In new photographs taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, we can see the landing sites of some lunar craft, as well as the tracks left by those who flew in them.
What creatures left these prints? A semi-dormant species known as the Earth astronaut; to be precise, Alan Bean and Pete Conrad, the crew of the Apollo 12 mission in 1969.
The windless moon preserves tracks in dust pretty nicely. In addition to this Apollo 12 shot (click to see it with labels), NASA has released images of the Apollo 14 and Apollo 17 landing sites.
well i really hope this puts those conspiracy theorist to rest, or are you going to say that this image was altered or the internet is controlled by the government,who knows it could robotic aliens plotting their invasion
The voice of a conspiracy theorist:
Just to be clear i believe in the moon landing;)
@SlushiTee3092 & @DaBK - Image was not altered, not photoshopped, its 100% real... but its taken in a studio, on a huge set where they staged the lunar landing video shots...
That's what a conspiracy theorist would say. Which I'm not. But I wonder, if lunar landings were so trivial in 60's that people didn't even watch them after third time, why do NASA and government talk about them as if starting from scratch?! I mean we do have know-how and we sure have better technology than 40 years ago.
I was part of the skeptics, It was just too convenient in my head. Maybe its true though...maybe we went. I hope we did. I'm just wondering why we never came back.
At first comes exploration, second comes exploitation. Why didnt we push to exploit this moon..
Helium3. Bubba's favorite word.
"NASA is looking constantly to the heavens to justify their own existence."
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before.".. Paul Dirac
I know. His bad grammar, poor spelling, and OCD gives him away every time.
Why is it the only entity on the face of the planet that can provide evidence of the moon landing is NASA? For over 40 yrs the only pictures available was the original pictures NASA provided.
It is one thing for NASA to provide their own evidence. It is totally different when a third party verifies a claim. To date, no foriegn govt or private party has been able to photograph the moon's surface. Why is that? NASA can take realatively clear pictures of the galaxies light years away but still cant take clear pictures of their purpoted landing sites. No one can be 100% sure these photos are real. This is not a conspiracy theory, rather a reasonable expectation that a third party can produce the same results as NASA. It's no different than any other science experiement.
A few years ago, Japan sent up to satellites to orbit the moon and take high def photos of the moons surface. They were not able to produce any images of the moon landings. When questioned, NASA asserted Japan did not have the correct optics on their satellites. Now, given the fact that Japan has produced high quality cameras for over 6 decades, do you really believe Japan would spend hundreds of millions of dollars and use the wrong lenses?
All I am saying it is reasonable to expect third party verification...given the fact we know for a fact that the U.S. government has historically lied.
I won't believe the conspiracy theorists until they provide me with evidence of the studio used to make the fake moon landing.
Maybe the Japanese just didn't think it was worth piles and piles of money to take prove a conspiracy theory false and installed cameras that, while high definition, did not install optics intended to spot the lunar lander because it wasn't necessary for their purposes. I still can't see the pores on the faces of the football players on ESPN HD so I currently believe they are robots because I have no proof that the sweat comes from pores and not saltwater reservoirs installed beneath their synthetic flesh. 60 years of experience doesn't mean that they didn't choose not to put cameras on their orbiter which could spot the lander.
Also you're trying to spot a 5m moon lander as opposed to a galaxy (millions of burning balls of gas thousands of light years across on a big black background). When looking at the galaxies, we are not looking at the individual stars in them with enough resolution to see sunspots or anything. There is a difference between being able to see a big ole galaxy on a contrasting background verses discerning a itty bitty lunar lander on the MOON.
P.S. Conspiracy theorists lie too and the government also tells the truth as well as lies. I could find a way to call everything that's ever happened into question because a third party can't verify it.
P.P.S. Peyton Manning is funnybot
OH SNAP FrogsinSpace!!
The reason why NASA has the ability to take these photographs and others don't is because NASA is an organization backed by several years of government funding and development. Other national aerospace organizations of similar function probably have the same capability.
Why don't they take photographs?
