. A doctor will not help you but finding more information and actually studying the subject instead of watching stupid videos about it might.
There is a wiki article on the Event Horizon telescope showing in pictures what was the level of magnification it had to achieve to photograph M87's black hole. It is equivalent to seeing a tennis ball on the moon. Sufficient to say you need at least a continent size telescope to see something that small clearly on the moon's surface.
In microwaves wavelength, right. But in optic, a smaller telescope would do (a 100m wide should see Apollo remains, a 1km wide one should see a tennis ball - but for atmospheric effects and such). Still way more that what we have now.
@@ThomasKundera I thought clustering telescopes would make up for that? Several evenly spaced ones?
@@amentco8445 You can cluster radio-telescopes as the wavelength is large enough to allow sampling of the wave itself (several data points per wave) it's absolutely impossible with current tech in optics and as resolution decrease with wavelength enlargement I guess it's way better to just go near
We can't see them because they are not there .
VITA kyo
Yeah you can't see the wind on earth either, but it exists.
You see the effect of it but not the wind.
You dim-witted spastic. You must be American.
wide awake
You can see air can you?
Your proof that the moon landings didn't happen is you can't see the flag up there?
***** First you say my claim is nonesense , then you say : not there => not to see , is true . Which is exactly what i said . You should take a class in logic ...
***** You think your logic will make appear moon landers on the moon ?
***** How can a logic expert as you are , believe we went on the moon ?
The real reason we can't see the landers is because over time, they sank into the cheese the moon is made out of. Yep.
simul8guy - what do YOU think?
True... the moon is indeed made of cheese.
you need too watch operation avalanche you just have to watch it you must see this movie it will make u shit your panties
Hm, I suddenly feel like having a grilled cheese sandwich :P.
God Evelyn, you and your cheesy jokes.
Before the lunar mapping mission there was another way people checked on the locations of the landings. Some missions had mirrors designed to bounce lasers back to Earth.
Yes but the reflectors never worked.
@@jay404 they did we realized that the moon moves back from earth by just 3.8 cm
@@Sam_Sam2 3.8cm per year, yes.
@@jay404 yes they did, and still do.
@@sosababy1016 moon laser experiment is only claimed successful for the first time since aug 2020.
You could put a flat-earther in a rocket, take him to the moon and show him first hand and he would claim we went there and staged it.
“There’s a hologram on my spacesuit’s visor”
Ohrenaugenkatze _ yea , in the vacuum of space though
@@_charliezard_7218 That was the joke.......
Flat earthers - take them all to the space station and ask them to describe the earth...from the outside.
Those that disbelieve gravity - take them all to a cliff and ask them what they're experiencing as you throw them off.
No he wouldn't, he would say why did u take this rocket 2 the desert, & what is Stanley Kubrick doing here?
You really did a good job on this and I think you explained it in layman's terms perfectly. Thank you.
TirarADeguello I didn’t know you watch him!
I wish he would explain how we can identify humans from space using satellites.
@@andrewe165 I'm a big fan of science channels, and Curious Droid busts his ass making great content. I've been with him from near the start.
As always:)
TirarADeguello So the sun revolve under the flat earth and how come at the united state night time and Japan morning time I don't get it FLAT EARTH
its a bit like trying to find a Boeing Jet in the Indian Ocean,,,,
Lol hahhaha haha.
daaaark :D
ha ha
Lol. I know, right?
Only the moon doesn't have an ocean :-/
Thank you Paul, the "Why can't we see..." is very well explained! Thank you also for all the videos.
Their are flat earthier’s all over the globe
S'il y a un complot, il est breton. La Bretagne est partout ;)
Because they never went to the moon! 🤣
They landed inside the moon cave.
All Lies
I weep for humanity that can entertain the idea the moon landings were fake
Really???? Go look at Buzz Aldrin conversation with 8yo on Bitchute about the moon. Its not on yutube. Its censored here. Let's see if you weep after that.
@@danielmaxter1928 are you saying buzz is going to deny the moon landing? Buzz Aldrin the astronaut?
@@danielmaxter1928 There you are! The Lunatic in this video thread!
The deniers are so thick that we could take them to the Moon and they would STILL claim it is all fake.
Swinde dump the deniers on the moon without space suits see if they think it's in a studio after that..
well for a few seconds anyway.
They like to feel special. Like a little club of idiots.
Swinde ....sucker think for youself
Nexus Texas .....fuck you
Skipping Stone Ok, I see your brain isn't that sophisticated!. Run along now child. Adults are discussing adult things!
We older earthlings watched all of the Gemini, surveyor, Apollo missions along with many others not mentioned. Do you think for one minute the governments of Russia, China, the u k, France etc. And their populations weren't sitting in front of their t.v.s watching too ? Their scientists were tracking the Apollo spacecrafts. The Russians would have loved to call the Americans liars in that they did not land on the moon. They were our chief competitors. Funny thing, they didn't. They congratulated us for a job well done. But yet we have present day Americans who are busying themselves with this nonsense that there weren't any moon landings. So in ten , fifteen years, some country will land on Mars. And they will see it. And when they get old they will read on you tube how young people, who did not witness the first Mars landing, are calling it a hoax. And the joke will be on them. Brave men risked their lives to take us to the moon and advance space exploration and these deniers sit on their comfortable couch and give no credit to them. Ship of Fools.
