New NASA Photos Show Footprints on the Moon

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:
"Photoshopped"
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

@Jupiter1987
Psst...Froginspace=BubbaGump

"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

@imabeast
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.

@desideratum
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!!
BOOYAKASHA!!

@desideratum

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.

@Midoman

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.

@desideratum

Japan released several photos of the Apollo 15 landing site.
http://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

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.

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/jpn/observation_mission/hdtv/hdtv_026.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X

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.

@blueconcept

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:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm

Then you can move on to here:
http://www.astronomics.com/main/definition.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_name/tbr1w4ldsmjt48lf4hh/Page/1

Then maybe you can do some math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXEC-v5lQ64

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 :-)

@Aldron

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)

@Aldrons Last Hope

What energy crisis? Americans have energy. Europeans have energy. Russians, Chinese, and Japanese have energy. The major players on the global scheme have the energy to run there modern societies. We just know that our resources are finite, so we advocate that mining space resources will allow us to endure in the way we are. We also resort to the exploitation of other countries' resources that are a little worse off (economically) than we are.

The energy crisis may be real for the entire world, but for the front runners of the global economy, we can exploit the resources of others before we decide to start depleting our own resources. We are not in a crisis. People still drive big cars, run appliances 24/7, cruise on yaughts, fly planes , and spacecraft.

Your insight into the amount of energy blasting through this atmosphere by man made objects is narrow if you're limited to microwaves. Ever here of a nuclear power plant?

Besides microwaves come in greater intensities than a home appliance. Plus you miss the point of the statement. What we are bombarded with we are use to through natural biological design over time. A primitive human with a physiology hundreds of thousands of years behind ours might not be able to easily survive in this world with the multitude of radiation that bombards a normal industrial city. It's my personal theory into the small measure of evolution we have gone through with our progressive development, in order to survive that which we are not naturally designed for. When we begin long range space travel, we may yet become immune to a small measure of solar and cosmic bombardment (small not all; read and comprehend).

We could mine the moon for Helium 3, but the majority of the world doesn't want to because they either don't know about it (because they don't read) or because they just don't think it's important enough to put tremendous effort into. Most people are advocates of us fixing our problems here first before we try to take them out there (never gonna happen by the way).

Regardless of the actual and the possibilities of the reason as to why we haven't been back to the moon since 1972, the fact remains that humans set foot on the moon. If you want to see mission footage of anything NASA does, go on YouTube for the historic stuff, and go on www.nasa.gov and click on the NASA TV link. They always showed full mission coverage of Shuttle missions and they show full mission coverage of proceedings on the Station (and not round the clock; those people need privacy too for want of some freak that wants to watch them wipe their asses and bathe in space).

You think people who disagree with you are sheep. You are no different for believing in an unoriginal conspiracy. This think type came from somewhere and you're just following along with someone that has less credibility than George Lucas and Industrial Light & Magic let alone NASA.

@ALH the charged particles you talk about are called aplha particles, which can be stopped (and shown to be stopped) by very very little amounts of protection, even proton based radiation can be blocked by moderate protection, all other x-ray and gamma(which are minimal in inter solar space) are the ones that need excessive protection,

and yes to all i know i am feeding the troll, but i find it fun sorry. So yes the can survive the radiation. and no they don't need "force fields" to survive space.

@Aldron's Last Hope

Let's just put it this way. We went to the moon the first time in a beat up Pinto of a spacecraft.

The next time we go, it'll be in a Maybac that can talk to us. It did happen though.

@ALH

I won't believe the moon landing was faked until you can provide evidence of the soundstage it was made in.

I think the conspiracy theorists have had 40 + years to create evidence disproving the moon landing so we'll never be able to prove their wasn't a soundstage.

@ anyone

Is it economically viable to go to the moon to mine H3 considering how much money it would take to get stuff off the ground and into space, to the moon, back from the moon and back into the atmosphere? Plus we're still getting that whole fusion thing figured out, so would it be worth it to go get something to solve the energy crisis, when we can't us it yet?

