Moon Landing

[halman]

From what I understand, there are only two things that humans have created that are visible with the naked eye from the orbit of the International Space Station. The Great Wall of China, and the Berkley Pit. Considering that pit mining is becoming the standard method of extracting ore of almost any kind from the Earth, I imagine that the Berkley Pit will soon be joined by other environmental disasters created in the name of efficiency.

For some reason, I find it amusing that people who believe in stuff like numerology, UFO's, and Michael Jackson refuse to believe in a manned landing on the Moon. My personal theory is that admitting that humans have landed on the Moon means admitting that the Earth is not endless, infinite, and therefore might actually be harmed by the activities of humans. As long as no other place exists, Earth is the only place, and therefore is without limit. We don't have to worry because an infinite Earth can support an infinite number of people, irregardless of their standard of living.

Until we establish a permanent presence on the Moon, some people will refuse to believe that we have ever been there. (Heck, some people will refuse to believe that we have been to the Moon even after we have established a permanent presence there.)

 

[CalliArcale]

From what I understand, there are only two things that humans have created that are visible with the naked eye from the orbit of the International Space Station. The Great Wall of China, and the Berkley Pit. Considering that pit mining is becoming the standard method of extracting ore of almost any kind from the Earth, I imagine that the Berkley Pit will soon be joined by other environmental disasters created in the name of efficiency.

This is a popular trope, but it is not true. First of all, the Great Wall of China is not visible from the ISS without the aid of a binoculars. It's extremely long, but also quite skinny.

Secondly, there are actually quite a lot of human-created things visible from orbit. Among the more notable are the pyramids at Giza in Egypt. They're not easy to spot; they're still pretty small from orbit. But I understand they are visible. And then there are pit mines. Berkley Pit is quite large. But there are a lot of pit mines and strip mines in the world which are visible from low Earth orbit. And if you want to talk ecological damage, don't limit yourself to holes in the Earth. The dramatic shrinkage of the Aral Sea is plainly visible from orbit and quite shocking (though of course you wouldn't notice anything amiss if you didn't know what it was supposed to look like).

Thirdly, if you want to see human-created stuff from orbit, don't look at the dayside. It's much easier on the nightside. The vast network of city lights is reportedly quite lovely from space! Though it is a bit depressing if you're an amateur astronomer.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I also understand the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is easily visible due to the different land use practices...i guess I should google earth it to see if that's true.

 

[scottb50]

Currently we have six abandoned relatively large bases or stations on the moon.

To help calculate potential hazard posed by meteor impact on a moon station, we should revisit all of the stations and study the artefacts and the neighborhood to determine the size and frequency of meteor impacts in the area of the old bases.

Why can't we do this?

I don't see why that would not be possible. It seems the landing sites are looked at as shrines to be kept in pristine condition, when, as you say, they could be used to study the environment. There is nothing magical about the equipment or even the foot prints, to have a lunar rover at the Smithsonian would be more then appropriate.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Btw Aphh- The lunar lander is wrapped almost entirely in gold foil. It will last for millions of years.

 

[aphh]

I don't see why that would not be possible. It seems the landing sites are looked at as shrines to be kept in pristine condition, when, as you say, they could be used to study the environment. There is nothing magical about the equipment or even the foot prints, to have a lunar rover at the Smithsonian would be more then appropriate.

Landing sites won't stay in pristine conditions for very long for reasons mentioned in this thread. We'd need to build a cover over a landing site to protect it from UV rays and solar wind plus micrometeorites.

This is the most remarkable historic site modern humans have. It's when humans became technologically adults and could leave their home and embark on a journey outside front porch.

 

[crazyeddie]

I also understand the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is easily visible due to the different land use practices...i guess I should google earth it to see if that's true.

Astronauts report that airports, airplane contrails and the wake of ships at sea are easily visible from orbit, as are the oil rig gas burn-off flares in the Persian Gulf. Agriculture is perhaps the best example of a human presence viewable from orbit, as this picture of deforestation in the Amazon clearly illustrates:

or this view of California's Salton Sea and the Imperial Valley:

It's also possible that this weird, pink knitted rabbit is also visible from space: :lol:

 

[JonClarke]

Not to mention the fact that teleescope time is expensive and anyone who wanted to use the Keck for such a trivial and pointless purpose would be laughed out of court.

