Slashdot Mirror
Back to the Moon?
An anonymous reader writes "This BBC story discusses the prospects of probes returning to the moon. The article first mentions the ESA's SMART-1 probe, which will overfly the Apollo landing sites during 2003, and then talks with US scientists about why NASA should send probes back."
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!)
.. 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.
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
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.
I'll be happy if they send the rest of N*Sync into space. Maybe send them to the dark side of the moon and, er, mission aborted.
oops
siri
[cue Dr. Evil laugh]
Muwahahahahaha...hahahaha...hahahah!!! Muwahahahahaha...hahahaha...hahahah!!! Muwa.......haha?
[/cue Dr. Evil laugh]
I don't know why this is such a big deal!
I've very happy to see a renewed interest in space by our governments (and hopefully people). It's crazy to think that we've expanded across this planet so quickly yet when it comes to rocketing into one of the last uncolonized frontiers no-one has any interest. You'd think we almost needed another cold war to get the super powers competing against each other for a goal like that.
Though we probably should solve more of earth's own problems before seriously reaching from the stars, but that could take a long time and I've only got another 70 years or so to buy a vacation trip to mars!
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
God I hope not. Linux is great for servers and PC's but there are much better OS's (read QNX) for system critical missions.
At the expense of feeding the trolls, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, RIGHT!?!?
Where on earth (no pun intended) did you get the idea that there was only one manned lunar landing in the Apollo program?
Sheesh -- those who don't follow history...are doomed to say dumb things on Slashdot.
This may be feeding the trolls, but ...
...
There were several moon missions. Apollo 11 was the first one to land; all the subseequent ones (the program ended with Apollo 17) also landed on the moon, except for Apollo 13, which suffered a meteor collision enroute and had to return to Earth. Check out this site:
Project Apollo Program Overview
Like I said, I may be feeding the trolls, but it sounds to me like you genuinely didn't know this, so
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If I remember right,there is a satellite running Debian already... Er, a .edu one... Sorry I can't remember much
The US sent many missions to the moon. Many. And most of those after Apollo 11 were manned. Someone else could probably tell you how many other people landed on the moon.
I agree that travelling to the moon was essentially a race against another superpower which we opposed. But the US would have to substantiate it in order to convince the USSR (if I told my enemy that I make $1M a year, he wouldn't believe it). But the fact is, Russia eventually acknowledged it in their textbooks (although they dedicate more print to Yuri).
The flag looks like it's blowing in the wind because there's a distinct metal bar on the top of the flag to hold the flag outright. You can tell from any old photograph.
---
I'm just an ordinary man with nothing to lose.
The best reason for going back to the moon is to replentish our supply of cheese.
Do you know how long that thing has been festering in the sun?
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Apollo 11 was the first one to land; all the subseequent ones (the program ended with Apollo 17) also landed on the moon, except for Apollo 13, which suffered a meteor collision enroute and had to return to Earth.
The Apollo program ended with 17, but there were four more flights of Apollo hardware, one of them with the Apollo name: the three Skylab missions and Apollo/Soyuz. And the Apollo/Soyuz mission might be designated Apollo 18 (I seem to remember that, but it was a damned long time ago, 27 years: I may be the only one reading this thread who remembers it real-time).
Mining the moon for use on Earth is never going to be a winning proposition. Re-entry into earth's atmosphere is just too expensive.
However, we should to move our space fabrication facilities to the moon. That's the way to lower our launch costs, in the long run. It is a lower G environment, it provides an additional slingshot for launches into the rest of the solar system, and, given a sufficient initial capital investment, energy on the moon will be cheaper than energy on the surface of the earth.
Before that's practical, we need a thorough, ground based, resource survey of the whole sattelite. In order to do that, we need a permanent base with facilities to fuel, service and repair all of the robots doing the lunar surveys.
We have the technology. We should stop dinking around, pony up the cash, and do it.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
What evidences convinced you?
Will work for bandwidth
Man, I followed such theroies for long time... Do you know what they suggest as the reason no moon landing happened?