Well said. I wasn't _quite_ old enough, although I apparently 'watched' Armstrong land, at the age of about 2 weeks. I'm hoping we'll witness it again, perhaps within 10 years. You might enjoy playing with this interactive site about Apollo 11 from the audio perspective; I did. www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
ann onn -- added the site, thank you
macc240038 I saw it on TV when I was 8 yrs old! But just because it was on TV does not confirm it was real, especially when the broadcast was provided by the agency claiming to have gone to the moon..... mankind did not go to the moon....NASA lies... research it!
Denis Boissonneault - your reducing all that I said simply seeing it on TV. That's just one line. A small percentage of what I said. Do you realize that the lunar orbiters are photographing the lunar landing sites right now ? The Chinese will soon duplicate the feat that Americans accomplished years ago ? Many be you'll live long enough to see astronaut walk on the moon again. And they will walk right up to the lunar Rover and send live video back. What will you conjure up then ?
cheezl 2 We have plenty of proof, the problem is that you don't believe it. You should be the one providing it.
Not only was this captivating, well spoken, but interesting and very informative. I have to say it's not only satirical but kind of a safety net to finish all the statements with "unless of course you're a non-believer". Smart and funny.
No matter what you do they will not believe you. Hell, you could take them to the moon and show them the proof up close and they'd still find a way to call it all fake.
The irony is that they will say exactly the same thing to you.. Even if NASA admits the truth you will never believe it.
ruclips.net/video/IDBBUwdyz4I/видео.html
@@x-creator4460 Apollo did *not* go through the equatorial region of the belts, it flew over most of the Van Allen Belts, passing briefly through the weakest parts. You are just proving my point about conspiracy followers refusing to change their minds even in the face of insurmountable evidence.
Nice to see the face behind the videos, cool stuff, thanks for spreading the knowledge!
mmm?
Well done on explaining the Pixel resolution, much easier to understand why we can just see them :)
It's also wrong. Sub-pixel resolution is standard fare in digital signal processing for images. This is the correct take on the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
And once again, NASA math doesn't add up. According to the specs of the Hubble Telescopes camera, it SHOULD be able to pick up an very thorough image of the landing site instead of a scratchy render, as shown/explained in this video.
All the info that dude said in this video is absolutely wrong. And, sadly, not many people will question any of it; because not many know about even the most basic principles of how cameras work. :(
Or....it was a complete hoax
Bla bla bla we fooled u and the lunar lander is in a storage shed in Hollywood...we took the money and ran ...thanks stupid mericans
@@anonymousshawn9996 Yeah mathematicians and scientists at NASA are completely wrong, so we are to believe a random person commenting on RUclips......that's how conspiracy theories start
"Moon made of cheese & only 700 ft in diameter" said chief Flatearther
Going to the moon for fun worse than going to burning man // there's nothing happening there // its either too hot or tool cold / no nature or other people or infrastructure / cold harsh & difficult / the only reason to go to build a space port for accessing deep space & associated nuclear reactor & electric mining for mineral resources & processing into useful stuff for construction & maintenance & fueling of & at spaceport moon base etc
It's actually a family sized pizza with the lot!! (Slightly overcooked.)
It's true the moon is made of cheese, but obviously its bigger than that, at least 800 ft.
I think cheese would be more likely for it to be made of that than dust. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
There was a time when you could just say “they’re too small to be seen” and people would say OK.
But some people now think that they are smarter than they really are...
I take it they do have satellites-probes orbiting the Moon, presumably they have cameras on board. I can see my patio table from Google Earth. So why no pictures of the landing sites.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 There are photos of the landing sites, you can even see the trails of the astronauts.
philip mc donagh It’s called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - it’s been there for over 10 years.
All the Apollo landing sites have been photographed with reasonable resolution.
@@executivesteps Have to throw my peepers across that thanks
THX for all!
It reminds me I was 20 and working in an hotel for the holydays (I was studen), and the night Apollo XI had landed (yes, it was early in the morning, in France), the whole crew wake up to see this historic exploit on a shitty small screen TV.
Now, Im old and retired, but when i see all the conspiracy theorys, I'm between laughing or weeping.
THX again !
Neil Armstrong should have brought one of those giant flags that they drape on skyscrapers and laid it flat on the surface. Then we might be able to see it with a high-powered telescope.
That would have been a good idea but It might have been too heavy for the LM
@@eclipsisolis Yeah, I didn't think of that. It's probably too big and heavy for two men to carry too.
flatearthers: "all i heard was the end, '...and the earth is, flat.' -see? duh, we win."
Here's a good way to show just how hard the lunar landers would be to see from earth: Think of that iconic Apollo image of the earth rising over the moon. Now imagine how much you would need to zoom in to see a CAR on that image!
Edmund Earle, another way is to also consider what would be necessary to spot your backyard garden shed or camper/caravan from the Moon, or for some of the doubters, their quarter acre marijuana crop.
Wow. Thank you for making me laugh. I was having an off morning till i read this funny comment.
+Woty: A 1/2 inch newspaper letter read from100 miles away, is proportional to "reading" an object on the moon 100 feet in size. The moonlander was what, about 10 to 15 feet in size? There is currently no scope on earth or around earth that has the resolution to photograph moon landing artifacts. (Whether or not there is actually any artifacts there). Begin your research by looking up the resolution of some major earth scopes. Or perhaps it would be more easy and entertaining to watch another silly utube conspiracy vid.....
Great videos
Operation Northwoods...
Operation Mockingbird...
The Gulf of Tonkin attack...
If the CIA planned on assassinating thousands of its own people:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
then the step to faking moon landings was quite small. All the landings happened under the most fraudulent administration in history (Nixon administration) in a 3 year period (69-72) and stopped when Watergate broke. Since then, not a human beyond orbit in any of the world’s space programs.
