Slashdot Mirror
Images of Apollo Landing Sites Soon Available
eric.brasseur writes "The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has entered lunar orbit in perfect shape. From a height of 50 km, it will image the Moon in high resolution. The hardware left by the Apollo missions will be clearly visible. The Soviet automatic probes will also be photographed. Previous best images were made by the Japanese probe Kaguya and showed a white patch where the dust had been blown away by the blast of the LM engine."
Just reading the summery makes me worried about the slew of "Moon landing never happened!" posts that are on the way
We all know that the photos will all be doctored by NASA before they will be released to the public.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
[sarcasm off] For the record, I believe 100% that the landings were real, but I also believe that nothing short of dragging the conspiracy nuts up to the moon themselves will convince them of the fact. Maybe not even that.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
But let's not pretend for a second that it'll stop the theorists. They want to disbelieve, so nothing will prevent them. As was mentioned on the Conspiracy Theories episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, when someone says "You can't convince me," those aren't the words of a skeptic, merely of a jerk. That being said, they should be some neat photos.
...freshly shaved Asian...pussy...
You haven't seen very much Asian porn, have you? You're in for a big surprise once Mommy and Daddy uninstall NetNanny.
I mean, of COURSE they'll be visible...The Illuminati have had decades to fake up an accurate-looking landing site. They might have actually used their mind powers to put a man on the moon at the time, but they were too busy killing Kennedy.
//Conspiracy theorists will never buy it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Can I have street view?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You can plainly see that only a few feet of the orbiter are devoted to the camera, with the rest being a perfect-size capsule for a single astronaut with a copy of photoshop.
Explain that.
It's Wensleydale, Grommit!!
so....the primary focus of this mission is checking out the trash we left 40 years ago?
Lunakhod 1 carried a French retroreflector array for Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) but unfortunately, contact was lost and no one knows where it is. There are good returns for Lunakhod 2, so I (and others) want Lunakhod 1 back !
Finding this would be a great help for Lunar science (assuming it didn't get crushed in a landslide or something). I know that this is on their list, so good luck !
...of the Moon, nobody really considers you to be a man, JAZ... despite having a Slashdot ID in the 10K's.
"Just reading the summery makes me worried about the slew of "Moon landing never happened!" posts that are on the way"
As for me, I think we did go to the moon. However I feel that these so called images will be doctored to remove evidence of the alleged "ruins" that are littered across its surface..
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
It's quite simple really...the moon landing sites, due to insufficient resolution images of the surface available at the time, turned out to be in some pretty bad neighborhoods. The lunar rovers are probably up on blocks by now, completely stripped by Moon hooligans, and most of the other equipment has likely been stolen. Since NASA wants to send men back there, they're going to need to doctor those photos. Nobody will want to go to the moon if it's revealed what a ghetto it is.
What a long way we've come since the sixties and seventies. Now we can even photograph the landing sites they used back then. :-/
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Oddly, he is not an idiot.
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!)
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 .. 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.
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.
It's quite simple really...the moon landing sites, due to insufficient resolution images of the surface available at the time, turned out to be in some pretty bad neighborhoods. The lunar rovers are probably up on blocks by now, completely stripped by Moon hooligans, and most of the other equipment has likely been stolen. Since NASA wants to send men back there, they're going to need to doctor those photos. Nobody will want to go to the moon if it's revealed what a ghetto it is.
You mean, even if you go to the friggin' MOON you still can't get away from niggers? Shit.
In my experience, people who are adamant about the moon landing being a conspiracy seem to act that way merely because it gets them attention. They seem to feed off of the conflict. Since claiming these pictures are also a fake will continue to give them attention, this type of people will continue to hold onto their beliefs.
If people want to believe that the moon landing was a hoax, that's their prerogative. But when they become combative towards anyone who thinks otherwise, that's when they've stepped over the line. It's called basic tolerance and respect. The same applies to other subjects which are debated--science/religion, windows/mac/linux, music, sports, etc. You're entitled to your opinion and the defense of it, but you are not entitled (or at least you're credibility is not entitled) to disrespect or belittle people merely for having different opinions or beliefs.
People who feel the need to constantly attack or belittle different opinions/beliefs merely show how insecure they in their own anyways.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I bet we'll soon see Bing roll out GoogleMoon to show up Google's GoogleEarth.
My webcomic
Jews are a religion dummy. Why you ask? Because I can convert to Judaism.
And what if it doesn't find anything? Did we not do it, or did the aliens steal it afterwards for recycling?
The funniest result of this would be if they found it, but not where the astronauts actually thought they landed.