Yes, they are conspiracy theroists and they suggest, the dark side of the moon has Illumunati base there...
Sounds funny? Ask "when they faked the moon landing than?" to them.
Not mentioned in the above brief, there is a CNN article here.
CNN seems to be under the impression that SMART-1 mission's priority is to determine the future site for a lunar base. While I wish that this were the case, I cannot help but think how neccesarily a long way off we are from this commendable goal.
Really, if one thinks about it, we are not really much closer to this goal than the last apollo mission, and NASA has made it clear that it has no plans for a lunar base, let alone further lunar missions. As well, there interest in manned mars missions falls far behind other items *cough* ISS, pluto probe *cough*.
Is it time to have a new space agency that will pursue more "commercial" goals in space? Can the ESA or China fulfill this role? I am encouraged by what we have already seen from Russia, but am not sure wheather the can move beyond simple space tourism to the ISS...
There were in fact 5 missions that landed on the moon.
- summary.txt
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Landing Coordinates:
Apollo 11: 0.71 degrees North, 23.63 degrees East
Apollo 12: 3.04 degrees South, 23.42 degrees West
Apollo 14: 3.65 degrees south, 17.48 degrees West
Apollo 15: 26.08 degrees North, 3.66 degrees East
Apollo 16: 8.97 degrees South, 15.51 degrees East
Apollo 17: 20.16 degrees North, 30.77 degrees East
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/flight
-always look up the facts before posting-
This poor guy has been waiting for 30 years for us to go back and get him.
"you and your third dimension"
"what about it?"
"oh nothing, its cute. we have five. thousand"
I think you're right on the money.
It seems ludicrous to me that no one has returned to the moon for 30 years! The "giant leap for mankind" now seems to have been a giant leap backwards.
Apollo 13, which suffered a meteor collision enroute
Umm... Nope - Apollo 13 suffered from an explosion on board, caused by a spark created by a faulty component inside one of the O2 tanks during a routine procedure (called a 'stir') whilst enroute to the moon.
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
This is the first moderator who has made me laugh.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
5 *more* missions that is... bringing the total to 6 missions
NASA does not like to publicize the extent to which even short space flights negatively effect an astronaut's health. We evolved in gravity and our bodies depend on it to function properly ... and no amount of research is likely to change this fact. However, low gravity environments (like the moon) are thought to be ok.
The moon is not that hard to get to, and once there its much easier to get into a zero-g environment, if thats what you want (for research, manufacturing, etc). If the goal is to have long term habitiation off Earth, then going back to the moon is a very good idea.
I read quite a lot about this too.. I can't really make up my mind. There were many interesting facts suggesting why man never actually made it to the moon all those years ago - you can make up your own mind by checking out some of the sites listed below. I really cannot make up my mind on this..
http://www.apollohoax.com/
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://a1.nu/moon-landing-hoax/
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Look at http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/sep.html
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Not hardly, man. I recall watching the "handshake" live - I guess I was in grade 3, and had limited interest in space at the time, but that was the first time I clearly recall seeing a big event (even if it was only a stage-managed PR stunt) happening realtime on TV.
No, you're not. And what I like most about this story is that, when you follow the links through to the ESA SMART-1 stuff, you can see that, underneath all the grown-up grant-aided professional image, they've got the same wide-eyed enthusiasm we got sitting in front of those broadcasts - Apollo 11 and the other moon landings I can just about remember being sat in front of because this was important, but Apollo-Soyuz I was old enough to have some idea why it was so important and exciting.
And when we look at the SMART-1 site, what do we see? Lunar survey craft, great in itself, about time too, but in addition, it's a test mission to see if their ion drive (with pretty blue exhaust) will do the job for their probe to Mercury
It's great to see that the ESA understand the importance of keeping this stuff exciting, and of communicating that excitement with the public. It's my tax money that goes into this, and I'm very happy to see what they're doing with it.
Because, 27 years ago, I was really looking forward to living in the Space Age, and it seems to have been mislaid somewhere in the intervening.
