NASA Reveals New Images of Apollo Landing Sites 269
sighted writes "Sharp new images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites in amazing detail, including the last foot trails left by astronauts on the lunar surface."
These pictures were grabbed after the LRO dropped its orbit from 50km above the surface to 25km.
Poor NASA server (Score:5, Funny)
That image is a hotlinked, bigass JPEG.
A bunch of admins are probably running into the server room with fire extinguishers at this moment. And hopefully one with a Scottish accent is yelling over a cell phone that the server is overloaded and can't take any more.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's main web site is served by Akamai; I doubt they'll have an issue.
# dig www.nasa.gov
; <<>> DiG 9.6.-ESV-R4-P1 <<>> www.nasa.gov
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3588
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.nasa.gov. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.nasa.gov.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good for them. It bogged down pretty hard when the article was first posted but I was finally able to load it about a minute ago.
Re:Poor NASA server (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh, it's only 1MB (which is actually quite large considering uncompressed would be 1.8MB by my estimate). Given how carelessly pages are designed these days, you're probably saving 100+ requests and 1MB of data by them not linking the page...
But hey, you don't have to listen to me; check out http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com/ [websiteoptimization.com]
Total HTTP Requests: 312
Total Size: 1828125 bytes
Woohoo! Slashdot is doing them a favor.
Wait (Score:5, Funny)
FTA;
The images do not line up perfectly because of differences in lighting conditions, angle of the LRO Camera, and other variables.
Like being on a different sound stage??
Re: (Score:3)
I sincerely hope that he does think he's funny. It's better than him being serious.
No stars in the photo! (Score:2)
There's no stars in the photos! Obiously they're fake and the moon landing was a hoax!
On a more serious note, I love these photos. I'm fascinated by the moon landings. Just looking up at the night sky and seeing the moon and thinking humans have set foot there, when a little over 100 years ago the idea of flight was only a dream.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Except roving around for kilometers on Mars.
But yeah, other than Mars Rovers... oh, and orbiting Saturn.
Yeah, but other than Mars rovers and orbiting Saturn... oh, and orbiting Mercury. And ongoing missions to interstellar space. And a mission to Pluto. And orbiting an asteroid. And private space travel. And starting work on manned trips to asteroids...
But yeah, other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, then I think it's been 40 years and we've achieved precious little else...
Correction: Since then, we've done a lot of important and useful work instead of wasting time on spectacular Cold War PR missions.
NASA has achieved a lot more every year since then than they did on the Apollo missions. Sorry if it wasn't sexy enough for you, but the real work rarely is...
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has achieved a lot more every year since then than they did on the Apollo missions. Sorry if it wasn't sexy enough for you, but the real work rarely is...
Really? Wow, I must have missed all those achievements that put man further into space as opposed to crashing unmanned probes into things. Oh wait............
Re: (Score:3)
What you missed is the ability to live day in, day out, month in, month out (now 10 years) in .... space. You know, that hostile place where we will have to live for ....years.... when (if?) we get motivated to move out of LEO. Yes, I'd like sexier things, bigger targets, more expansive visions but you only get what you pay for.
We are much better at mundane station keeping than we were before the ISS. Hopefully we can put that knowledge to use before we forget it.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on what the humans in space achieve versus what the huge amounts of data are used for.
Contrary to popular belief, knowledge is not power. Application of knowledge is power. If we don't use our knowledge to put humans, and likely other life forms representative of Earth, to live permanently off-planet, then it's really no different than all of the various sea-faring
Re: (Score:2)
But what we really want to see is... (Score:2, Insightful)
the Apollo 18 landing site!
Re: (Score:2)
the Apollo 18 landing site!
and 19 and 20 [wikipedia.org] as well.
These missions were cancelled partly because hardly anybody was watching on TV any more (hence budget cuts because there were no votes to be had by supporting the program). I was one of those who watched every mission that went to or around the Moon, even getting up at weird hours to watch live footage from Apollo 8 and 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless he was one of the Nielsen Families, his service was in vain.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the same dumb-asses who canceled the Moon landings due to Nielsen ratings were working with the fucktards who canceled Star Trek due to (horribly flawed, completely and totally inaccurate and meaningless) Nielsen ratings.