And while it's up there mapping, can it find that B-17 on the Moon that I saw the pictures of decades ago?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Forget the conspiracy theorists. Those guys are haters. As a giggling space cadet I'm looking forward to "first light" from LRO because these images are going to be the best ever. This will happen sometime this month, or early next month. In regards to Apollo, the LM was 4.27m in diameter.. so that's just over 4 pixels.. I don't know how great that is gunna look :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
To give skeptics a harder time being skeptics about this? I am not one of the hoax believers, even though I am naturally skeptical to all things space and military we are told about, given the rich history of fuckups and coverups of these fuckups, but you have got to admit that in this age where its getting hard to tell in the movies what has been cg-enerated and what was in fact real, a bunch of pictures supposedly from the Moon will not proove ANYTHING to either hoax believers or those who believe we landed there. If anything, more scrutiny will be asked for with regard to photo material, to which bizarre rules will or will not apply ("no, you cannot have original data!" -NASA)
For this reason, I would say the only way the public would actually accept "public" photograph data as real deal, is if NASA "open-sourced" spacecraft broadcasting interface - frequencies, protocol, encoding, where to set up a dish, size of dish required - so that whoever actually doubts the authencity of such photos, may instead doubt whether NASA is faking a signal from the Moon that carries digital image data. After all, if the information is pubic, it is public. Nothing in the transmission is really secret or falls under NDA anyway? It involves radio waves, some archaic encoding scheme of some color channels and a wrapping protocol for transmission. The open-sourcing of the transmission would force the hoax game onto a whole new level of complexity, where it would not be so easy for the skeptics to cry fake.
From the movie "Contact":
KITZ ...you would need a satellite, and you would need launch capabilities to put the satellite into orbit. And of course the message itself. To put something like this together, so complex, drawing on so many different disciplines... ... would be impossible.
Oh, I do think you may have suffered some kind of episode, yeah. I do. Doctor, I'd like to propose an alternate hypothesis, if I may, and I'd like you to bring your considerable scientific expertise to bear on it. To fake a signal from Vega, what would you need?
ELLIE
You would need a satellite to transmit the signal, but it would be impossible to simulate something...
KITZ
ELLIE
KITZ
Impossible? Impossible? Is there anyone who might have been up to the challenge? Someone with extraordinary technical expertise. Enormous financial resources. Someone perverse enough, eccentric enough to have come up with the idea in the first place?
ELLIE
Hadden?
KITZ
S. R. Hadden.
ELLIE
You're implying that this was all some kind of a hoax, that he engineered this...
Why would you convert to the religion of thieves and hook nosed kikes?
If Jews aren't a race of gutter rats, why did heroic Germans exterminate them in gas chambers?
The commissioning phase will end approximately 60 days after launch, when LRO will use its engines to transition to its primary mission orbit.
LRO is now in a commissioning orbit! - June 27
So we're at least 56 days from "first light" and the mapping program will go for 1 year, and as there's nothing to suggest that the Apollo landing sites will be first or last imaged, a good estimate is 8 months or so from now.
If that's "soon" to you, then I guess you're older than I am :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
BY 2080, nobody alive will have seen first-hand the media coverage of the Apollo landings. Heck, I was born in 1970 and I don't remember them even though they happened when I was alive.
Anyway, there will come a time when nobody will have first hand memories of the event. The only memories will be those gleaned from videos, reading about it, etc. At some point, the fact that it happened will change from a fact into just something people have read about or heard about.
Eventually many of the people alive will doubt it ever happened at all because the story of the moon landings will have become indistinguishable from a fable.
Think about the war of 1812, or Columbus "discovering" America. We have a pretty good idea these things happened. But all we know about them is stuff we have read or heard. We have also heard many works of fiction from those same times. At some level, it's all similar.
This ignores the concept of revisiting the moon, which may or may not ever happen. I have my doubts about NASA on this. But if we ever do go back and build a city, then those people will doubt it was ever such a big deal.
A more relevant movie reference would be Capricorn One, which featured a fake trip to Mars. (And I think must have been the inspiration for many/most of the moon hoaxers.) Plus it starred OJ Simpson.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/
Comment of the year
What I find interesting is that most of the comments are about the "hoax" hoax, a few about how long it took, and not many about how very cool this tech is? Are we really that jaded?
I for one think it's very cool. And I am looking forward to seeing the hardware.
I'm also looking forward to using the date to help plan our mission.
Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
Why convert to Judaism? Because we all know they rule the world, silly!
(wow an "inferior" "race" rule the world, and still be inferior is beyond me... wouldn't all the cute little "Aryans" then be inferior because they don't rule the world?)
See also: Firefly: Episode "Our Mrs Reynolds" where our bad girl is told, "Listen to me- I'm babbling like a MOON BRAIN."
Oh, yeah: the moon and (creative|dangerous|unpredictable) folks is well established.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Street Fighter. Astronaut. Rocket Scientist. Rapper.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You people think you know what you're talking about. But you don't. You have no - Ahh shit, wrong forum.
At least then the cat won't have to hide every time it sees a razor...