Maybe they don't care to. They get that we made it to the moon. Why would they want to waist billions of their governments dollars to help feed American ego? Besides they have their own scientific endeavors they're trying to pursue rather than to satisfy some nay-sayers' curiousities.
Private industry doesn't have this capability for the shear fact that it's brand spanking new, and they do not have the resources, funds, or foundation of years of development to produce the same capability as NASA (which is why it takes a little push from NASA to get these businesses working in the first place; a little social reform for breaking new capitalistic ground).
If you're patient, in due time, more than just NASA will be able to prove all the nay-sayers wrong so they can sip their sippy cups up and be put to bed (for good).
BTW, yes the government lies. The government is a mass composed of multiple bodies with multiple functions of mutual or conflicting interest; a body of people usually and notably ungoverned. Different bodies of this body we call government has its own things going on within the whole, and each body tends to hold its own secrets and/or lie about specific things. Not everything is a lie though. If government perpetually deceived the people for several years American society would have already effectively degredated itself to an anarchists society, because in honesty or deception, the truth always comes out if it effects someone.
To piggyback on my explanation of government, no one in that time period was able to glean the amount of scientific knowledge (or relevance) from our study of the moon at the end of the century and after the turn of the century.
The Space Race was a just an extention of the Arms Race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. meant to flex the muscle of opposing national interest through a demonstration of the sophistication in aerospace, electrical, and computer engineering required to accomplish these feats.
The Soyuz and Apollo are symbolic extentions of the intercontinental nuclear strike capability each nation possesses. We simply went to the moon just to say that we could.
We were not looking to establish long term residency. Maybe, but Apollo got canceled after the 17th mission, and seven flights to and from the moon are not quite foundational when it comes to a serious long term presence. Any future motivation to return to the rock will be purely motivated by resource management/preservation and sustainability of the human race due to a measure of population control. It just may happen when matters reach a catastrophic scenario.
Japan released several photos of the Apollo 15 landing site.
Unless universetoday is in on it as well.
Not to mention, high resolution photos taken from such a height don't mean you get perfect pixel clarity. Your high resolution digital camera would have trouble taking a photo of something a mile away, let alone orbiting 20~100 miles above it. Granted your digital camera isn't the same caliber as what they're using, but my statement is none the less valid.
Here's some straight from the japanese website.
Guess NASA has hacked japan!
sparkie2640 has the right idea, see wms.selene.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/jpn/observation_mission/tc/tc_005.html. I used Google translator to find this one.
Still nowhere as good as the NASA shots. WOW, the sinuous rille looks really clear on selene.jaxa view. I cannot believe anything except a giant worm or electric arc could possibly have cut that furrow. How can anyone consider 'lava tubes' a possibility?
'Capricorn One' was born from the conspiracy theory. It's a great film but the only difference to reality is that the back-up studio that NASA built(?) must have been trashed the moment the guys survived their first landing. I think NASA was so paranoid about failing in front of the world (and Russia especially) that they blew millions on a simulation set, just in case the Lunar Lander crashed.
Moon landing was fake. That pic proves nothing. If they went to the moon in the 60's why don't they go back huh?? Because they can't. They cannot travel through space, the radiation is too deadly...wake up sheep. NASA = Never A Straight Answer
.how many countries in the 60's had the tech to call foul? Only Russia, and they lied as well when they said they sent humans to orbit the moon. Everything on the moon, the rovers, the flag, the mirror, could have been placed there by probes. (although no earth based telescopes have observed them)
I repeat, the Apollo missions were the only missions to leave LEO (low earth orbit). Only mission. If they did that in the 60’s why don’t they send someone now? They can’t, the radiation in space is DEADLY. Not just the Van Allen belts, the Van Allen belts protects us from the sun. As soon as you leave the belts (which are deadly in themselves), you would be faced with the deadly solar wind.
Hate to break your fantasy, but no the U.S did not and cannot go to the moon.
But, in the future space, travel to the moon and mars will be possible. With the invention of a working force field (electromagnetic), also bladders filled with water or slush in the structure of spacecraft to reduce the impact of the solar wind.
