Images of Apollo Landing Sites Soon Available 263
eric.brasseur writes "The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has entered lunar orbit in perfect shape. From a height of 50 km, it will image the Moon in high resolution. The hardware left by the Apollo missions will be clearly visible. The Soviet automatic probes will also be photographed. Previous best images were made by the Japanese probe Kaguya and showed a white patch where the dust had been blown away by the blast of the LM engine."
God dammit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our sharks with things that are no moons on their heads who are our overlords... on the moon!
Re:God dammit (Score:4, Funny)
Do they run Linux?
If so, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those.
Someone else will have to throw in the bad car analogy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So all in all, we have a Beowulf cluster of Linux-driven cars that form a moon, which explains why it's not a real moon. And it is protected by space-sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. But we do not know it, because we never were there?
And in Soviet Russia, that "moon" never was on YOU? It only was IN the Goatse guy, who at that time had a relationship with Natalie Portman, and so "poured" an insensitive clod of hot grits over her. But we, for one, would welcome them, just as Natalie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You also forgot: Were whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon.
hey! that's not how it happened!!!
Re:God dammit (Score:5, Insightful)
One way or the other, we will finally have proof.
Either the photos will come back showing no hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof it never happened, or they will release photos showing landing hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof of an on going NASA conspiracy to manufacture a moon landing fraud.
Yes, one way or the other we will finally have proof.
-
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh Gawd, where are my mod points when I need them!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the post that you're replying to. Pictures will be proof of an ongoing conspiracy.
Stupid moderators marked Alsee's post as insightful instead of funny. *sigh* Now people have to explain the joke which makes it less funny.
Insightful gives karma, funny does not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no it will be there.....
NASA bought several copies of Photoshop recently to get ready for faking the photos.
I got my inside information from stanley that works with dave who is a manager at staples near the cape when a guy wearing sunglasses and a dark blue shirt cam in to buy 4 copies. It's solid proof!
Re:God dammit (Score:5, Informative)
We've had proof for a long time. The nutjobs just don't want to believe it. For one thing, they left reflectors on the moon that can bounce back laser signals. Mythbusters even did it. [youtube.com]
I'm sure the nutjobs will find some excuse not to believe this too.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, that only prooves that we got 'something' to the moon, not that we landed human beings there and brought them back. NASA probably has the technology to put one of those reflectors on Phobos as well, but I don't think I'd be volounteering for the manned mission any time soon.
(Note: I am not a nutjob. The moonlanding happened, get over it. If you really don't believe it (and want to get punched in the face by an old man, go tell one of the Apollo astronauts that it never happened.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
sure, because nobody could edit wikipedia to cover for the fake moon landings!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I believe the moon landings happened. Still, it's fun to consider.
Did anyone ever point a laser at the Apollo landing sites before the Apollo missions allegedly landed? How do you know that wasn't a natural occurrence (some shiny rock) that NASA took advantage of?
Again, as the parent points out, no one is saying NASA was unable to land things on the moon. I'm pretty sure everybody believes, for example, that the Surveyor [nasa.gov] missions weren't faked. So I'd imagine that NASA would be able to land somethi
Re:God dammit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: 4 out of 5 Slashdot posters lack reading comprehension skills (congrats "Paul server guy" for being the stand-out).
Re:God dammit (Score:4, Insightful)
This just in: 4 out of 5 Slashdot posters lack reading comprehension skills
Yeah, that's why I come here. The Slashdot community comprehension level is about 20% above that of the general population. ;)
-
Re: (Score:2)
Either the photos will come back showing no hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof it never happened...
Or that they don't know how to point the camera where they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, that was brilliant. Though some people who didn't read your posting properly won't see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but is it any coincidence that hi-res images are only becoming available now that Photoshop has made it all but impossible to spot quality fakes? I mean seriously, in the latest movie, I couldn't even tell which Transformers were CGI and which were real! </tinfoil>
The coverup will continue (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then join us, maybe you'll get to go...
