Thread 16738819

or is it simply too far away and too small of an object?

>>16738819 (OP)
i think it is more of a focus issue. You cant use a telescope to look at bacteria

This was taken from a satellite in Lunar orbit. It would take a massive telescope to see anything from Earth.

I've heard the flag is completely white by now.

>>16740047
that's because it's the french flag, not the american one

>>16740048
I don't mean to offend you, but c'mon...

>>16738819 (OP)
i think youre underrestimating the distance, size of the moon and how small flag or lunar module are

>>16738819 (OP)
Why dont we ever point our space telescopes down? Like What's even under the earth?

>>16740065
>Why dont we ever point our space telescopes down?
finally, OPs dick will be visible for the first time in history

>>16740054
You didn't get the joke did you?
Hint:>>16740047

so we can get highly detailed views of galaxies bajillions of light years away, but we can't see a flag on a rock right in front of us? lol, okay.

>>16740198
Galaxies are really, really, really big.

>>16740065
The Hubble was created as a prototype for spy satellites. There are something like 9 Hubbles looking at Earth.

If compact neutrino tomography is ever made public it will completely change what we know about history, geology and planetary science.

>>16740208
>neutrino tomography
fucking kek

>>16740208
Well what i mean is why do we only send probes or get images from one direction in space? I want to know what's below all of this.

>>16740314
Hell

>>16740210
Use your words like a big boy--I know you have it in you.
>>16740314
The answer is still neutrino tomography. The reason "we only send probes" is because the current standard model is shit and midwits refuse to leave the Cult of Einstein for greener pastures.

>>16740198
Also with the lunar rovers they sent to the Moon, they could've just send them to the site of the Apollo landing and took pictures of it, but they never did

>>16740065
We do, they are called spy satellites.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/once-spy-satellite-now-telescope-eye-cosmos

And you don't point space telescopes to Earth because they use long exposure time to capture faint objects. The Hubble deep field took more than 30 hours per image.

>>16740357
Here's a picture of the site
>>16738819 (OP)
Why would they send a rover to repeat that image and what would it change, if you don't believe one image you won't believe another.

>>16740198
The Andromeda galaxy is just very faint. Otherwise it would have an angular size several times that of the Moon

>>16738819 (OP)
there was an astronomer that even stated publicly that he could use the VLT very large telescope in Chile to see the lander but he didn't follow through . later, other astronomers backtracked and said it's not possible. (there is probably nothing there and he got a call from the nasa jews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVN2VCsrcik

>>16742335
>here is probably nothing there and he got a call from the nasa jews
Maybe, would be interesting if you have the slightest clue about it and it is a little more as the usual retarded speculation of an /sci moron

>>16742307

>Why would they send a rover to repeat that image and what would it change, if you don't believe one image you won't believe another.
Nails it, grandstanders never contributes just spy their moronic vile over each discussion.

But however, there is technology that do not need any lenses because it only has a tiny hole instead, the pinhole camera. Wouldn't it be possible to make an array of them to gain enough resolution to see the flag or a decent stage?

>>16740357
>>16742335
>>16738819 (OP)
You pretend like a tiny blob in an image from a telescope will change your mind, while you completely ignore that the site has been independently images by multiple orbiters from many nations.

The VLT working at the diffraction limit in the infrared can only resolve about 100 meters on the Lunar surface. At best you might see one slightly dark pixel from the shadow of the lander, but you would have to take it entirely on faith that it was the lander and not some other thing on the surface. Whereas the pictures from India's Chandrayaan-2 are unmistakable.

>>16740336
>>16740208
Take your meds.