This is the future of space craft
Now compare that with the pod that was not sent to the moon. That’s why we will be able to travel to the moon in the future and why they couldn’t do it in the 60’s
I went to the site suggested by 'sparkey2640' (above). I looked at the nice pictures, Pretty blurry, so what. I blew the first picture up to 172% and low and behold in the upper right side of the photo in the black sky is a canadian flag. Photoshopped?? Try it its there..
i don't see anything it that picture. i need a hi res pic. even then i wont believe it, since we have the technology to make fake pics and videos that rival real life. and i wonder why we haven't gone back to the moon......
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.
- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri
Look at what they sent to the moon back thin - practically tin-foil and tinker toys, with a great risk of life and few redundancies. If something went wrong (Apollo13), it was difficult to correct.
Today, with triple redundancies and a 0% attitude towards risk, obviously the costs are remarkably higher. Sure, we could send somebody to the moon, or even to Mars, within a year, so long as we were willing to fail a few times on the way (with subsequent loss of life).
so to all conspirators (ALH most especially, since we had this convo before) the reason we haven't gone back is because there has been no incentive, the first space race was to determine technological/economic superiority, many studies have been done on America's dominance in the world resulting from being first on the moon. Now there is no incentive, no competition. As to the radiation ALH yet again, the radiation outside the Belts can be blocked significantly with aluminum, and there was more insulation on those crafts at the time, the belt can be penetrated at certain times and place with minimal exposure. All this has been said before, (and unfortunatley) this will all probably be said again.
I think the ct's on this thread are just trolls out to bait us into raging and typing endless evidence to support Apollo missions.
One thing to note, on one of the Apollo missions. A UFO was spotted visually by an astronaut. That event alone validates the claim that we did land on the moon.
@All Nay-sayer (here's the Nay-slayer)
We went to the moon in the pursuit of building better weapons and establishing symbolic victories against the Soviet Union to flex our capitalistic muscles in the name of economic, diplomatic, and militaristic superiority. We didn't go back because we accomplished that feat.
There's radiation in space yes. There's radiation on Earth (deadly even). We have somehow evolved to handle the bombardment of radiation that pounds us throughout our highly mechanized societies on a daily basis (Somehow the average human lifespan has increased to 70 - 90 years). The Apollo command modules were designed to handle the bombardment of solar radiation (not cosmic radiation which does not come into serious effect until you reach the stellar medium of interstellar space; past the heliopause 75 - 90 AU away). They may not have been able to predict solar winds as accurately as today, but they could still account for it.
Hi-res photos are not the best optical devices in the universe (simply because it was made by us) so you can't expect to see a Michaelangelo masterpiece from a camera that proves you wrong. Yet still the evidence is clear enough. Denial is not a river in Egypt. It's a plague to the advancement of the human race which must be eradicated (much like idiocy and mature ignorance; any advocates of genocide wanna speak up; j/k don't tase me bro).
I know it's easy to fall into the hype based on the hippies and the leftist social conformists of the 1970s following the end of the Vietnam Conflict, but just because you weren't there to witness it doesn't make it false.
The future is not going to look how you think it does. We will not move forward in the way you expect us. It may seem like the most logical next step for us would be to already have been colonizing the moon, but certain factors always effect how history eventually turns out. People thought we would all be driving flying cars right now, but that something that may never come true (for the simple fact that airplanes are flying cars, and flight is only necessary for vaster distance than metropolitan travel). The future can still be amazing. You just have to wait and see what coalesce into existence and stop trying to place your expectations on baseless predictions.
No rage here man. I just feel I have to state that we didn't go to the moon in the first place for a completely noble reason. We also didn't go back for the same.
I do however believe in the possibility that we also went up their to chase after the possibility of discovering credible evidence of sentient intelligence not from this star system.
Discovery of the truth would be good enough incentive to not venture so far away from Earth again until we developed a little more (so to speak).
What happened in Star Trek when Zephram Cockrane flew his proto-starship away from Earth? The Vulcans came.