Re: (Score:2)
On a less comedic note, expert testimony is pretty much useless against entrenched occupants of a conspiracy position. For true believers, "expert"="embedded in the conspiracy".
Re: (Score:2)
Wow did that guy get what he deserved!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you agree, obviously I'm correct.
If you disagree, you're part of the conspiracy to suppress my correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Troll??
Ok, so I forgot the <Sarcasm> tags. Actually they will not believe it even after they are standing on the surface and looking at the old sites. They will then say that they were the first since all those before were just faked.
pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Preferably without suits. They won't mind, because they think they're just heading to a big warehouse in Arizona.
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Suits won't make a difference. Even in expensive cashmere suits they will still look like a bunch of nuts suffocating on the lunar surface.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought we were just going to send their nuts to the moon, that way at least they can't breed.
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Not a bad idea - dragging the conspiracy nuts to the moon...
Better: send them to the landing site for the first manned mission to the sun (but don't tell them they'll be the first ones to land there).
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Bah. This is easily remedied by going at night.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
How many such people actually exist? With every slashdot article mentioning the moon landings, there is a great uproar about these heretics. I'm sure they exist, but I've never met one, nor do I recall even reading a post from one on slashdot. It makes me wonder why these people (whoever they are) get under people's skin so much.
Re:pics and it still didn't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
More than you might think. I lived for a period of time in a communist country in Asia, and not only did I find there were a number of people who thought that the United States did not land people on the moon, but that those people also typically believed that the Soviet Union had.
Why did they think so? They "learned" it in school :p
I know one (Score:2)
Oddly, he is not an idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many such people actually exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories [wikipedia.org]
About 6% of the population, as of 1999. Not bad, compared to the percentages believing in religion, intelligent design, etc.
Honestly, I think about 6% of the population is high or drunk at any given moment, so I'm not sure its a relevant figure.
It makes me wonder why these people (whoever they are) get under people's skin so much.
Well, sometimes its hard to interpret "get under skin" vs "laughing my * off"
Re: (Score:2)
And I think that's a woefully low estimate.
Judging by the anonymous coward posts here on slashdot, I'd say it'd be more in the range of 90-95%.
Oh, I see... 6% high or drunk. Obviously you were discounting the 84 to 89% who are high and drunk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. Sometimes it just *fun* to say that we never went to the moon. I doubt that many of them are actually serious. My own father would be in a car ride for a few hours with a bunch of guys and spontaneously say, "You know.... I really believe the single bullet theory. It was one man that killed Kennedy". Real Life Trolling.
I remain unconvinced we went to the Moon myself. It could of have been wo
Re: (Score:2)
How many such people actually exist?
Well, as a point of comparison:
Out of about 250,000 degreed scientists across all of the earth and life sciences, there are about 700 who think that evolution-denialist "Creation Science" has any legitimacy.
Estimating the number of Moon Landing Denialists is left as an exercise for the reader.
-
Re: (Score:2)
It's a surprising amount of peple.
They get under my skin becasue they try to spread these lies as truths to children and ignorant, and they have no argument. SO they say 'it's a conspiracy' as if that's some sort of good argument.
And with all self deluding lies, there is a price for everyone.
http://whatstheharm.net/ [whatstheharm.net]
Granted, the moon hoax isn't very harmful, yet. Wait until the start trying to force schools to teach their 'alternate "Theory"'
Re: (Score:2)
Buzz Aldrin - Renaissance Man (Score:2)
Street Fighter. Astronaut. Rocket Scientist. Rapper [usatoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How many such people actually exist? With every slashdot article mentioning the moon landings, there is a great uproar about these heretics. I'm sure they exist, but I've never met one, nor do I recall even reading a post from one on slashdot. It makes me wonder why these people (whoever they are) get under people's skin so much.
When somebody gets noisy about something Slashdot disagrees with, it's assumed that the number of people that follow said noisy person are a multiple of a million.