To not consider the circumstances surrounding a claim is no different than blind religious idiocy. I’m not a conspiracy guy in any way but lived in the 1960s. I wouldn’t trust a word out of a 1960s US government mouth if it had been peer reviewed and tested to an infallible shine.
For many of us in the 1960s, Nixon’s first moon landing 6 months after he was sworn into office at the height of Vietnam (Tet offensive) was like if Trump’s _Space_ _Force_ put men on Mars only 6 months after being sworn into office in the middle of a Russian collusion investigation while in the middle of a major war with say N. Korea.
This isn’t a claim of a flat earth. This isn’t a claim of big foot. This isn’t a claim of aliens in Roswell. This is the refutation of a claim by an unscrupulous government.
*Occam’s* *Razor:*
_The_ _simplest_ _solution_ _tends_ _to_ _be_ _the_ _correct_ _one._ _When_ _presented_ _with_ _competing_ _hypotheses_ _to_ _solve_ _a_ _problem,_ _one_ _should_ _select_ _the_ _one_ _with_ _the_ _fewest_ _assumptions._
So with that in mind, why is it that in almost 50 years no human has been beyond orbit in any space program in the world regardless of _Moore’s_ _Law,_ globalization and extraordinary technological advancements? Because we never went to begin with.
Why can’t we see the moon landers? There never were any. Why so many questions about the moon landings with absurdly complex answers? Because we never went.
You're very convincing for a cybernetic android.
It's actually Uncle Fetser from the Addams family
I can't even see one hair on his head.
That's because IT'S A CYBERNETIC ORGANISM, LIVING TISSUE OVER METAL ENDOSKELETON.
Hey Simon, Of course you can make a convincing argument about anything and everything in this world in your favor as you please whether what you are saying is the TRUTH or NOT. What?! Are you telling me you NEVER EVER heard of LAWYERS? (ROTFLMAO!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣) LAWYERS are KNOWN to LIE through their TEETH on BEHALF of their CLIENTS making a CONVINCING ARGUMENT that their CLIENT NEVER DID what he is accused of... LMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 So, you need need to wake up and smell the coffee... ROTFLMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@1USAUSA Need more ROTFLMAOs, and shitload more emojis.
We should put the flat earthers in orbit around the moon
But that will just be a simulation to them
And by" we", You are referring to yourself and who else , ? And whom ever they are , What makes you think they are with you ?? But just for shits and giggles , Tell me something . What if they left it up to you to put anyone into space , or in orbit of the moon ?, What would you do ? Just thought I'd put you in your place before you bit off more than you could chew , BTW We are watching you . So no more of that horseshit ,
@@williamholt2429 wat
@@basedguns8218 That was a reply to summer west , To a statement about putting a particular group of people into space to orbit the moon , Like he's Elon Musk or NASA. Or another bunch of assholes that don't have the ability to travel to the moon
@@williamholt2429 it was a joke about how much proof they need cuz they're so intellectualy incompetent. Sheeeeesh
Short answer is.... yes we can see it and bounce fucking lasers off of it
Apollo retro-reflectors! :p
oliver dutton No those are the retro reflectors
They did it on the Mythbusters show disproving moon landing hoaxes.
They bounce "fucking" lasers off the "fucking" mirrors that they "fucking" left behind, not the "fucking" modules them "fucking" selves.
What do you call someone who doesn't believe in the lunar landings?
- a lunotic :D
shlibber feers should play some KSP :)
shlibber It's also NASA approved! You can fake your own moon landings in glorious HD :)
Shame there was no glorious HD back in 1969-76.
The term lunatic actually describes people going crazy during the full moon (luna).
Because 2 + 2 = 4 may seem like magic to a person that doesn't understand math. Which is why it may seem like magic that we did these things if you dont understand science and technology. However, if you are just one of those that believes the Earth is flat, sorry - you ARE a lunatic.
i like the way you present things and the info you include as its detailed enough to clearly understand and straight to the point...well done!
Bullshit
Very good descriptions. Easy logic to follow comparing distances and “focal length “, if you will. Thx
It just isn’t worth talking to anyone who doesn’t believe the moon landings happened. It makes me annoyed, goodness knows how the people involved feel. Mankind’s greatest achievement.
BakerCars&Hifi your mind is so closed you aren't getting enough oxygen to your brain.
@@williamchiafos2325 Actually, I have read all the facts, seen the hoax theories, seen an unused saturn V in the flesh and come up with my own conclusion that it did indeed happen.
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can show a conspiracy theorist that'll make them change their minds. You can literally fly the around the moon to take a look and they'll probably claim that the windows were tv screens projecting recorded images.
shlibber, they don't even want to see the obvious deception that is in there face. most of them never will. they are too busy trying to fly away.
You can not make that claim until it is possible to do so.
Truth does not fear investigation, independent testing, or questioning the status quo.
+Chuck Tryba Obvious only to those who lack the science background to understand what they're seeing, blinded by what's being told to them by their sheep masters, or both.
CollectorsFix same with a globe head. when you grow up indoctrinated with a mind set that won't let you think any other way they call that narrow minded or closed minded. so it's the same both ways except once someone starts questioning things they actually start to see things they didn't before
+Kevin Gushlaw Science is not indoctrination. A scientific education insists upon the student asking questions, and doing experiments that prove to themselves that things work the way scientists say they work. if you don't do that, you raise people who don't really understand science at all and can't use it for anything new.
It's not at all unusual to see a science teacher get something wrong, and be corrected by their own students, because the student can actually prove the teacher is wrong or made a mistake. That proves that a science education works and can produce students who can think for themselves and can defend their arguments or extend them beyond where science has gotten so far.