It's hard to argue the credibility of a ratings system that shit-cans a TV show which later goes on to spawn more spin-offs than a sane person can keep track of.
You haven't fooled me NASA! (Score:2)
Some ugg boots, a remote sandy beach, and photoshop and I could do the same thing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or we need to ignore and marginalize dumb-fucks who get all of their information from other dumb-fucks.
Re:You haven't fooled me NASA! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy was wagging the dog decades before they had a clever phrase for it. Given that NASA basically had a blank check for this mission, it would have been simpler long term to actually go to the moon... but what if a few months in they discovered that wasn't possible?
Re: (Score:2)
Try harder NASA, this is crucial, we need to dismiss those confusions, more.. we need to annihilate any last shadow of a disbelief about the landing
Why? Just ignore those bozos and move on (or punch them in the face, Aldrin-style.)
otherwise it only makes things worse.
What 'things?' There's no requirement for NASA to spend tax dollars to placating morons.
Re:You haven't fooled me NASA! (Score:4, Insightful)
What 'things?' There's no requirement for NASA to spend tax dollars to placating morons.
Well, they do have to keep Congress happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Some ugg boots, a remote sandy beach, and photoshop and I could do the same thing!
Add a Sports Illustrated model or two and you have the makings of a great reality TV show.
They still won't belive it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I'm picturing how fast an ordinary person with a brain would sort out that the monitor wasn't tracking his head movements.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'never went to the moon' crowd will only believe it when the can see it with their own eyes. Which is fine by me. Take them there and let them look. Jjust remember no helmets now, the visors could be ultra high def curved monitors.
Going back there to verify what was done is the whole point of science, so the unintentional irony is quite funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Freaking Flash (again!) (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell do they need to use Flash to display images? What moron thought a simple picture file would be enhanced by embedding it within another piece of software?
Rule #2 of IT that should never be broken: Never let a web designer design your web page.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How, exactly, can we get that cool comparison-slider, without using something like Flash or HTML5?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod parent down to 0 for the reasons stated by my siblings... an idiot does not deserve a 5.
The slide comparison is a useful tool and I'm happy to have it.
How sad is this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How sad is this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes you feel any better, the only moon landing deniers I know are 50+ years old.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't maintain progress, the achievements of the past fade
Re: (Score:2)
And why do they need proof? Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment.
The Moon Hoaxers were publishing books almost as soon as Apollo 17 splashed down.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment.
Largely because there's no need to. There is little if anything the moon of any economic value, and certainly nothing worth the cost of getting there. There's no more cold war pissing contest adversaries, so that motivation is gone.
We got what we needed from the original mission: enough scientific data to verify the leading theory about how the moon was formed. If we ever need to get more moon rocks, advances in robotics and automation now make it possible to achieve everything Apollo did and more with unma
Re: (Score:2)
Largely because there's no need to.
If you can't verify and follow up your achievements, and allow others to follow as good science demands, then you've achieved zilch. I've never really fathomed why we should treat the moon landings any different from many early explorers who claimed that they'd climbed mountains and reached summits with photos to prove it.......until people went where they supposedly went and found out that the photos weren't taken where they said they were. It was on TV though, and nothing that comes down the tube is ever
Re: (Score:2)
I see you stopped reading my post at the first sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
>About as sad as the fact that a sizable chunk of the population needs proof
Sizable chunk? Citation please.
Moon denial is a very minority position, like 9/11 truther (most of whom I've only seen on slashdot)
Re: (Score:2)
Moon landing denial, 9/11 truthers, birthers, and AGW people are all kind of a scary vocal minority trying to say that government and business is out to get us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that since then, too many conspiracies have popped up. There've been too many government cover ups, too many covert operations, too many things that the government does that goes against the will of the people.