We might not be so lucky, so if we did glean the existence of sentient extraterrestrial life in that timeframe, we probably learned they were far too advanced for us to chance flying out there one day and getting overtaken and attacked by superior beings. That's not a good look.
@ALH - I won't attempt to change what you believe to be true, that is an exercise in futility.
I will however point out again, pointing a telescope at the moon, or even the space telescopes at the moon, no matter how powerful they may be, will still not give you a close up view of the landing sites. You're talking about something 238,857 thousand miles from earth. (Subtract 375 if you're talking about the hubble since that's how high up it orbits.) No telescope could possibly magnify it enough to see something that small.
Believe we went, don't believe we went, makes no difference to me. But if you're going to rebuke science, at least use a little science to back up that rebuke.
I'd start here:
Then you can move on to here:
Then maybe you can do some math:
Course ... wikipedia is probably evil since it's community driven and couldn't ever possibly be right either.
You should probably also do some heavy research into how radiation works, since you clearly know very little about it.
After your done with that, look at the position (three dimensionally) of the van allen belts, and the trajectory of the Apollo missions.
I make no claims to the validity of the lunar landings. I don't have to. Your mind is already closed to changing your beliefs ... so ... maybe you could learn a little science and make a better argument on your own behalf.
I don't want to hear the excuse, we never went back because there's nothing to prove. The moon has H3 (shout out to BG), if that is mined it would solve the energy crisis. The moon would be the perfect stop over, refueling station for longer missions. The moon is the jumping board for the rest of the solar system, including the formation of earth. The moon MAY have structures on it.
Really you are comparing radiation from microwaves to the sun?? If our magnetic field that protects the earth failed for 1hr all life on the surface would be dead. Have you ever wondered what happened to mars...why it is dead?.
For us to travel space we have to re-create the field that keeps us safe. Thankfully science is getting around to that.
Now listen, they faked the moon mission, and have had 40+ years to cover their tracks.
NASA is publicly funded so why don't they give the public live feeds to these missions, they edit and air brush and publish what they want us to see. Nevermind national security right? WAKE UP SHEEP....and to those awake wake others
Sigh, Aldrons Last Hope ALMOST makes me miss Bubba. Please remain a member of the PopSci community long enough for someone to travel back to the moon and verify the FACT that we have previously landed there. It'll be fun to watch you crazily rant about how the verification is all like, just a big brother cover up man, as you simultaneously try to not choke on all of the words that you will no doubt be eating.
@jcbullen I won't be choking on my words because they are true. Let's suppose they went to the moon. You do realize that it's been almost 40 years since they've been back. The moon is a stone's throw compared to mars, or Jupiter. You will be waiting another 40 years for them to go.....
.....Unless they develop the tech I posted about earlier. But again the electromagnetic shielding did not exist in the 60's....they did not go to the moon.
The moon landing was filmed in a studio and looks fake :-)
People have already posted quite reasonable arguments for why it's been so long and why we haven't gone back yet. I can wait 40 years to be right, I'm stubborn like that (my girlfriend knows that the best, I'll wait forever). All of the reasons people may think that it was filmed in a studio were put to the test by the Mythbusters, and they make very convincing arguments as to why all of these "reasons" are totally inaccurate. Do you watch that show ever? If not, you should watch that episode, if only for the sake of curiosity.
didn't this article mention "trash" the astronauts left? I'm pretty sure it did yesterday. They quickly rewrote the article so as to keep people from complaining about it..
@SneakyController They mythbusters are pathetic. They are two yahoo’s. I saw that episode and they were anything but bias. They were wearing NASA gear and kept saying how honored they were to be in the presence of NASA officials. So sorry they are fakes and punks, that’s why they won’t touch Sept.11th, because they will pwned. And more importantly they never spoke about the solar wind. They never showed any of the fake pics or explained why astronauts were super imposed over the crosshairs. A feat that would be impossible if the pictures were not doctored.
Never a Straight Answer did not go to the moon. They cannot survive the radiation of space. Yes I know how charged particles work. A thin lining of aluminum will not repel all charged particles because the particles are negatively and positively charged. (electrons and protons)