Religious fundamentalists can't prove the words in their book, they just swallow it as written. They defend it by their indoctrination, not observable fact. If you disagree, you get burned at the stake, or, just insulted a lot. Just like deniers.
I wish the flat earthers would prove their theory once and for all by jumping off the edge en masse.
What edge?
They can't get passed the armed penguins or I'm sure they'd try.
@@Plisken65 Are you a flat earther Edward?
What edge?
@stephan diehl just take a one of those Antarctic guided tours.
I had a friend who absolutely insisted the landings were faked. he argued relentlessly. despite this. in astonishment, I could not believe his stupidity for a smart man. sometimes you have to walk away. there is no law for being stupid. there ought to be.
brilliant video, as always
I understand your frustration. "The moon landing was faked," has been a conspiracy theory since day one. Don't be too disheartened. Memory of history fades with time.
As my father taught me: “it’s hard to argue with a genius, but impossible to argue with a moron.”
Wiw never stars on the pics.. ... they can not pass van ray belt...whobis now stupid
@@carlosbrazao6039 1 - Camera exposure settings for good pictures on the moon underexpose the star field during lunar days. 2 The Van Allen belts are donut shaped and can be passed over/under. 3. Good question.
@@kalrex6615 He gave you good advice, I don't argue with morons anymore I just ignore them now, it frustrates them more that way.
2016: Why can't we see the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon from Earth ?
2019: Nikon COOLPIX Px000: "Hold my beer"
Not even close.
ruclips.net/video/XkOTnQ5vLwk/видео.html
??? You must be kidding.
@@ann_onn eeehehe. Nice, but doable!
No, you'd need a lens much larger than 100 meters / 300 feet wide.
No such thing exists.
Our best telescopes are about 10m/30'.
Been there, done that! Any other stupid questions you morons?
Must of been weird parking the Lunar Buggy, knowing that it will be their virtually for ever. In the future, there will be glass around it, and tourists to the moon will visit it, like attractions on earth. 🤒
But it won't be there even virtually for ever. It 'could' be hit by a meteor at any time, after a billion years those odds get better than nill. 3-6 billion years from now the Moon will be enveloped by the Sun, along with Earth and all our terrestrial and lunar creations will be reduced to atomic plasma.
+Sinister Veridicus You mean nuke ourselves to the moon.
As far as the human race is concerned, forever. We will not be here even in 1 billion years let alone 3-6.
Nick Breen The end may come sooner than that with all the greed, hate and killing going on.
Who were the globalists from 622 - 750 AD? Islam has its own agenda, fully independent from outside influence, a singular goal to make the planet islamic by any means necessary.
I heard it was all done by Stanley Kubrick but the guy was such a perfectionist he insisted on filming it on the actual moon.
Hahaha
Fun fact: all networks had their cameras fixed on a movie screen that played the “live” footage of the moon landing. Oops.
Yes, sir I thank you very much, for explaining how a telescope component work.
Bullshit
I loved the way he ended the video with some pure aggression in his usual calm tone.
Buddha G Dhaubhadel, Buddha, may God save you. Come to the Loed Jesus Christ and you'll be saved.
I admire the restraint and patience he deals with the loony element who deny everything.
@@auletjohnast03638 Oh so a "cristian" flat earther. You are a discrace to the human race. (And all other cristians with a brain)
Knoot _ , Ass hole, if you read my comment i didn't mention anything about a flat earth. I was just telling buddah to leave buddah behind and come to the Lord Jesus Christ, and so should you.
Loved how you're making fun of flat earthers xD
Liar!
Feels bumpy to me.
"Earth round, shoe flat? Something doesn't add up"
- Flat Earther
Your channel is amazing
Love the way you present the facts / information.
I'm a fan
Flat- earthers: flat earth ... [gibberish follows]
Meanwhile... using GPS on cell phone and internet as well unaware the satellites orbiting the globe are the reason for this.
Or believing the satellites are orbiting a donut disk earth lmao
Science (especially space) is fake, except for the cellphone/computer I’m using and all the household appliances and objects that are derived from NASA innovation.
@Curious Droid, thanks for answering a long-held question of mine. I suppose it was something one could compute the answer to themselves, with geometry and trig, but it was nice to hear the qualitative version of it as well. Love your videos, tops.
YOU IDIOT.
Great job!! Thank you, love your hair by the way!
Wdfukc utmhh,. Isn't hkwnfs ftpn , tell world law
Stupid hair to depart a very smart head!
What hair
@@kridadounsattapong1533 l
@@kridadounsattapong1533 yes.
Well, you hit the nail on the head when you commented that they may not believe in anything put out by NASA. It's truly not worth ANY effort trying to reason with the flat earth people or those who don't believe we ever went to the moon. Those people have no reasoning skills, nor the intellect to learn.
ruclips.net/video/yjf3ufgYj6A/видео.html simulation video with the data of the satellite.
I’ve been watching your videos for a while now but wasn’t subscribed. I wasn’t sure if all your content was the same quality but after watching several of them popping up in my feed I have determined every video I have seen so far is of great quality. Keep up the great work you earned a new subscriber!
Flat earthers use GPS to get to their flat earth convention.
They're using satellites to post on the internet too...
Flat Earth Convention of Extreme Stupidity. .......FECES 💩
Society has profited from Apollo. You, however, are keeping us in the dark ages by denying science. It's your fault we've not returned in 50 years. If it was supported better, we'd have been back decades ago. You're discrediting the memory of heroes who died to get us there, and spitting in the face of millions who dedicate their life to the science behind space technology.