I wouldn't say it was completely trivial and pointless.

Engineers would love to get their hands on a high resolution data from the landers to see how our technology fared 40 years on the surface of the moon exposed to both space and moon environment.

That's why I am a little dismayed to learn that even LRO might be only capable of showing the hardware as mere dots in the images.

Certainly such information would be useful, not it is impractical to obtain with an orbiter. You would need better than cm resolution. I think, preferably returned samples, so study pitting from debris, micrometeorites, chemical changes from space weathering, out gassing etc.

The larger Apollo hardware items would be between four and 20 pixels across, so more than dots in LRO imagery. But since the aim of LRO is not to get images of Apollo hardware but to study the Moon this is not an issue.

The main value of imaging the Apollo sites (other than the gee wizz! factor) would be to calibrate the system resolution when in operation.

 

[highdobb]

Well I hope the recent photos from the LRO have put the hoaxers voice to rest a little bit more.... I always wondered HOW people could believe they were faked when we donated tons of rocks to over 100 nations including Russia, whom mind you collected their own samples of moon rock from an unmanned probe. Do people really think Russia wouldn't compare samples? Hoax believers hide behind claims of how gullible people are for believing everything they hear. Too bad for them their gullibility far exceeds any space nuts' as myself. I have no patience for closed minds. If you think we didn't land on the moon, I'm not sure there's much of a mind left to "open". Harsh, but oh so true...

 

[Eman_3]

Every space mission is extremely expensive. Because of that, each mission and associated equipment is designed to fulfill only the mission requirements. There have been many robotic mission to the moon, but not all carry optical cameras, and the chance of them actually passing over an old Apollo lander site is slim. And to top it all off, if any camera did photograph one, the required resolution would not be sufficient.
But eventually, it had to happen.

Now, the OP asked for any, any photographs of a lunar lander. If you are unwilling to accept exactly what you asked for, then ... whatever.

 

[missionunknown]

To be fair its a good point that the original poster makes. (note i believe in the moon landings) And its something that one would think would have happened by now as we have images of far distance galaxies and more importantly we have images from the surface of the martian surface and other bodies in the solar system?

Why after 37 years hasn't nasa sent a mission involving a rover to photograph the landing sites on the lunar surface?

(ps i know the answer, because its a waste of money they know they went there anyway so they don't see the point)

Perhaps an image of apollo 11 landing site for the 50th anniversary might be appropriate however if further moon missions haven't progressed due to lack of political will/ public interest?

 

[Eman_3]

Overall estimates for the entire Apollo program was approximately $145 billion in 2008 dollars. So that gives an idea of how hard and expensive it is to go there. So the whim to return just for some public relations pictures would require a lot of justification.

And even then, the ones who cannot accept the facts would still be sceptical anyways. So you can't change the minds of those who are in this mental condition.

And if you think some pictures may be nice, I suggest that if this doesn't bring some wetness to your eyes, then I have failed.

 

[SpaceTas]

The LRO has moved to its low 50 mile mapping orbit. Its new image of the Apollo 17 site actually resolves the LEM lower stage! The flag shadow shows up ! Nasa watch has both narrow and wide views or see http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/


The Clementine, and LRO images have been searched for new craters, plus video monitoring of the Moon during meteor showers give a reasonable estimate of the current impact rate. It is very low. Part of Apollo 12 mission was to retrieve parts from Surveyor lander. These artifacts were examined for damage, lots of micro meteoroid hits, and exposure to solar wind particles, but nothing noticeable to the eye. So i'd expect similar results, but just more-so for Apollo equipment.
The static may have got dust into the nooks and crannies of the equipment.

So no great damage, but the remains of Apollo hardly make a base. The 2 man habitat of the upper LEM is gone. Maybe the rover (15, 16 17 ) might restart with a new battery. There's a long defunct experiment package, a flag to salute, the lower and fuel-less LEM stage, and some some other bits and pieces.