I know two, actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[sarcasm off] For the record, I believe 100% that the landings were real, but I also believe that nothing short of dragging the conspiracy nuts up to the moon themselves will convince them of the fact. Maybe not even that.
Lies! You have simply kidnapped me and whisked away to an entirely convincing sound stage. And I weigh about 1/6th as much as I normally do. This is simply conclusive proof that you have invented antigravity. Will you not stop at any length to perpetuate this vile lie?!
Re: (Score:2)
That won't and the conspiracy is already evolving. Now they say they did land, just later and we put the stuff there at that time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Lack of funding, the government doesn't want NASA to relearn stuff. We already "learned" about the moon back when we landed there (remember, this post is assuming the conspiracy theories are incorrect). While other planets we know a lot less about them.
B) No evidence of life. Unlike a lot of investigated planets, we pretty much can tell that there is no liquid water on the moon without having to do much
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, even the Myth Busters are in on the conspiracy!!!
j/k.. :)
here is my favorite "moon landing hoax" video: http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html [dc8p.com]
That's cool and all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh. (Score:2)
I mean, of COURSE they'll be visible...The Illuminati have had decades to fake up an accurate-looking landing site. They might have actually used their mind powers to put a man on the moon at the time, but they were too busy killing Kennedy.
//Conspiracy theorists will never buy it.
Google moon? (Score:2, Funny)
Can I have street view?
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Google did this as part of Google Earth.
And I for one would spend quite a bit of time using it!
Re: (Score:2)
actually yes, Google will be integrating the LRO data into Google Moon in realtime.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look closely at the picture of the orbiter (Score:5, Funny)
You can plainly see that only a few feet of the orbiter are devoted to the camera, with the rest being a perfect-size capsule for a single astronaut with a copy of photoshop.
Explain that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory Cheese Reference (Score:5, Funny)
tourism? (Score:2, Funny)
so....the primary focus of this mission is checking out the trash we left 40 years ago?
Lunakhod 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Lunakhod 1 carried a French retroreflector array for Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) [iers.org] but unfortunately, contact was lost and no one knows where it is. There are good returns for Lunakhod 2, so I (and others) want Lunakhod 1 back !
Finding this would be a great help for Lunar science (assuming it didn't get crushed in a landslide or something). I know that this is on their list, so good luck !
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lunakhod 1 carried a French retroreflector array for Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) but unfortunately, contact was lost and no one knows where it is.
I checked the wikipedia and there is no mention, but I thought it was "generally known" that because it worked for a year or so and then "suddenly failed" it was because the optics cracked due to thermal stresses. An earth year is about 12 lunar days, and the hot/cold cycles are pretty intense. A cracked retroreflector isn't going to work.
Given realistic spot diameter on the moon vs possible landing area position error, and the difference in cost between having grad students blast away randomly (virtually
Re: (Score:2)
The Apollo LLR site [ucsd.edu] has looked for Lunakhod 1, but without success so far. These LLR retroreflectors are arrays, and would work if a few corner cubes were cracked.
It's approximate position is of course known, but not well compared to the spot size. Searches can be made to go faster by defocusing the laser, thus making the spot larger, but that lowers the return (the larger spot has fewer photons per square meter). If the retroreflector isn't oriented towards Earth, that will cut down on the return, and it
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, if this is the cutting edge of lunar science, then we're all doomed. Who cares about some junky old probe?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about some junky old probe?
A bunch of people, at least in the Lunar and planetary science community. Here is a review paper [mt.asi.it], and another on the physics return from LLR [arxiv.org]. We know where the Moon is at the sub-cm level without Lunakhod 1, but recovering this array would help determine Lunar rotation. Even though the Moon is commonly regarded as a dead body, it isn't, and these data might help to resolve this. There is a free libration of the Moon [usra.edu] of unknown origin, so it would be good to have data fr
Lunar ruins (Score:3, Funny)
"Just reading the summery makes me worried about the slew of "Moon landing never happened!" posts that are on the way"
As for me, I think we did go to the moon. However I feel that these so called images will be doctored to remove evidence of the alleged "ruins" that are littered across its surface..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just reading the summery makes me worried about the slew of "Moon landing never happened!" posts that are on the way"
As for me, I think we did go to the moon. However I feel that these so called images will be doctored to remove evidence of the alleged "ruins" that are littered across its surface..