People no longer believe in what the government says. People can no longer trust the government to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Why do you think radical movements like the tea party have gained popularity recently? Why do you think that every presidential electio
Re: (Score:2)
The first conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings appeared right after the moon landings ended. The movie Capricorn One, which depicts Sam "Jack McCoy" Waterston as one of three astronauts going to Mars who are Shanghaied into a faked landing. Of course, NASA can't keep a secret so they try to have the astronauts killed. You see how hard it is to keep a secret when even fake NASA can't do it? =)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and we know about them because sooner or later (usually sooner) they all came to light - someone leaked information, spilt the beans to the press, or just plain got caught. And when those conspiracies to get unravelled, they are usually laughable in their breathtaking arrogance and incompetence. To me, this proves that the moon conspiracy theori
Re: (Score:2)
If the US economy hadn't been pillaged by 1%ers and bled dry by the specter of some religious nuts who live in caves, they'd be in a space-faring dickwaving competition with China right now. Sad to think of what could have been...
Re: (Score:2)
Whats sad is attitudes like yours. The moon landing was a 150 billion dollar expense that didn't do much other than to show the Soviets that we could burn money faster.
For a TINY, TINY fraction of that money we are funding COTS which is funding all these private companies who will be tomorrow's leaders.
That's ignoring all the space science that's going on and the incredible missions NASA casually puts out. Hell, look at the NASA launch calendar from this year and last. Pretty amazing stuff that won't be on
Re: (Score:3)
If only GW would have spend a fraction of what became the Iraq war on an other moon or even Mars mission the US would have been admired by youth the world over, including the Muslim world.
Re: (Score:2)
Step back into the limelight. The world needs you.
Re: (Score:2)
We're broke and shipped away much of our wealth!
I can only hope that Americans become more optimistic and want to take up big things once again.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfair to compare Apollo and Voyager. They're two completely different types of missions.
The tech gained from Apollo went a long way to pushing main stream computing through development of IC's, fuel cells, and flight computers.
It would be hard to discern the tech from the shuttle program since much of the data we have now might not have been possible under other circumstances. Take Hubble for instance. Sure, it could have been done right the first time, but it wasn't. It's hard to look at Hubble w
Just admire the pictures ... (Score:2)
Let's just admire the new photos of humanities first forays to the Moon, and forget about the deniers. There is no point in the latter, because they will never be convinced. The thing that really matters is presenting ever better photos (i.e. evidence) as our technology improves so that future generations won't be tarnished by the cynicism and denial of conspiracy theorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think about how sad it is that stupid people with little minds have boxed themselves in to a world where we never went to the Moon.
It's almost worse than believing in a sky fairy that prevents you from understanding science. It's like believing in a . . . . bullshit fairy that prevents you from understanding reality.
I mean, there are people going to their grave thinking one of the most spectacular achievments of all history was fake. It's very sad. What a boring little world they want to inhabit.
Not enough evidence (Score:2)
If FOX NEWS decided to take up this issue it wouldn't matter how much evidence you have or how many scientists agree.
FOX NEWS helped give credence to the conspiracy in the late 90s, almost like an experiment in how much they could do. I bet a sizable number of these people come from back in those days; just imagine how much harm they could cause if they continued putting such idiocy on their "news" channel... This was my thinking when I was introduced to the fake moon landings on Fox in the late 90s. We've
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just admire the new photos of humanities first forays to the Moo
That's not a Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that really matters is presenting ever better photos (i.e. evidence) as our technology improves so that future generations won't be tarnished by the cynicism and denial of conspiracy theorists.
Ahhhhh, so that's why we've never seen anything first-hand of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. We didn't have the technology to photograph the moon well enough.
*Whew* (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
or the fact that Shepard forgot to rake his footprints in the sand trap.
Letter of Marque and Reprisal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone's missing the reference, see this quick video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4 [youtube.com]
Lunar surface scarring (Score:2)
wow... I'd seen the older, older, pictures but they were so horribly blurry that somebody might as well have sneezed on the image. But seeing these, I'm impressed that the tracks are still quite so visible. In fact, I can't help but think that astronauts pretty much scarred the otherwise pristine (as impacted soil goes) surface. :)
Still better than a giant Pepsi logo, I suppose
Hopefully they'll get even higher resolution images at some point - I want to know where those golf balls landed.