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
I repeat: Can I have street view?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There are no reflectors on the moon, or even a moon (per se). When you shoot a LASER out of the atmosphere, it is picked up by the interior walls of our Dyson sphere (Pro-Tip: You think those lights in the sky are stars? The sun, moon, stars, etc are all LASER-generated images from the inside of our D-sphere).
Your location is traced and placed into a database, which will then be cross-referenced for the (inter?)national watch-list database.
Why do you think NASA and ESA are so hesitant to facilitate the use of commercial rockets and encouraging the mass-production that is inevitable from a capitalist technology race? By all means, feel free to pinpoint your location for the government by proving you need to personally check their results to believe them.
One is a man in Las Vegas who doesn't own a car (out of choice), and steadfastly refuses to believe that we landed on the moon. He doesn't give any real reason other than that it's his opinion that we didn't do it, we're not capable of doing it, and we're faking it. He does so calmly and succinctly, leading me to believe his ego is made of adamantium. The other is a true gun-nut who continues to believe that any day now the United States Senate will pass a bill authorizing the UN to take control of our armed forces (and that Joe Biden was a sponsor of the bill). He insists that it was all a fake, and that he knows guys who ran the soundstage where it was all filmed. Conversations with these two gentlemen are ALWAYS interesting.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Putting everyone in the same mix is not fair imho. There are 'conspiracy' ppl out there, and they will find all possible tricks to keep on believing everything is fake or whatever. BUT there are also some perfectly normal and rational ppl who have some serious doubts about the first landing. There are some totally undeniable 'flaws' in those pictures, ok nasa said they doctored those, fine then they show us the originals, pretty simple, I think it's a shame if they really have been there in the first flight to have citizens doubt that. Just show those ugly originals, not matter what. But hearing a nasa researcher say that with nowadays technology it will take about 20 years of r&d to put someone on the moon... well ...that stinks.
They lost most of contractors projects... schemes...everything... that's a nice scientific way of conducting a mission/experiment... not.
Anyway, I hope they will provide some CLEAR pictures for the landing site...to shut up all the crackpot. If they don't then it's time for the citizens to inquiry officially into this.
I doubt it, but it would be cool if the pics were of a high enough resolution that you could see the Hasselblads left on the surface.
"the only way the public would actually accept "public" photograph data as real deal, is if NASA "open-sourced" spacecraft broadcasting interface - frequencies, protocol, encoding, where to set up a dish, size of dish required"
Open source is the wrong term, of course, but none of this information is hidden away: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16926 The inverse-square law ensures that you need a very large antenna beyond Low Earth Orbit, but the public has been eavesdropping on satellites since Sputnik. In this case, just point the antenna at the Moon :-)
KITZ ... To fake a signal from Vega, what would you need? [...] you would need a satellite, and you would need launch capabilities to put the satellite into orbit. And of course the message itself. To put something like this together, so complex, drawing on so many different disciplines...
ELLIE ... would be impossible.
Actually it would most definitely be impossible. The parallax of Vega is a bit over a tenth arcsecond. This is straightforward to measure with 19th century technology. More to the point, any spacecraft of Earth origin will be much, much (much, much (much, much)) closer than Vega. Simple trigonometry would reveal the scale of the distance to the origin of the signal with zero chance of being spoofed. This is the antithesis of any Moon Hoax.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/feehery.franken/index.html
"(CNN) -- The metric system is the kind of thing that you can expect from the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority Democrats now have in the United States Senate."
In 1969 the Americans first landed men on the moon. Now some people have made names for themselves by saying that this and subsequent landings never happened. Their position is that NASA faked them in order to save face and fool the public. To prove their point they rely on explanations of the reported events using dubious science and lay explanations that any first year science major would and does, laugh at.
However, they always miss or purposely avoid the the one piece of irrefutable proof that it did in fact happen. That is that the Soviet government never refuted the American claims and they were in a unique position to do so. For even after the Americans landed on the moon the Soviets still continued to send orbiters, landers and rovers to the moon.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html
Now if they wanted to get the goods on the Americans all they had to do was to land, photograph or explore with a rover the American landing sights. Just imagine the embarrassment not to mention the the damage to American credibility, at the height of the cold war no less, that such information would generate. Records even show that they never landed or even explored that areas that that American landings happened. So they did not even go and look to make sure because they knew it really happened.
But they did not. They did not use it to pressure the Americans to stop bombing North Vietnam and Cambodia where Soviet military advisers were being killed as a result. They did not use it to pressure the United States to stop sending military advisers to and providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet occupation. They did not use it to stop the Star Wars program of the Regan administration.