Tell me, how do you know that the Van Allen belts exist?
Who told you they did?
*@Cam* So you believe NASA?
We should have a special Moon Landing Deniers Day. When each of us locate a moon landing sceptic, point 👈 at them and laugh hysterically 😄 whilst mentally counting down from 10 to 'Blast off!' 🚀🌛
Your documentaries are so good, I'm happy to watch the long format any day.
I like the way you explain the information. You make it very easy to understand.
You could fly a conspiracy nut to the moon, drop him on the surface without a vac suit, and with his literal last breath, he would scream "FAKE!"
Especially if nothings there!!!!
🤣
FAKE!
@Van Helsing Nope. I have spoken to plenty of your kind and you would still claim it's fake. Evidence simply does not work on you people. Ever.
@Van Helsing are you really that fucking stupid? If so don't speak again
There is another problem with using Hubble to image the landing cites, and it's the same reason that the Hubble has the lens cover. When you are looking at a distant star, so little of the light emitted is actually heading into your telescope that it appears very faint. The moon has a very low albido, but even so, it reflects a huge amount of photons from the sun. This would not be an issue if you were far away, but the moon is comparatively very close, so if Hubble were to look directly at it, the CCDs would be bombarded with photons, and would burn out from over exposure. Not a good expenditure, especially since it's already had it's final servicing mission.
During periods of high debris bombardment, such as meteor storms, Hubble will close it's lens cap, and turn towards the Earth, protecting the primary mirror from micro-meteoroid impact. The purpose of the lens cap, even when the telescope is pointed away from the storm, is because the Earth is so bright during the day, that to look at it would burn out the ultra sensitive CCDs which were designed to look at faint distant galaxies.
*****
Reaction wheels (a motorized version of what we on Earth call gyroscopes). Think about it, if it couldn't change it's direction, we'd be stuck staring in the same direction.
*****
It's altitude is slowly decreasing due to atmospheric drag. Yes, even at almost 400 miles up, there are a few atoms for it to collide against and slow it down.
The Hubble has actually photographed the moon before, and it was for legitimate scientific reasons. www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
The Hubble's orbit is high enough for its decay rate to be very small. Currently, it's natural reentry will occur sometime between 2030 and 2040. It's not easy to predict precisely because there are many factors that can influence it. Chances are some effort will be made to control its decommissioning since some parts of its structure could survive reentry and thus be a hazard to people on the ground.
Hubble is too close to the Earth to get a photograph of the entire planet. It's not much higher than the ISS and I'm sure you've seen pictures and video from there. Because of how fast it is moving it wouldn't be able to take useful photos of Earth's surface either.
It's not a very low libido, I just think you showed more interest back in the 60's.
The word you are looking for is ALBEDO, though the man in the moon may indeed have a very high libido
Strangely, flat earthers have been donating their brains to science long before their body ceases all life functions.
Photos of the Apollo landings sites have been available online for over 10 years. They were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is still at work mapping the Moon. "The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is an orbiting spacecraft that has studied the Moon in unprecedented detail since 2009, including the ways in which its surface has been altered in recent geologic times. Completing its fourth extended mission on September 30, 2022, the has accomplished all its original science goals and will continue to perform science investigations as well as inform future Artemis missions as it begins its 5th extended mission in October 2022."
You could put all the conspiritards in a rocket and fly them to the moon, land right on top of one of the Apollo landers and they'd still say it was all faked. At that point I'd encourage them to go outside and check for themselves, without spacesuits.
Thats the best idea ... I would even pay to watch it live
Completely honestly speaking....I am not sure one way or the other. Both sides make great arguments. My great grandfather died believing the whole thing was bullshit....as I grow older, and realize that our government is shady as hell, it's really hard to tell whats real and what isn't....just my humble 2 cents :)
TruthAND Factspls so don’t take their word for it, use science and independent verification.
Mr Obvious oh I do...and that's why I am where I am.
TruthAND Factspls I have only seen facts from NASA, foreign governments with independent verification, and scientists from all over the world that agree it happened. I have never seen a conspiracy “fact” that wasn’t fake or explained by science. So tell me what keeps you on the fence. And distrust for the government is not a fact, it’s an opinion. I mean real facts.
There is something that can be detected on the Surface of the moon: a reflector that was left there to be able to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
if a laser is aimed at the Surface of the moon it is bounced back from the reflector.The time that passes till the light is back gives an exact measure of the distance to the moon.
without that reflector the reflection of the laser would be scattered and weakened beond any detection.
bullshit man its fuckin bullshit
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
Here ya go
But that's not evidence humans landed on the moon.
There's about 5 or 6 of those reflectors if memory serves. Only a couple of them were placed by humans. The rest were done the "old fashioned" way.
Robert Pruitt says..."But that's not evidence humans landed on the moon."
And then says..."Only a couple of them were placed by humans."
Ummm...
Ulrich Kälber, go away Russian troll. 🚫🇷🇺
So you are asking why you can't see a car sized object 384,000 km away? A better question would be why you expect something that extreme to be possible?
The main reason though is that Earth's atmosphere refracts and distorts light making it hard to resolve anything smaller than 0.5" arc, which would be a 1 km object at the distance of the moon. If you can get your telescope above the atmosphere, some back of an envelope math says that, in theory, an absurdly large 64 m telescope could resolve the lunar landers.
But there are no 64 m optical telescopes.
Just caught this segment now, and loved it . Non believers are going not believe, it's a heir thing..
Good stuff, enjoyed it immensely.. Thanks.