I don't think the problem is whether or not we went to the moon. The problem is that we have a government which has no problem lying to us. You really want to shut up the conspiracy theorists? Restore the honor and decency and respect for the citizens that the government of the USA once had. The way I see it, that's what this whole deal is really about.
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't scare me nearly as much as my co-citizens do.
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed that my comment would be interpreted a certain way and I admit I probably should have been more specific. The honorable and decent way for (any) government to operate is as transparently as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My girlfriend often remarks to me when we see old American movies that 'that was when it was a much nicer America' not one so conditioned to lying to it's own people that no one knows what the truth is. Obviously I don't know what the actual truth is either.
My uncles and my father all watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing *LIVE*. As they were in Australia they were getti
It's amazing (Score:5, Funny)
What a long way we've come since the sixties and seventies. Now we can even photograph the landing sites they used back then. :-/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is something so sad modded as funny?
The "moon" - a ridiculous liberal myth (Score:5, Funny)
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
They'll believe what they want to believe (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, people who are adamant about the moon landing being a conspiracy seem to act that way merely because it gets them attention. They seem to feed off of the conflict. Since claiming these pictures are also a fake will continue to give them attention, this type of people will continue to hold onto their beliefs.
If people want to believe that the moon landing was a hoax, that's their prerogative. But when they become combative towards anyone who thinks otherwise, that's when they've stepped over the line. It's called basic tolerance and respect. The same applies to other subjects which are debated--science/religion, windows/mac/linux, music, sports, etc. You're entitled to your opinion and the defense of it, but you are not entitled (or at least you're credibility is not entitled) to disrespect or belittle people merely for having different opinions or beliefs.
People who feel the need to constantly attack or belittle different opinions/beliefs merely show how insecure they in their own anyways.
Sounds like competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And What If... (Score:2)
The funniest result of this would be if they found it, but not where the astronauts actually thought they landed.
And while it's up there mapping, can it find that B-17 on the Moon that I saw the pictures of decades ago?
For the Fans! (Score:2)
Forget the conspiracy theorists. Those guys are haters. As a giggling space cadet I'm looking forward to "first light" from LRO because these images are going to be the best ever. This will happen sometime this month, or early next month. In regards to Apollo, the LM was 4.27m in diameter.. so that's just over 4 pixels.. I don't know how great that is gunna look :)
How about open-sourcing the transmission instead, (Score:2)
To give skeptics a harder time being skeptics about this? I am not one of the hoax believers, even though I am naturally skeptical to all things space and military we are told about, given the rich history of fuckups and coverups of these fuckups, but you have got to admit that in this age where its getting hard to tell in the movies what has been cg-enerated and what was in fact real, a bunch of pictures supposedly from the Moon will not proove ANYTHING to either hoax believers or those who believe we land
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A more relevant movie reference would be Capricorn One, which featured a fake trip to Mars. (And I think must have been the inspiration for many/most of the moon hoaxers.) Plus it starred OJ Simpson.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ [imdb.com]
Re:How about open-sourcing the transmission instea (Score:3)
"the only way the public would actually accept "public" photograph data as real deal, is if NASA "open-sourced" spacecraft broadcasting interface - frequencies, protocol, encoding, where to set up a dish, size of dish required"
Open source is the wrong term, of course, but none of this information is hidden away: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16926 [spaceref.com] The inverse-square law ensures that you need a very large antenna beyond Low Earth Orbit, but the public has been eavesdropping on satellites s
Not Soon (Score:3, Informative)
The commissioning phase will end approximately 60 days after launch, when LRO will use its engines to transition to its primary mission orbit. [spaceflightnews.net]
LRO is now in a commissioning orbit! - June 27 [asu.edu]
So we're at least 56 days from "first light" and the mapping program will go for 1 year, and as there's nothing to suggest that the Apollo landing sites will be first or last imaged, a good estimate is 8 months or so from now.
