First Commercial Moon Mission Approved 601
dorantrist writes "A Discovery Channel article that The U.S. Government has just licensed the first commercial mission to the moon to TransOrbital, Inc.. Part of the mission is "to VERIFY Apollo and other landing sites" because there are still a few people out there who believe the Apollo program was a hoax. --Maybe they can also pickup the golf balls left by Alan Shepard?"
Re:Who "owns" the moon, anyway? (Score:2, Informative)
No mention of the United States as having any special rights.
Re:Verify? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why does this company have to get US permission (Score:2, Informative)
Riiiiight. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You didn't... (Score:5, Informative)
So, WTF does it have to do withthe US government?
From the Space Law [unvienna.org] pages:
"The Outer Space Treaty states that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried out by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the treaty. The Treaty further states that the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party."
Presumably TransOrbital is registered in the US, so the US government will be responsible for supervising any activities.
Re:Get a fucking telescope (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a link:
link [nasa.gov]
Re:Can anyone explain the one interesting point (Score:5, Informative)
Point 2 is only partially correct. The bigger part of the picture (pun intended) is that they took 35000 pictures of which only about 5000 are usually shown in books and websites. The rest were over/under exposed, blurred, boring, 2nd halves of stereo images etc. etc. They are not HIDDEN. You can still see them, for example on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or lots of other places. They are just more rare cause they.. well.. are not very good.
Point 3 is correct and is quite well demonstrated in some pics where you see a crater that looks about 3 meters in diameter. And then you see the lunar rover next to it and you realize it's actually a 300 meter crater.
Point 4, your explanation is wrong. It *IS* a rocket. However, the lunar gravity is only 1/6th of earth's so the acceleration is quite rapid.
Point 5 is quite correct too..
You also failed to mention / debunk some other more "convincing evidence". For example:
In many pictures, shadows don't line up. Clearly, the pics were taken in a studio and there were many light sources. Well, if there were many light sources, there would be many shadows. Also, shadows don't line up on earth either. They just line up if the surfaces they are projected onto line up. So if you have a stone on a slope and an astronaut on even ground, their shadows won't be parallel.
Another common one is that there was no crater below the lunar module from the descent rocket. Well, the gravity is 1/6th of earth's and there's no more thrust needed to keep the LM hovering just before landing than there is to keep a helicopter hovering on earth. If a chopper lands on a beach on earth, does it make a huge crater? Also keep in mind that there's no athmosphere on the moon so there's no "blowing" effect what so ever. Only the lunar dust that was DIRECTLY hit by the rocket blast would be affected - and it was. In every single landing (of which there are long 16mm films, by the way, clearly showing how it all happened) you can see dust "kicking up" from the rocket.
Then there are totally bogus arguments like fake pictures showing "a third astronaut in the reflection of one astronaut's helmet" and stuff like that, which are just picture manipulations. If you bother at all, you can find the original picture (which in many cases is quite common and well known) and see the same picture without the Photoshop edited 3rd astronaut.
material we want (Score:1, Informative)
Urban legend (Score:4, Informative)
This legend, seemingly an obvious joke, began circulating on the Internet in mid-1995 and was picked up by the media a few months later. The inclusion of specific details (e.g., the name of Armstrong's neighbor, the date of the press conference on which he revealed the meaning of his remark) apparently led some to believe the farcical story might have some truth to it.
At its most basic level, this tale is a humorous anecdote that plays on the stereotypical portrayal of Jewish wives as reluctant to engage in recreational sex (and especially oral sex). In variant forms of this legend the last name of Neil Armstrong's neighbor is different, but the name used is always a "Jewish-sounding" one, such as Gorsky, Seligman, Schultz, or Klein; the unusual word order employed by the wife in her refusal ("Oral sex you want?") is also a stereotypical speech pattern attributed to Jews. On another level, this legend can be seen as an attempt to humanize a cultural hero by associating him with a story that is both humorous and racy: Neil Armstrong, the world-famous astronaut, is made to seem like a "regular" guy.
Any doubts about the veracity of this legend are laid to rest by the official NASA transcripts of the Apollo 11 mission, which record no such statement having been made by Armstrong. Armstrong himself said in late 1995 that he first heard the anecdote delivered as a joke by comedian Buddy Hackett in California.
Re:Verify? (Score:4, Informative)
So we'll send another satellite to take pictures of the first one... Oh, wait...
Re:You didn't... (Score:5, Informative)
1) The remote-sensing permit from NOAA assures that we act in accordance with international treaties in regard to the imaging. NOAA also inspects for compliance with other things, like the Outer Space Treaty (especially with regards to space debris control).
see http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
2) The export permit lets us ship the spacecraft to Baikonur for launch. State does a rather meticulous inspection of the company's methods for handling technology security to avoid illegal technology transfer.
see http://www.pmdtc.org [pmdtc.org]
Re:The moon has to be licensed? (Score:1, Informative)
Final Proof of the Moon landings (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can anyone explain the one interesting point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mining of lunar ores? Is there anything to mine (Score:3, Informative)
Second, the Moon had a (very ancient) volcanically active past - the Mare basins on the near side are volcanic basalts, there are several mountainous regions that appear to be volcanic rather than caused by impacts, and numerous "rille" formations thought to be collapsed lava tubes, etc. One of the mineral deposits associated with some of this is the 'KREEP' that includes some concentrations of heavy metals, including thorium and uranium.
Third, the Moon's surface is exposed directly to the solar wind and apparently has quite high and useful (if we had fusion power plants) concentrations of Helium-3. That is probably the only mining target that would actually be worth transporting back down to Earth.
Good info about the Moon Landing Hoax (Score:1, Informative)
This site [geocities.com] explains it all in terms everyone can understand.
Re:The moon has to be licensed? (Score:3, Informative)
A FedEx airplane needs federal approval to fly over US airspace, and to land at a US airport.
If you put anything into space, you need approval from the host nation, and verify that your flight pattern won't connect with something else (say... hubble, ISS, or any GPS sats...
Re:material we want (Score:1, Informative)