I love how you poked fun at the flat earthers. Great vids. Thank you for doing what you do!!!
If someone believe the moon landing was fake that doesn't mean he believe the earth is flat.
@mohabiraq1 He was poking fun at all the stupid conspiracy theories not saying they all believe the same thing... Although most of them do.
mohabiraq1 They're both the same to me. Conspiracy-minded, science illiterate buffoons who only want to argue all day nonstop (stubborn) and stroke their own ego with more conspiracy videos. How dare you give them a real answer, lies, fake, CGI! But what would I know, I'm a paid NASA shill who only comments online for money just to hide the real truth from you.
I respect that, as you have to respect my opinion that you are a sheep with shoes.
Straight Shooter keep eating that bullshit NASA feeds you. Make sure you get a big spoon too
I better not say I'm from Australia, they won't believe me mate. LOL
@Traveler2017 LOL good one mate! :-)
What's it like down ---yonder---under... lol
@@ronaldstarkey4336 we are cruising mate. Hopefully the rest of the world can start to be a bit more happier this year. ♥
Thanks you for posting this AMAZING video. Very informative. Thanks you again.
Your presentation skills are amazing! Thank you for the simple and direct explanation, really enjoyable and informative! 👍
Bullshit
Well stated. Many people looking in a scope or their digital zoom camera at the Moon think they're seeing rocks and small bolders. They're actually seeing big mountains and craters the size of huge lakes. These things look small because there are no real known references. When we look at Earth from a probe camera and see, say Florida, we know how big Florida is and that the Okefenokee is a really big lake. Therefore we don't expect to see Uncle Billy's RV outside Miami. Also moon mountains can look really "rocky" because there is nothing to erode them down to smooth cones like on Earth.
However, I do think NASA/JPL does us a disservice by employing former Disney Imagineers to render the Hubble space art they often show in place of visual spectrum photography. People see what looks like something from Toy Story or Titanic, and they assume all is movie fake. In the old days, a text book would have a hand drawing or painting of say The Solar System or the Milky Way taken from an outside the galaxy perspective. We all knew that was a best guess imaginative picture based on other science. However with the flood of CGI astral images, even with backyard telescopes, kids get super skeptical.
Best bet kids. Buy an analog reflective telescope (no camera or video gadgetry. Just lenses, mirrors and knobs) for about $200, go out of the city and look at some planets. Things will start to make sense.
Except that the backyard astronomer images are NOT CGI. Composites yes, multiple images stacked in a software program to get better exposure value and detail but absolutely not CGI.
I am currently working on my own shot of the Andromeda galaxies only using a DSLR and 300mm f4 lens. I got exciting results with only a stack equalling about 2 minutes of exposure.
If we ever get a clear night here again (6 weeks of no good conditions) I am hoping for 30 minutes or more.
Everyone repeat: Composite is NOT CGI. Your own eyes create composite images from very tiny sensors!!!!!!!!!!
I think you meant Okeechobee Lake in Florida ! The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre, peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia-Florida line.
S Tho I look up to see all those satellites whizzing around!!!
They say 10,000 pieces of space junk..
Gee, I never see them crossing in front of the moon , high up there!
...WHY NOT??
USA and Soviet are not in competition!... Google Star City to see how far it has developed..
There are no ICBMs , it's all a scam for $$$$
Just short range missiles for Kruschev... Mmmm. Cuba would work!!
the proof of Einsteins T of Relatively, getting debunked.....
ISNT EVEN TAUGHT to you 'genius'...WHY NOT?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! Now read further, smart guy.
G E E , why all the secrecy 👺 💩💩 👎🏽 👿 😈 ( the moon landing tapes ALL DISAPPEARED!!)
...It's all about the $$$ and the Free Masons /Illuminati that are are in control...
...//😱. proof of a flat earth is easy.
JUSTLOOKOUTTHE window inanysmallairplane
Orwatchaship DISAPPEAR THENWITHBINOCULARS SEEITAGAIN
TELLYOURFRIENDS
BRAINWASHINGCHILDRENIS. SICK
TELLYOURFRIENDS. PLEEEEZE
@@Bogolyubovos You can occasionally see them pass in front of the moon. NOT with just your eyes, you would need a telescope. It would not be just some casual thing, like tossing the scope toward the moon and seeing satellites buzzing by.
Also literally if you blink you would miss it. The satellites orbits were not planned so you could sit and watch them passing in front of the moon. Satellites are relatively small and a long ways away...how much detail can you see in a car 2 miles away or a 747 from 6-7 miles? Satellites are way farther.
You can see satellites by eye under dark skies. You can get info as to where to look and at what time. Same with the ISS.
@@Bogolyubovos So. Living on the Moray Firth coast (North East Scotland) I should be able to point my telescope in a roughly north easterly direction and see Norway? Bloody hell, someone's stolen Norway!!!! My telescope hasn't "pulled it back over the horizon". What is this black magic?
A couple of corrections. First; the earth is not flat and it's not spherical, it's a cube. 2nd; The Moon is made of cheese, everyone knows that!
Yes, I remember when they dropped that first assent stage back onto the moon to do a seismic test on it. They concluded that it was white Manchego IIRC.
Venezuelan beaver cheese has a lower speed of sound so it is ruled out.
Now I've gone an made myself peckish. I think I will pop into the local cheese shop.
@@kensmith5694 Good points! I saw a documentary on the Moon/cheese. I believe it was Wallace and Gromit. Clearly it was cheese! #AllHailCheese
😂😀😂😀😂
Clueless ..... Earth's a cube 😁😁😁😁😁
Cube!?!? It's torus shaped you government shill! Wake up, sheeple!