TomV
um, what? actually, my dear friend, the period of the moon's revolution is exactly the same as it's period of rotation. Therefore, the same side of the moon (the "light" side) is always facing the earth. It doesn't really matter where you are.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
People are always looking for ways for the private sector to get involved in space. IMO, A profitable one may be in going to the moon and back. It may seem silly, but moon rock is some of the most valuable stuff on earth. The value now is in the millions for relatively large chunks, and in the hundreds of thousands for small ones.
While I realize that having more of the rare stuff will reduce its value, could you imagine selling small moon particles (100ths or even 1000ths of a gram) to private citizens/collectors? 1/100 of a gram * $500 * 10kg * 1000g/kg = 1,000,000*500 or $500,000,000 with 10kg and only 100,000 customers.
500,000,000 may not be enough for a small robot mission to the moon (with the intent of returning) but it is getting close.
-Sean
And here I thought the giant weather baloon we normally call the "Moon" was for people to go looking for renegade androids and robots.
I'll be this means there aren't androids and robots amoung us either, doesn't it. And I thought sure I'd run into some, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
As I said, just ask them ;-)
;-)
Ahem, remember Pink Floyd said at the end of dark side of the moon album?
#2 on the new planetary exploration priority list from the National Research Council is a sample return mission from the South Pole basin of the Moon. So if NASA doesn't have plans right now, they're going to be thinking about it real hard real soon.
Energy: time to change the picture.
Wrong again.
It was hit by an accidental misfiring of Dr Evils laser.
Closer = Easier To Hit
According to top level sources broadcasting out of Pahrump, Nevada (ie Art Bell), we've yet to make the trip. It will be embarrassing when some new lunar probe confirms this ;)
- SMART-1 from ESA (the only one this BBC article mentions)
- LUNAR-A from ISAS/NASDA (Japan).
- SELENE also from ISAS.
- TrailBlazer and Electra from TransOrbital Inc.
- Lunar Retriever from AppliedSpace Resources
- IceBreaker from Lunacorp
- Lunar Service from Celestis (you have to be dead...)
- Lunar Architecture is a subject of study for HJ Rombaut, including a recent Lunar Base design workshop
- Bill Mook's lunar tours
- The Artemis Project
Many of these have received approval - some of the commercial missions seem to have had a bit of trouble finding funding or overcoming regulations and have announced delays of a year or so, but then the government missions have been delayed too.What's missing on this list? Where's NASA you say? Interestingly NASA has spent over 50 times as much on Mars missions as on missions to the Moon since Apollo 17 left in Dec 1972. But that may change now that the NRC has put a lunar return among the highest priority missions.
Want to be involved? Check out the National Space Society and the Moon Society and you may help make some of these things happen!
Energy: time to change the picture.
But how can you deny the evidence?
N.b. this is not the original - that seeems to have vanished from Brainsluice
wrong-o, too. It was Dr. Evil's "laser."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
except for Apollo 13, which suffered a meteor collision enroute
WTF are you talking about? An oxygen tank ignited, most likely due to damage that was known about while the craft was still in testing weeks before the mission. It was an oversight of replaning a below-spec component that almost killed the crew.
I have no idea where this meteor theory came from.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Wrong on two counts.
As already mentioned by the others, the same hemisphere of The Moon is seen by all of the Earth observers. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, just as the Earth is slowly becoming tidally locked to The Moon and Sun.
Also there is no "dark side" of The Moon. The entire surface of The Moon all gets Sun light, we Earthlings just never see it so we stupidly call it the dark side. Because of course, the Universe revolves around humanity. It is more appropriately called the far or distant side"
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
If you just think about it, it is pretty clear we went to the moon. Most of the issues people find with the Apollo pictures would be easy to do correctly if it was a fake.
1) Etched crosshairs disappearing?
Why would anybody try to fake crosshairs? If you wanted to fake the moon landing, wouldn't you just film with cameras with etched lens? Do etched lens only work on the moon? I think not.
2) Shaddows don't appear to be cast in the same direction.
Filming with only 1 light source on the set would fix this problem. Where are the double shaddows if more then 1 light was used? I have not seen that picture yet.