Where is the RTG? (Score:2)
Where is the RTG [wikipedia.org]? I'm sure the future lunar colonists will want to be able to locate the RTG. If just to secure it. (FYI, this was part of the ALSEP [wikipedia.org] experiment package)
-molo
provides engineering data for future rovers (Score:2)
How poignant and sad... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that we can see so clearly where we've been, but can't go there again.
Of all the things ever predicted by science-fiction writers, did any of them predict that after we'd gotten to the moon, we'd let grass grow on the Saturn launching pads?
"History records that the first successful voyage to the Moon was made in 2316 by Grzchopeng M'bennypacker. Some enthusiasts insist that unidentifiable metal fragments in the Taurus-Littrow valley are human artifacts, and are evidence that the United States reached the moon centuries earlier, but professional historians dismiss these as unproven speculation, and do not accept Frafnar Otsumix's alleged "decoding" of binary files alleged to be in what Otsumix calls "jpg" format. In any case, even if a handful of crude United States spacecraft somehow--by design or accident--managed reach the moon in the twentieth century, it is of no importance as nothing further came of it."
Where did Apollo 18 land? (Score:2)
So where did this "Apollo 18" land?
We are just getting a historical documentry about Apollo 18 in the theatres, and they show us new pics of some older Apollo flights, but come on, let's see some Apollo 18 pics!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to have to shatter your reality, but Apollo 18 was not documentary... That they are calling it one is nothing more than a means that the creators are using to hype their movie.
It is about as factual as Star Wars.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Hollywood has taken some license with the story, but I don't think it's fair to call it pure fiction. The actual Apollo 18 moon landing is just as real as any of the other moon missions, they were all filmed on the same soundstage in Studio City...
Hold on, what's Buzz Aldrin doing here? Buzz, why? ... NOT IN THE FACE ... Oh the humanity...
Re: (Score:2)
On the way to work this morning I heard on the radio someone say that he really liked Apollo 18 as a horror film, but the only thing wrong with it is that wayyyy too many people are going to believe the footage is authentic.
Japanese Orbiter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Kaguya [kaguya.jaxa.jp] did its thing, then they crashed it to avoid creating more space junk. It took some seriously cool pictures and movies.
...laura
Really? (Score:3)
There is only one answer of course...
GODZILLA!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's fake. You think any reasonable person would park so far away and schlep all the way back to the ship in those damn suits?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're joking, but for those that don't remember, the rover was parked a fair distance away so that its TV camera could film the LM lifting off from the surface.
Re:It's a fake!!! (Score:5, Funny)
If you magnify the image, you can see Stanley Kubrick sitting in a director's chair in a crater.
Oh wait. (rubbing my LCD screen) Dead pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
Dead pixels or dead director?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no air on the moon, of course he's dead (no woosh required).
Seriously, this will do *nothing* for the nutters that honestly don't think we've been to the moon.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad there's no whoosh required, because without air there wouldn't be any.
Re:It's a fake!!! (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot to right click and select "Zoom-In" and then choose "Enhance".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a soundstage on Mars
Re: (Score:2)
Some will probably state that NASA sent folks up there to make those tracks so the "proof" could be faked, only they're too stupid to realize the faulty logic and admission that it is possible to get to the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, for a conspiracy theorist, evidence against a conspiracy is evidence for a conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
does it have to be "or"? Could very well be "and".
proof of a conspiracy! (Score:2)
jeeze, what a waste of effort on a crap horror movie. I feel dumb for even knowing that much about it...
Re: (Score:2)
Way back in the late 90's, I postulated loudly right here on /. that there is really no difference between a troll and an idiot. One says stupid things to derail the conversation, advance an agenda, or get attention. The other one is just stupid. But you can never tell because they are hiding behind an electronic keyboard.
So the answer is, yes. He is. A trolling fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos were obviously faked. The LRO doesn't exist. It couldn't because there's no way it could orbit the moon, which is obviously a flat disk facing a flat earth.
You're not thinking like a hoaxer. If they can ignore evidence in the past, they can even more easily ignore any evidence in the present and future, especially as technology makes evidence more and more easy to fake.
In a way I think the hoaxers are doing us a favor, reminding us that we shouldn't tak