Anyone have basic information about camera sensors and lenses will exactly understand what this man saying. Well done.
Sounds SUPER convenient. Why put much effort into finding something we already know is there? INSANE perspective. How about to shut people like me up? Suuuuure nasa has their own official photos. Of course they do. They also somehow had photos and videos from spacecraft that passed through the Van Allen Radiation belts.
Bullshit
Imagine trying to hit a 0.5 inch polished aluminum target with a Kolibri Pistol at a distance of a mile on the X. While having a strobe light in your face! That's why we can't see lunar landers!
That sounds more like why the Apollo astronauts couldn't see stars in broad daylight despite the pitch black sky. (understood by science at least since the 1950s)
For the people who refuse to believe that Apollo actually landed on the moon, here is the clear evidence that proves they did!
Given the amount of skepticism regarding this topic, finally, this can be put to rest.
INDEED
From orbital satellites, we can very clearly see numerous ancient water seeps on the slopes of Mars, seeps that are only several feet wide. This video is bull shit.
We havent truly returned anything from the moon because it is covered in radioactive dust.
The reason there is sceptical beliefs..its because it never happened! If it really did then they would have gone back up there for further developments.
@@michaellyne8773 yeah, there would be condos selling 500,000 grand
@@mikesparrow9975 absolutely
Fantastic , best Vid I've watched thats answered a question I have pondered for a few years . Thanks C-Droid .
This Guy's Shirt game is strong.
Wow. NASA has come so far in developing simulation art. Thank you Blender and Photoshop.
Arrogant and ignorant.
There are too many conspiracy crooks and uneducated people on RUclips ferociously defending their poorly designed ideas. I have seen everything; flat earth, earth does not turn, moon is closer than it is.... They make me feel depressed. We need more videos such as this that explain simple problems in a simple way to educate people.
Good Job and keep doing videos such as this.
Well trying to educate them is the only option comes to my mind. There must be some who are open minded enough to see their faults. What else can be done? We cannot isolate them from society.
They've isolated themselves. It doesn't matter what evidence you show them, they will claim it to be fake. If you strapped them in a rocket and sent them to the surface and showed them the LEM descent stage, they would claim you faked it somehow. There's no use in arguing. Just ignore.
OK, so, we don't have the technology to look up the moon very close now in 2017, even though I can see it very close with my $40 binoculars and NASA is not able to build a telescope to look at it with his 18 billion dollars a year budget, yet, WE HAD THE TECHNOLOGY TO GO TO THE MOON IN 1969, your video is rather comical.
triguer1 I wasn't aware that NASA was in the business of building telescopes.
By "very close" you mean you can see the massive mountain ranges and massive craters on the moon's surface? How big do you think those craters are?
Haha! You spastic, NASA isn't one man!
Your comprehension is rather comical/sad/frightening.
figured that out all by yerself, huh? wow... bet you were an ace math student in 5th grade!!
That's one dumbass comment there.
WOW, Thank you for this. I always wondered why they just didn't use Hubble to find out if the landings took place or not. Glad you provided the pics that show otherwise from the other satellite. But, somehow the Moon landing deniers will come up with some sorta excuse.
5:30 Where man goes, rubbish goes.
Love this presentation Mr Droid, thank you
Great steady description. Nice to watch something interesting and well spoken at a good speed. Cheers. Sailing With Vampires
Just have to wait for Google Moon.
aphilipdent: No need to wait, it's already here and includes "tours" of the landing sites:
www.google.co.uk/moon/
You can check out mars as well...
Well since you believe Google so much why don't you search white couples or search white inventors why don't you see the pictures they show you let's see how trustworthy Google is
Steve Downey Easy to disprove. When you search for "white couple" then Google searches for everything that matches with "white couple". Yes, "Black and white couple" has "white couple" in it's title. That is a match of more than 50% (54.545454...%)! Now search for "couple white" (with quotation marks) and you end up with completely different results.
Great visual aids for the light/ resolution explanations. Good teachers are creative.
2:01 The bigger the mirror, the more the magnification" I think the size only determines the amount of light it gathers, whereas the *curvature* determines magnification. Of course you can indirectly get more "magnification" because more light means more resolution, which lets you expand the image and see more detail.
The size ultimately determines the magnification, because you cannot magnify something that you can't detect. You need the "data", ie photons being emitted by the object you're trying to detect.
If you squash photons too closely together, they interfere with each other, and that's what limits the resolution. To detect photons from an object just a few meters wide, from 380,000 km away would require a mirror about a kilometer wide. That's far larger than anything we are currently able to manufacture.
There is a way to detect it from Earth, using interferometry. However, that's unlikely to happen, for several reasons. Firstly, it's extremely difficult and expensive. Secondly, there's no point. If we dedicate years of valuable telescope time to achieve it, we might just about see a tiny blurred speck. None of the hoax-nuts would accept that as evidence.
Besides which - what's the point? We already know exactly what is there, and we already have extremely clear photographs and videos of it all, taken during the Apollo missions.
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation.
It was a joy to watch, also I learned a few things I didn't previously know!
Bullshit
This comment section has left me with a loss for words. I wish that i had not looked in the first place.
Frightening, isn't it?
Loincourt Lestat It is
Great explanation, but I have given up arguing with those conspiracy idiots, because you cannot argue with them, when there response to facts and science are, in essence, “that’s fake news”. So I just given them crayons and encourage them to keep practicing coloring between the lines.
