Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Space Science

SMART-1 to Image Apollo Landing Sites 36

An anonymous reader writes " is reporting that the European Space Agency's SMART-1 probe is imaging the Apollo landing sites on the moon. The resolution may be good enough to see mineral evidence of the blasts created by landing craft. Photos expected too. The article says it "might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn't go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape." I wouldn't bet my Buzz Aldrin doll that hoax buffs will cease and desist."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SMART-1 to Image Apollo Landing Sites

Comments Filter:
  • by elecngnr ( 843285 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:00AM (#11865347)
    It is unlikely, IMHO, that these new pictures will satisfy any of those who do not believe that NASA landed men on the moon. It is much easier to doctor photos these days than to create the conspiracy they believe occurred in the 60's and 70's with the moon landings. In fact, I believe that you could take most of these folks, land them on the moon itself, and they would still claim that they were not actually on the moon, but had fallen victim to some form of mind control. Does anyone know if a tin foil hat will fit inside of a NASA space helmet?
  • by DesScorp ( 410532 ) <> on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:07AM (#11865432) Homepage Journal if these craft could get shots of the hardware we left behind; the moon rovers, the Apollo capsule bases, even the flag.

    Don't know if the resolution will be THAT good; but one thing I'd always hoped for in a return to the moon was a look at our old landing sites. I don't know enough about the lunar environment to know, but I wonder if our stuff is still uncovered? Any problems with lunar dust covering things, one wonders?
  • its a hoax (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    we all know that they will not really be imaging the moon. They have set up secret 'moon bases' to be photographed from space in the nevada desert. The moon itself is even a hoax. is it me or has the whole wold gone crazy!?
  • by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:31AM (#11865722)
    Buzz already knows how to shut up conspiracy theorists. I prefer his method [], too.
  • How naive! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nuffsaid ( 855987 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:36AM (#11865782)
    Who could actually believe that SMART-1 is really circling the Moon? How could it manage that, without smashing into the giant crystal sphere that holds it up? They try to blind us with all this "Ion Engine" technobabble while everybody knows that all you need is a really long ladder to reach the Apollo 11 landing site and see with your own eyes the flag, the lander an all that stuff.
    Some people misdirect their skepticism...
  • by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @01:06PM (#11866562)
    The site [] really belongs in the body of the post. It answers in depth every "reason" why it's impossible to have landed on the Moon.

    If you have your doubts, or otherwise find yourself giving credence to the Apollo hoax theories, you owe it to yourself to visit that site. There's nothing wrong with questioning government and understanding that it's possible (possible != probable, and as hard as it was to land on the Moon, imagine how much harder it would be to fake it in an open society where not only would you have to trick hundreds of thousands of engineers and support personnel as well as thousands of scientists, but also the astronauts who are still alive today and have not contradicted the stories, all the while you can't have made a single mistake that would expose the conspiracy!) that the Moon landings were faked, but this is a case where the evidence is fully on the side of the conventional story.
    • And if you are ever in NYC, be sure to visit the Rose Center for Earth and Space at the Natural History Museum and see the Full Moon Exhibition [] -- glorius photos from the Apollo missions. The finely detailed images from the best large-format cameras ever made were pretty convincing for me!
    • Not to mention that the USSR would have had to be in on the faking of the moon landing. Not bloody likely. I am afraid that this is right up there with "the Holocaust never happened", The world is flat, and network TV is quality entertainment.
    • by vuud ( 678736 )
      Bah on all of you. I have a feeling everyone is right... I really think that we did land on the moon - but I also think the photos were faked due to some snafu with the cameras or film.

      It would explain a whole lot if it turns out that radiation screwed up the film, or they just plain old forgot it or something. I think we did land there (due to the laser reflectors), but some of the rational for the faked photos seems to make some sense.

      So we were there IMO, but someone botched up the film, or they ju

      • by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes AT xmsnet DOT nl> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @04:44AM (#11875052)
        The argument that the photos have been faked have been comprehensively debunked.

        And what about the film/TV scenes shot on the moon? That were broadcast live to the entire planet? They would have been even harder to fake (1/6 G is hard to simulate), faking them would have involved a lot of planning beforehand (to create the shots in time for the landing and live broadcast).

        And botching ALL photos and film for ALL landings would be quite improbable. If Apollo 11 had come back without usable film, NASA would have corrected the problem before the Apollo 12 launch.

        Don't listen to the conspiracy theorists. They're morons.
        • I couldn't agree more. I could think of a reason why every argument on that website is not correct... a good website to take a look at is [] It doesn't specifically debunk the questions on the Clauvius website, it still debunks a lot of the general misconceptions on the site. Other arguments on the site can be de-bunked by thinking about simple scientific facts such as the lighting on the moon (reflected lighting from the surface of the moon) and perspective..

        • I dont recall the footage from the movies, but as I remember they were not very high quality, compared to the super fantastic moon landing photo stills.

          The comment about conspiricy theorists being morons is unfair on the whole... If someone told you oliver north was trading drugs for guns down south they would say your nuts, your crazy, your a conspiricy theorist.

          That is not to say a great deal of them could be crazy... it just gets dangerous to label them all morons off the cuff.
          • Have you ever compared stills to motion pictures from the time? Still cameras have been able to make very good images for fifty years. There were even color cameras in WWII that could match the camera I bought at K-Mart in 1992. Motion pictures were, by comparison, pretty crummy. Television broadcasts were grainy, and movie theaters had very large and expensive optics to produce good quality. The moon missions neccessitated very light cameras, and on top of that, the images were broadcast to earth to be rec
            • No I have not compared the stills to the motion pictures for that purpose - just what I have seen of older photos and the moon landing stuff from memory. I will give it a whirl the next time I have some from the 50's on hand... This is just my theory on it...

              Also, if you bought a camera at kmart, it probably was the same technology that was used in WW2 :)

              Anyway - moving on...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @03:57PM (#11868639)
    Living in Houston, I occasionally run into folks who have some connection with JSC and the Apollo program. Two good examples.

    As an undergrad at Rice Univ, I took a space physics class for non-space physics majors taught by the chair of the space physics dept. The prof. happpened to have designed a bunch of the experiment packages that went to the moon during Apollo. He was pretty definite that the Apollo astronauts really had gone to the moon and played with his experiments.

    More recently, I had the very humbling experience of talking to a NASA engineer who had been in the control room when the Apollo 1 crew perished. Even today, the memory of that day brought tears to his eyes.

IN MY OPINION anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out becoming pure energy. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.