@ conspiracy NUT JOBS

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ls15.jpg

here you can see a picture from appollo compared with the JAPANESE 3d terrain mapping.

HOLY smokes, they're the SAME ... one question, if the landings were faked, how are they the same? did 1960's USA have the same 3D mapping tech as 2011 Japan ?? If they magically did, then why not heve the tech to land a man n the moon, which would be on the same level.

.. you f'n shmucks... get it through your head, the landscapes are way to accurate to be faked, the rocks around the world in science centers, the mirrors to measure the distance left on the moon during apollo and the foot prints, tire tracks, and landers are all up there.
cheers, eh

the Japanese did take pictures of the moon landing sites. proof in the link below. there is your evidence from a third party. any other qualms?
www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

@pheonix1012 LOL, nice comparison. I wish it were true. Remember it isn't that expensive to send missions to the moon....most fuel is used to get into orbit. Missions should be leaving from the ISS monthly.

@pv8t so you are saying the Japanese have the ability to put a man on the moon? Use some logic. "Conspiracy nutjob"..someones been watching FOX...you brainwashed sheep.

@Ianredneck, it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. Go troll someone else

@Flipnash someone already posted that line, looks like a big blurr...you'd think the Japanese would have better optics ;-)

@Aldron's Last Hope

Seriously? Your comments were not even simply "not true", they fell directly into the lolWUT? category. Why the hell would NASA be developing a heavy lift rocket (which, admittedly, they have not yet unveiled the design for) and a multi purpose crew vehicle (which they already have in development, and have built several full sized mock ups and done several tests). if space travel was "too dangerous, then why would these things be in development with the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of travel to a near Earth asteroid and beyond? What reason would NASA have to hide the dangers of space? Radiation is an issue, sure, and will have to be taken into account, but the moon is still at least partially protected from radiation by Earth's magnetic field. Which is why we went there and didn't have to take very much precaution involving radiation. Also NASA does give us live feeds for missions now days. There was no internet in the 60s. :) Also, I think someone's been watching FOX, you brainwashed sheep.

Or maybe I just got trolled. And if so, congratulations, for you succeeded, and I may have learned something about trolling.

@SAANVI

WUT I somehow like the way you think, even though I think you are a Tin foil hatter nut job.

Why not even the tiniest speck of moon dust on the foot pad, even after the descent engine must have been blowing significant amounts of dust as the LEM landed?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/footpads_lg.gif

@DDD

The lander was putting out quite a bit of thrust, and weighed significantly more than the astronauts. The astronauts weighed significantly less than they do on earth. Also, I do recall seeing a bit of dust fly up when they were running, as well as when they were driving the rover. A "small step for man" probably did not provide enough force to kick up much dust, though it probably did kick up a little, but the film was too poor quality to see it.

@ALH so the reason i am wrong is because you say so? Yep no you have completely changed my mind, the moon landing was faked. How about you do some research on the different type of radiation and how they can be shielded. Seems like you might be misinformed. H3 at this point is a pipe dream, we still don't have fusion to make it a viable source of energy, yes once we do H3 will be perfect, but thats not for atleast another 2 yrs. How about the cost of going up, setting up shop, returning the refined H3 recovering it after landing. Yeah we could be making monthly trips to the moon from the space station(with out the inches of lead you are probably proposing)but the amount of fuel need to do that.....you would have to be launching refueling trips hourly......BTWs i read both CNN and foxnews, get the tory between the too ;)

@DDD dust does not hang in the "air" on the moon precisely because there is none, when you kick dust up on earth it hangs in the air because it is supported by the air, it will eventually fall but it takes longer, on the moon not so much, it falls much quicker on the moon.

Ugh, conspiracy nutjobs like ALH make me want to pull out my M1 Garand and cleanse them from the gene pool. They serve no benefit to society. Spreading paranoia and blatantly false information such as ALH does is a crime against humanity.