 

[davcbow]

Ok I am new to this so excuse me if this has already been asked. Can anyone explain with any knowledge why there are no new pictures of the moons surface reflecting the moon landing and eqiupment left on the moon? The only photos we have of the landing, the surface or equipment left on the surface are 40 years old and was provided by the government. Why has no third party or foriegn government been able to photograph the flags or equipment NASA claims to have left of the moon? I find this incredible that we can take pictures of galaxies far far away but we cannot take pictures of the moons surface. A new picture of the equipment, if it is there, would be a front page photo around the world. This makes no sense. If NASA was able to recon the moons surface, 40 years ago with antiquated technology, how come no one can now with assets we have now? Japan sent two satellites to the moon to take HD pictures...but no evidence of the landing has been published. If you think I am a loon, try an internet search and you will find nothing new, only photos from 4 decades ago. Also, the actual film of the landing has somehow been lost at the National Archives. I know there are many who do not believe the it occured, I am one of them. I know there are many who believe what ever the government tells them. But would you not agree that all it takes is a simple picture taken by a third party to settle the matter once and for all? After all, if you assert a fact, like the moon landing, but have no way to prove it in 2009 with all our technology, then the joke is really on you, not those who did not believe it in the first place.

Just go to the LRO Cam site http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/

 

[bluegrassgazer]

The explanation I have heard about the "lost film" is that it was actually magnetic tape. The investigation into what happened to it determined that the tape was likely taped over. Another case of NASA funding woes resulting in recycling something old to use for something new. If you don't trust the government, then how can you believe NASA didn't do something like this?

Some people just do not have any appreciation for how large our moon is and how far away it is. That is really what it comes down to. I've had lunar hoax nutjobs ask me at work why Hubble, or even my 8" dob can't see any evidence of of the Apollo landings. I try to explain to them what others here have, but it all comes down to distance and size. At that point I may as well be arguing evolution to them. :|

 

[andrew_t1000]

Have a look at this, it might explain a bit about the "lost" tape, which by the way may have been found in the basement of a University in Perth, Western Australia!

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_ev ... casts.html

 

[scarpet1]

I find it pretty interesting that some people still believe in the lunar landing hoax. The Russians were watching with their equipment. They would have called hoax if they had proof to put the US down.

 

[katedelaney]

Some folks just like the drama and intrigue of conspiracy and hoax theories better than facts and science. Doesn't matter what topic, certainly not limited to space. I guess reality is just too boring and mundane for these folks. It's sad really.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This thread has been in Missions and Launches long enough. It existed before we began enforcing the restriction of Moon Hoax assertions to the existing thread in The Unexplained. I will merge this discussion into the Moon hoax topic there during the coming week.

MW

 

[StrandedonEarthsince1970]

I firmly believe that the U.S. landed on the moon, but let me play devil's advocate here. The USSR could have conceded the moon race even if they knew the US didn't make the landing simply so they could stop pouring resources into the Moon race.

That said, there is no way a hoax involving that many people could have stayed secret for so long.

 

[crazyeddie]

I doubt if this will satisfy the hoax proponents, but this is the most detailed photograph taken yet of Tranquillity Base:

With all the hubbub over LCROSS's confirmation of water on the Moon, it's easy to lose sight of NASA's primary mission there, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. But so far, LRO's observations have been "breathtaking," says project scientist Richard Vondrak.

Exhibit A is this view of the Apollo 11 landing site acquired on October 1st (but not released until November 9th) by the spacecraft's high-resolution stereo camera, LROC. It reveals details at the Space Age's most hallowed ground down to about 2 feet (53 cm).

Spend a little time perusing the image at right — or go moonwalking yourself by downloading a larger version or even the original image. The LROC team released a lower-resolution view of the landing site a couple of months ago, but now the spacecraft is in its final mapping orbit, a scant 30 miles (50 km) above the lunar surface.

You can easily see the squarish descent stage of the lunar module Eagle, which looks washed out because of contrast enhancement — look closer, and you'll make out its footpads too. Dark trails are the paths made by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they walked near Eagle and around the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP).

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/70099067.html

 

[3488]

Thank you very much Eddie.

I am still only catching up on developments since my health took a hell of a dive & I have only recently 'recovered'.

I will down load that image & others asscociated & will make crops & enlargements when I'm up to it.

Like yourself I am absolutely sick to death of the HBs. It is unfortunately a major symptom of the downgrading of the teaching & promotion of Science & Technology in schools, colleges, Universties, etc as students, etc find them 'too hard' & not 'trendy' enough.

Major problem throughout much of the developed world I'm afraid.

Andrew Brown.

 

[SpaceTas]

Yes ! someone posted the LRO Apollo 11 site image.

A fun exercise is to look at the lunar surface images and identify the craters seen in the LRO images.