3) Waving flag when the astronauts are planting it.
Any fake would take place inside. Why would a fan be allowed to blow the flag around? Where is the footage of the flag blowing when nobody is touching it?
If we didn't go to the moon, why didn't the Soviets call us on it? They had radar and experts watching our every move. One un-maned flight would have proven that we didn't go, at least not to the places we clamed to have. If they could have thrown that kind of mud in our faces, they would have.
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
you can make up your own mind by checking out some of the sites listed below.
Here's another.
Bad Astronomy has a good page with links to sites debunking of all the "we didn't go to the moon" theories. He also has a thing he wrote addressing the Fox special about how we didn't go. Have a read.
what better way to show American superiority than to fabricate a lie saying we were the first to reach the moon?
Mm-hmm. And if we didn't go, what better way for the Russians (who were watching the whole thing closely) to embarass the US than to demonstrate that it was all a fake?
First lets get rid of myths that very lame stupid pasters here wil use for this story:
Lame Myths about Moon:
1. Landing was staged..wrong rock my friend and wrong fiction as well..try Red One with OJ Simpson early 1970s movie about fake landing on Mars
2. There is no chees on the Moon..However there is religion that bases their worship on the moon in fanatical portions they even put the lunar cresent on all their flags..not to mention they worship a rock that they claim came from the moon..
3. No un manned probes went to the Moon...Russia has expertise at crashing un manned probes on the moon...Nasa are you ready for lessons?
Truths:
1. Nasa is looking for new funding sources to feed its monopolistic behavior and is looking at putting Bill Gates on the moon..no word as to whether this is with Oxygen supply or lacking an oxygen supply
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Sorry, I didn't know how to make "finger quotation" emoticons. Won't happen again...........
Lunar generated solar power has the potential to replace every fossil fuel power plant on Earth. And who cares about gravity? We export the electricity by beaming it down via microwaves to collectors on the Earth's surface.
Solving the energy crisis could be the Great Reason we need to get back into space, and could turn the Moon into a moneymaker instead of a sinkhole. This is one of the few reasons I believe returning to the Moon is more important than colonizing Mars at this point. Off-earth manufacturing, energy, tourism, and science all show incredible promise. It's time we went back. I want to visit the Luna Hilton before I die.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
low gravity environments (like the moon) are thought to be ok
Unfortunately we don't yet have any evidence whether or not this might be true and it is starting to rank as the most important question of the new (half?) century in determining our destiny.
If, and it remains a significant "if", humans can operate (in suitably protected structures) on the lunar surface long term without seriously adverse health consequences, then the course that makes the most sense is to establish a serious lunar industrial complex before we worry too much about sending anything more than ever smarter robotic probes to explore other parts of the solar system.
For quite a while yet, there are going to remain very serious constraints on what unattended robots can achieve. On the moon we can push that boundary to reach the point of confidence in sending off the robots that will be needed to prepare on Mars (and/or its satelites) sufficient supplies for the first arrival of human vistors/colonists.
Not only will it be much easier to do this if humans can stay healthy for years rather than months on the moon, but that will also open the way to much greater development on the moon when we start to see the energy and environmental trade offs from a lunar perspective.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Okay, I misremembered. Hey, it was a long time ago.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think Mars is the real prize here. From the point of species survival we would probably be alot better off not putting all our eggs on one planet (hey is that a double pun?)
Since it was posted anonymously, how do you know it was plagiarized? Its quite possible the person who wrote it is the same person who posted it.
/. troll HOWTO", which curiously enough says, "Because you're posting as an AC..."
The url you cite just happens to host "The
All that is beside the point, because there are plenty of people who don't give a shit about getting (or giving) "credit". If you wrote it, fine, bitch all you want.. otherwise go preach your IP ideology elsewhere.
Never!
Not once!
You're a complete idiot if you believe for one friggin second we went to the moon.
We didn't have an "accident" on lucky #13.
We didn't bring back any dusty rocks.
We didn't boot around in an electric buggy.
We didn't slowly bounce up and down like Britney Spears on Qualuudes.
We didn't make any "small steps for man."