If that's "soon" to you, then I guess you're older than I am :)
By 2080, nobody alive will have witnessed it (Score:3, Insightful)
BY 2080, nobody alive will have seen first-hand the media coverage of the Apollo landings. Heck, I was born in 1970 and I don't remember them even though they happened when I was alive.
Anyway, there will come a time when nobody will have first hand memories of the event. The only memories will be those gleaned from videos, reading about it, etc. At some point, the fact that it happened will change from a fact into just something people have read about or heard about.
Eventually many of the people alive will doubt it ever happened at all because the story of the moon landings will have become indistinguishable from a fable.
Think about the war of 1812, or Columbus "discovering" America. We have a pretty good idea these things happened. But all we know about them is stuff we have read or heard. We have also heard many works of fiction from those same times. At some level, it's all similar.
This ignores the concept of revisiting the moon, which may or may not ever happen. I have my doubts about NASA on this. But if we ever do go back and build a city, then those people will doubt it was ever such a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me by 2080 a few people might have seen the landing sites them self.
Interesting observaton. (Score:3, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that most of the comments are about the "hoax" hoax, a few about how long it took, and not many about how very cool this tech is? Are we really that jaded?
I for one think it's very cool. And I am looking forward to seeing the hardware.
I'm also looking forward to using the date to help plan our mission.
Non Technical Prof of Moon Landings (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1969 the Americans first landed men on the moon. Now some people have made names for themselves by saying that this and subsequent landings never happened. Their position is that NASA faked them in order to save face and fool the public. To prove their point they rely on explanations of the reported events using dubious science and lay explanations that any first year science major would and does, laugh at.
However, they always miss or purposely avoid the the one piece of irrefutable proof that it did in fact happen. That is that the Soviet government never refuted the American claims and they were in a unique position to do so. For even after the Americans landed on the moon the Soviets still continued to send orbiters, landers and rovers to the moon.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html [russianspaceweb.com]
Now if they wanted to get the goods on the Americans all they had to do was to land, photograph or explore with a rover the American landing sights. Just imagine the embarrassment not to mention the the damage to American credibility, at the height of the cold war no less, that such information would generate. Records even show that they never landed or even explored that areas that that American landings happened. So they did not even go and look to make sure because they knew it really happened.
But they did not. They did not use it to pressure the Americans to stop bombing North Vietnam and Cambodia where Soviet military advisers were being killed as a result. They did not use it to pressure the United States to stop sending military advisers to and providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet occupation. They did not use it to stop the Star Wars program of the Regan administration.
In fact they did not even use it to turn the West's attention away from the Soviet Union during the Soviet Coup of 1991 when members of the Soviet government briefly deposed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and attempted to take control of the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991 [wikipedia.org]
Which every body knew was the last death throws of the Soviet empire. If they did not use the information then to turn the attention of the American, and world public, inward to their own governments lies and thus corruption and force it to ignore the events in the Soviet Union in order to deal with a damaging domestic and international issue. Then the proof of faked moon landings did not and never existed.
One final thought. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy tanked. People were selling all kinds of stuff owed by the crumbling state, ships, weapons, artworks and knowledge but nobody ever approached any Western news agency or tabloid to sell them this information. And to say that one would buy it but not publish is foolish. The seller could just keep peddling it until someone did and then it would be old news and worthless until then it would still be worth something.
I put on my tinfoil hat (Score:3, Funny)
> Images of Apollo Landing Sites Soon Available
Why not visit them in person? They're in the desert just outside Los Angeles.
My personal theory is The Pirate Bay was shut down just to ban the documentary, Capricorn One.
Re:eh (Score:5, Funny)
...freshly shaved Asian...pussy...
You haven't seen very much Asian porn, have you? You're in for a big surprise once Mommy and Daddy uninstall NetNanny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)