In fact they did not even use it to turn the West's attention away from the Soviet Union during the Soviet Coup of 1991 when members of the Soviet government briefly deposed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and attempted to take control of the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991
Which every body knew was the last death throws of the Soviet empire. If they did not use the information then to turn the attention of the American, and world public, inward to their own governments lies and thus corruption and force it to ignore the events in the Soviet Union in order to deal with a damaging domestic and international issue. Then the proof of faked moon landings did not and never existed.
One final thought. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy tanked. People were selling all kinds of stuff owed by the crumbling state, ships, weapons, artworks and knowledge but nobody ever approached any Western news agency or tabloid to sell them this information. And to say that one would buy it but not publish is foolish. The seller could just keep peddling it until someone did and then it would be old news and worthless until then it would still be worth something.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Most people know the poem and the myths but few people know the real facts. If we never go back, the moon landings may well be remembered in the same way. Mind you I think we will be going back since we will be needing the uranium that has been discovered there. Well at least the Chinese will since they are the ones that are building the most reactors in the near term.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
> Images of Apollo Landing Sites Soon Available
Why not visit them in person? They're in the desert just outside Los Angeles.
My personal theory is The Pirate Bay was shut down just to ban the documentary, Capricorn One.
Yeah, I thought also that the information given by Allie in "Contact" is erroneous. I mean, there are just too many giveaway variables that would expose any attempt to "fake" such signal.
Also, if it is indeed as straightforward as you say it is to tune in to signals originating from the Moon (and I believe you know what you are talking about here) then I don't really get how the Moon hoax believers won't just shut up once and for all. I mean, there is skepticism, and then genuine paranoia and lack of common sense.
I believe in many UFOs to be of extraterrestrial origin and intelligent design by sentient species. But I don't subscribe to the theoretically possible but absurd (in light of circumstances) idea that Moon landings were faked. Don't they just have to point a dish at the Moon to finally unsubscribe from their disbelief? If so, why don't they do exactly that? Why make loads of websites with nice graphics and professor quotes, if all it takes is to actually do real scientific analysys of live data instead of digging into old archives and looking for anomalies?
Images of the Apollo landing sites are already available by the thousands, shot from just a few meters away, with the "artifacts" covering not just a few pixels, but a few tens of thousands of pixels. Whoever believes that all those pictures were faked up 20 years before Photoshop was even invented isn't going to believe that NASA images made 20 years *after* Photoshop was invented, and in which the artifacts cover just a few pixels, are not doctored.
Teaser can be found here.
For this reason, I would say the only way the public would actually accept "public" photograph data as real deal, is if NASA "open-sourced" spacecraft broadcasting interface - frequencies, protocol, encoding, where to set up a dish, size of dish required - so that whoever actually doubts the authencity of such photos, may instead doubt whether NASA is faking a signal from the Moon that carries digital image data. After all, if the information is pubic, it is public. Nothing in the transmission is really secret or falls under NDA anyway? It involves radio waves, some archaic encoding scheme of some color channels and a wrapping protocol for transmission. The open-sourcing of the transmission would force the hoax game onto a whole new level of complexity, where it would not be so easy for the skeptics to cry fake.
As "rlseaman" said, OpenSource isn't the right term, I would say open protocols and standards, with all data sent in the clear. (You'd have to keep a secured control channel though.)
Which is exactly what http://www.openluna.org/wiki/index.php/Mission_Plan intends to do, Send back every bit of data open and clear. The world's paying for it, the world should have the data.
Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
Duh? Seem like everybody is making fun of comments indicating skepticism or "conspiracy theories" regarding moon landings, but i havent read a single such sceptical comment yet. And btw, a little skepticism would be totally apropriate. Isn't it a bit hypocritical making fun of religious "cretionists" zealots, but bashing everybody attacking ones own beliefs? (and apollo debate IS mostly a matter of myths and beliefs, and not facts, on BOTH SIDES, let's face it...)
Hopefully the orbiter will discover the lair of the Nazis on the moon and we can launch a preemptive nuclear strike before they come back in 2018.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Holy shit, your user id is huge! I didn't know we had made it into the tens of millions.
In 2080, it'll only have been 108 years since the last moon landing. Some people already live that long currently. Given the current state of research into aging and the human genome, it's likely that some substantial improvements in maximum lifespan will be developed in the intervening time. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks of my generation (who were young kids at the time) will live to see 120 years of age or more. Not me, of course - I'm eating a sausage and cheese sandwich RIGHT NOW, actually. But some of the healthier ones will make it.
You and your evasions -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28579131 you talk a good game, but when it comes to proving your b.s.?
You RUN...
(Face the music, See the subject-line there asking YOU to disprove that the Microsoft based MDDS system @ NASDAQ does NOT do 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ)
Come on - B]back up your b.s. (and answer the questions there in addition to providing YOUR proofs to backup your assumptions...)
APK
P.S.=> Burden of proof is on YOU now, big talker... let's see YOUR proof that MDDS @ NASDAQ doesn't do 99.999% uptime! apk