We didn;t drive golf balls "miles and miles"
I AM CANADIAN! We didn't go to the moon!
Bunch of Americans did though...
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I watched Space Station for the first time the other day.
I sat there either with my mouth hanging wide open or with a huge grin and thinking "oh, maaaannnn..".
The only thing cooler than that would be an IMAX film taken from lunar orbit possibly with a low-level fly down as they did on Apollo 10.
Next we send an IMAX camera to Mars.
Hell, people don't need to go anywhere as long as you have IMAX.
(And yes I know all about the technical limitations of IMAX having watched them since the very first in Toronto in 1971.)
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
The number of posts here from people who give credence to the lunar-landing-as-hoax nonosense is scary. Is this embarrassing, often willful, ignorance, representative of the
Slashdot audience?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Most of all the photography. The "astronauts" were using a Hasselblad camera that were mounted on their suits. They had no possibility to chage settings on the camera, no flash. Now knowing something about photograpy; on the pictures from the "moon landing" the "astronauts" were perfectly illumniated even while standing in the shadow of their "space craft" and there were shadows going perpendicular to eachother - which again is kinda weird considering you have only ONE light source. Also the camera had some etchings on the lenses that would appear as crosses on the pictures - on some of the pictures there are objects in front of these crosses, definitive proof that somebody tampered with the pictures. There were things with the film that was taken "up there" also.
I recommend you see the documentary - can't remember who made it though... do a search on google.
Why would you probe her anus? Last time I checked that body part was used to extrude fecal matter. You know. Poop. Doesn't sound terribly appealing to me.
You might find a more natural orifice in that general vicinity though, if you look hard enough. Please get back to us with a detailed description of your research.
"Oh no... he found the
"Primitive computers" ... hmmm 1969, no opportunities for deriding MS here, too bad.
I read articles like that one on BBC News, and thus know that space programs are always in serious jeopardy from misdirection and emotional decisions.
The word "manufacturing" wasn't used even once in the article, and only the main-picture caption had the word "industry". The main picture doesn't even show any equipment that can be identified as for manufacturing -- it just looks like a mission base.
Manufacturing -- the activity of a real economy -- must be the main point of sustainable space development. Anything else is the masturbatory fantasy of the academic class. The academics (as unwitting dupes of the aerospace contractors) are clearly unfit for directing space programs, given their propensity for spending billions to get some kilograms of rock and megabytes of data back. As far as a space program is concerned, academics should be used as skilled labor, not managers.
Well, what will these non-academic managers aim for? The Moon is an ideal site for space manufacturing. There's enough gravity to hold things down and keep Human bones from decaying too much -- while also being light enough to make it 22 times easier to deliver a load of material to LEO (low Earth orbit) than from Earth. There's plenty of solar power -- for heat and electricity -- due to no clouds, and no weather either to disrupt activity. The regolith is a fine powder that itself is a very useful ore, being oxygen, silicon, aluminum, magnesium, calcium, iron and then other trace elements. Scoop it up into foundries; melt it with your free solar energy; then use whatever extraction techniques are required to obtain materials. The vacuum even at the surface of the Moon (note that within ~30 feet of the surface, there is a dim but measurable "atmosphere" of sorts involving dust influenced by static charges) is finer than usually obtained on Earth in labs. Imports from Earth will be the qualitative counterpart (people, parts, volatiles) to the quantitative exports (aluminum, oxygen, steel) from the Moon. (Note the exports are for building Earth's orbital facilities.)
The only things making the Moon a real problem for manufacturing are the hostilities of vacuum and radiation toward lifeforms. There is basically an inverted paradigm, where on Earth you live freely but undergo constraints in work environments, but the Moon requires constrained living methods while the work environment is everywhere. If only Earth-based manufacturing problems were so simple.
Do we really want to throw more billions of dollars at socially-inept types to spend, to get JUST some rock and data in return? Why not spend the billions making an industry that returns products and investment margin, and then those academic types can charter themselves flights, housing and equipment. They can go out and do all the science they want while a real economy churns away at their backs, making it sustainably possible for them to do it in the first place. Necessities before luxuries, folks.