Absolutely! And flat-earthers. I've also given up arguing/discussing with Christians, too. If people want to believe in impossible fairies, rational argument doesn''t stand a chance....
danguee1
Leave Christians out of this. It’s not ‘impossible’, they don’t think God is a ‘fairy’, and personal religious belief is not something worth debating. If they walked up to you and told you _you’re_ wrong for being atheist, then you can tell them they’re wrong to believe in God for lack of evidence. But mischaracterizing someone’s faith and attacking it unprovoked are just signs that you’re intolerant and a jerk.
You will always find with them that when you answer their questions they immediately jump to another point they have, and so on and so on. Their argument usually only goes as far as it’s photoshopped/cgi, but don’t let neither of them existed when we landed on the moon. I see it simply as they don’t believe what they don’t understand.
ruclips.net/video/yjf3ufgYj6A/видео.html simulation video with the data of the satellite.
I love your channel. All things explained - in a sensible fashion !
Bullshit
What about the reflectors left for laser measurements of the moon's distance? They get checked almost every day, that's how we know the moon is moving away from us a little over an inch per year
Rkenton48 As a surveyor I can tell you that I can get a prism (a prism mirrored reflector) reading and measurement from a prism setup that is to far for me to clearly make out visually. The laser reflects back from the prism despite the fact I cannot see it... You just need to know about where to point it and when the pointing positioning is close enough you will get a distance reading because the prism reflects the beam back to the source.
@@kem2359 my point exactly. Those reflectors are proof positive that we did indeed send men to the moon, not to Stanley Kubrick.
LOL, the moon is reflective to laser light naturally.
@@sprtplt not in the intensity that they use. It is the very last part of the Apollo project still operational. Almost everyday they use the lasers, and they can tell when it hits a reflector and not just the surface.
This laser experiment is a dumb example of evidence, as most people know lasers reflect back to their source, without the need for mirrors.
*Tycho Crater* - A troll keeps asking why we can see it.
It's about 85 km (53 mi) across. That's over 2000 square miles.
If you do the maths, it's at the very limit of what we can see.
But, it is a very bright spot surrounded by darker land - and it has "rays" that extend for hundreds of miles. So, you can just about see it with your naked eye.
The troll (currently called "ThomasG10mtn") claims we shouldn't be able to see it, but I have no idea what their point is. I've tried to reason with them. *ThomasG10mtn* - we can see it, so *WHAT IS YOUR POINT?*
The troll has posted the same question 4 times today. Each time they get a reasonable answer, they delete their original comment - so the thread disappears.
*TL;DR:*
Tycho is big, we can see it.
The LM is small, so we can't.
>> " _The troll (currently called "ThomasG10mtn") claims we shouldn't be able to see it, but I have no idea what their point is._ "
No, f you do the math right - which means taking into account pixel resolution aliasing - you can achieve resolution better than your "limit" -- which means you're both wrong; and that even as you tap on his shoulder to call out the troll, there's another bigger hand tapping on your shoulder from behind. The relevant criterion is that given by the point spread function, *not* the pixel resolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
*@Antares849* Honestly, I have tried, many times.
His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module.
That makes no sense.
Tycho is really big, the LM is really small.
That's all there is to it.
It is sorta "weird" that we can see Tycho from Earth, because it is right on the limit of angular resolution. Weird, but understandable - because tbh, we're not seeing just the crater; we're seeing the light reflected from that really anomalous bright area, and the "spokes" going out from it. We're not really "seeing" the crater itself.
We can _just_ see Tycho. Which makes perfect sense, given the calculations of angular resolution. Seriously, do the math yourself - it's not even hard.
We cannot see the LM. We'd need a telescope with a 100m aperture, and even then it'd be a vague dot. But the very best telescopes in the world today do not have a 100m aperture. They have about a 10m aperture.
Fortunately, that does not matter. We can just go closer. LRO took great photos of all the Apollo landing sites.
And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions.
*@Rock Brentwood* c/f Dawes' limit.
(Not criticizing. Just adding a quick mention.)
For others reading this; if you squish photons too close together, they interfere with each other. That limits how far we can see. It's easy maths, really.
To see something 10m (3') wide from 380,000 km (240,000 miles) requires an aperture (ie an opening, in a camera) about 100m (33') wide.
The biggest that exist are about 10m (3').
That's all.
Check what I said. Check the facts.
BTW, you might see stuff about bigger telescopes.. but those are *radio* telescopes, not optical. Different thing.
Also, you might ask me about interferometry. That's a fair point. It is _possible_ to use several telescopes and have a bigger lens. It's really, really hard. I mean... they recently spent 10 years getting a picture of a black hole.. which is very cool...
We could, in theory, spend 10 years and billions on some kind of international collaboration to get a tiny, blurry picture of the LM.
Does not matter, will not help. Crazy people will just claim it's fake, same as the thousands of existing pictures.
@@ann_onn >> " _His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module. That makes no sense._ " > " _And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions._ "
I love this guy's videos and how he goes about explaining things. My 6yr is also hooked on space because of his videos!! Thank you very much for making complex subjects easy enough for a 6yr old to understand! Grazie!
Prego
Wonderful really good explanation thank you so much I can show others this now and they will understand clearer the facts I've been trying to tell people for years
It's sad that this video needs to be made. The majority of people should know this in elementary school.
Serious telescopes of any kind are judged by their Light Gathering ability not their magnification.
That would be reserved for binoculars and spotting scopes.
Actually, by their light-gathering ability, *and* their resolving power - with roughly equal importance.
The former property is good for seeing faint objects; the latter is good for discerning detail in extended objects, as well as in separating close point-sources, such as double stars.