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
yes, we definately need a moon base, but only for mining purposes.
...)
1) space fabrication will benefit much more from microgravity: build them in orbit, then use centrifugal forces for whatever gravity you wish.
2) solar-power-satellites can be built with much less resources (and less fuss) in microgravity: build them in orbit.
3) the moon AFAIK is mainly made of Si, O, N and some C (not in that order) what is really missing is Hydrogen, which you can provide by bringing small asteroids/comets back to near-earth orbit. (landing them on the moon in one piece is much harder
so, to summarize: yes, the human race very much needs a moon base, but not as a standalone project, but as part of a larger free-space colonizaiton and industrialization effort.
Working for necessity's mother.
Just got done reading Chronoliths (Slashdot review Here)
Thought it was an odd coincidence this was mentioned just after I read it, as the book.. written from the perspective of 20-40 years in the future.. mentions in passing the second wave of moon expiditions.
The irony being that the book is all about coincidences, time travel, and how the two don't play well together.
Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's just late and my mind needs sleep. Maybe.. it's.. just... a coincidence..
Ok, so maybe you had to read the book?
Ok. I actually don't know how those cameras work or how to change the settings...
But, about the shadows. My english isn't very good, but I'm guessing "perpendicular" means the shadows were going in different directions? My explanations, as well as others I've seen, is that they appear to go in different directions due to the "bumpy" and rocky surface of the moon, skewing the shadows. Also, there were indeed other light sources. The sun was ofcourse the most dominant one, I'm guessing the earth and the moons surface come in as number two.
Anyway, if this was staged in a studio on earth, with multiple spotlights, chances are that each object would have more than one shadow.
About the crosshairs on the cameralenses... It appears that the brighter the object is, the more does its color or light "overflow" the dark thin crosshair. My guess is that this is because the white objects became too bright in this environment where there is no athmosphere to spread the light. I did see the documentary (if you mean the one by FOX), and only a few times could I not explain most things they brought up there. There are a few websites that explains more about the moon hoax, http://www.badastronomy.com is one of them.
Will work for bandwidth
Wait! Ask yourself this:
"How do you know that Americans actually exist?"
You only believe that Americans exist because of the inflow of Data.
Now! What if that Data is FALSE?
That's right - if that Data is FALSE; Americans may not actually exist!
And, if Americans do not actually exist then they can't have gone to the Moon!
If fact, your whole knowledge of the Universe may be based on FALSE Data!
And if you think on this some, you may come to the conclusion that I may not even exist?!
Now, a FINAL question: how do YOU know that YOU actually exist?
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Yes yes its all another big space race to see who can claim the moon as theirs. America might have got their people there first (or not) but unless they get some guns and defense systems up there quick, those evil Chinese might take it, or, even worse the Europeans!! This is exactly the reason why America wanted to nuke the moon - to make it uninhabitable. Unless NASA gets up there fast, someone is going to claim it and start digging for rocks or all the incredible technology technology thats lying all over it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
kinda weird considering you have only ONE light source
You've never heard of reflected light?
the camera had some etchings on the lenses that would appear as crosses on the pictures - on some of the pictures there are objects in front of these crosses, definitive proof that somebody tampered with the pictures
or that the bright spots "washed out" the etching marks.
All of the claims made by the "documentary" have been refuted.
No, I don't remember where (search Google).
I remember watching it all on TV when I was a kid.
There is no way that they could have pulled off something as big as a faked moon landing and kept it secret for over 30 years.
Somehow, somewhere, someone would have spilled the beans.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Face it we're all a bunch of loonies. But seriously, I am so hoping that somebody starts to build a base on the moon soon, otherwise Im just going to be too old to try that zero-g karma-sutra I bought.
There is no way that they could have pulled off something as big as a faked moon landing and kept it secret for over 30 years.
They pulled off the lie that there is a 'God'... so why not. The biggest lies are the easiest to belive.
What's the hurry? We've got 'till 2019 to get there before the asteroid smashes into the earth.
Chip H.