NASA's LRO Captures High-Res Pics of Apollo Landing Sites

The Bad Astronomer is one of many readers who wrote to tell us about NASA's release of high-res photos showing the Apollo landing sites. The photos were taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and show the traces of earlier visits to the Moon. "The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution."

Comments

yes, I know that you are joking

[portforward]

It does always bug me that the people who are so mistrustful that they refuse to accept that US astronauts did in fact land on the moon. One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face. CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.

Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.

Someday I hope that we as a species will go back.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking

[girlintraining]

CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.

They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage. I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was. It was, in my opinion, the best headline I will ever read in my life. It read, in giant lettering across its homepage;

Yes, We Did.

Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated. I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking

[spaceyhackerlady]

It wasn't just the Soviet Union listening in. Ham radio folks listened in too. Check QST for reception reports for Apollo 10 onwards.

I think it's interesting to compare how well we can fake it now (Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, etc.) with real Apollo footage. Even today, we can't get it quite right.

...laura who has been comparing LRO pictures with the pictures taken by the astronauts

Re:yes, I know that you are joking

[Hadlock]

Considering the lack of moon-based science we've done since the 70's, that number doesn't really surprise me. I grew up in the 80's, and when I found out as a kid that we'd not just sent one group of men to the moon, but several, I got excited wanting to know how I could go visit the moon myself. I was crushed, upon learning that less than 30 people had ever been to the moon, and nobody ever planned to go back again. It's been almost 20 years since I learned the awful truth, and nobody still yet has a firm launch date for sending a manned orbiter to the moon, let alone an idea of what it would look like. If you're under 30 - the idea of putting a man on the moon sounds damn cool - but it might as well be Arthurian Legend or a story out of an H.G. Wells book written long before you were born. I think people under 30 are highly supportive of putting a man on the moon, and a man on the mars (seriously, what government agency do I write a check to?) but they're skeptical of it ever happening in our lifetime.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking

[deathguppie]

It's simple to understand why some people question it really. If Spain had sent explorers to the new world, and then no one had repeated the journey for say 40 years, many people would have questioned it's existence. The fact that we propose to have done something in the 60's that we are incapable of doing today leads to the questions.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking

[zaivala]

I don't have a problem with an intelligent God, or an intelligent Universe (which to me are the same thing). My problem is teaching as Science a set of (not-that-well translated) metaphors written by a seer thousands of years ago, seen through the lens of many other seers and then taken as religious dogma as "inerrant". I would say the Hindu scriptures are quite a bit more in keeping with "modern science" -- note the discovery of Calculus and most other mathematical theorems far prior to the Greek, and the scientists of the Renaissance being censured, even tortured, by the official Church. I can read Genesis and see that it happens roughly the same as evolution; most who teach "Creation Science" would call me a heretic for even pointing out the similarity. I'm sorry that I am not providing the citation you requested. I'm sure the records are readily available. Nearly all Midwestern states and many others teach Creation Science, as though Gov. Huckabee were the Prophet of God. True spiritual people, in my experience, don't sweat the details.

Apollo 16

[somenickname]

Looking at the Apollo 16 landing site, I bet they had a very real "Oh Shit!" moment just before landing...

Re:Apollo 16

[Attila the Bun]

If you've got balls enough to be a NASA astronaut, you don't have "oh shit" moments. Armstrong famously took manual control of the Eagle and landed with just 45 seconds of fuel remaining.

Re:Apollo 16

[burning-toast]

I imagine it may have been a little bit more tense. (From: http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/a16summary.htm)
(They had other issues before this excerpt too):
"The descent propulsion system throttle down occurred on time, and at 2200 metres the LM pitched forward into its landing attitude. At this point it became clear that Orion would land approximately 600 metres north and 400 metres west of its target, unless corrective action was taken. Using the guidance computer, John Young redesignated the landing target, effectively telling the landing computer to offset where it was guiding the spacecraft to land. Despite this, it became clear that Orion was going to end up slightly north-west of its intended location. At about 140 metres above the Moon, Charlie Duke saw the shadow of the Lunar Module appear on the surface. As Orion descended below 60 metres, John Young yawed the spacecraft right, allowing him to see the shadow also. This then allowed both the crew to estimate their altitude above the surface and their descent rate. John Young flew the LM slowly forward as the lunar module descent rate reduced from eleven to five feet per second. As a LM descended below 25 metres, small traces of dust were blown across the surface by the engine. This increased as the LM descended to surface but John Young was still able to see craters and small boulders on the surface despite this. Orion landed at ( time), only 270 metres north and 60 metres west of its original target. Charlie Duke greeted their success with an exuberant "Wow! Wild man! Look at that!". John Young was more laconic - "Well, we don't have to walk far to pick up rocks, Houston. We're among them!" "

Time to update Google Moon?

[FeriteCore]

It may be time to update Google moon soon. It is interesting to compare the quality of the images.

Come to think of it, it would probably be harder to produce an Apollo-quality fake moon landing than do it for real given 1960 era technology.

Eerie Moon Orbits

[Nom du Keyboard]

I don't know what the final orbit will be but what I find eerie about lunar orbits is that you should be able to insert something into orbit that is only say 10 miles above the highest peaks, possibly even less, and that would be amazing to watch fly over if one was in the position to be there.

Re:Eerie Moon Orbits

[robinesque]

Relevant (and interesting) article: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm

Oblig

[fiannaFailMan]

"As I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come â" but we believe not too long into the future â" I'd like to just [say] what I believe history will record â" that America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."

        â" Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 Commander. Last man to walk on the moon, December 14, 1972.

What, no 12?!?

[redirect 'slash' nil]

I know that 12 is no stranger to coverage troubles, but this had to be one of the most exciting sites, with Pete Conrad and his team gratifying us all with the very first precision landing on the Moon, right next to the good old Surveyor III probe. With a LEM descent stage and a probe sitting close-by on the same picture, it's bound to be a winner.

Come on NASA; we have now come to accept that the good 11 footage has been destroyed forever - don't deprive us of 12 too!

And on a related note...

[bmo]

40 years after Apollo 11...

Walter Cronkite is dead.

And that's the way it was. :-(

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/17/cronkite/

--
BMO

I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

they aren't expecting to budge the conspiracy nuts. One thing people need to understand about a TRUE 24k nut - they are starting from an axiomatic position that there is a conspiracy and $EVENT never happened. Any "evidence" to the contrary - such as high resolution images of the landing sites - only serves to illustrate what lengths the conspirators are willing to go to to continue the conspiracy.

It's like people who don't buy evolution, and view fossils as being there simply "to test our faith." There is no way to convince these people. If they ever get brain scanning down I'll bet they would see that a challenge to a conspiracy nut's fixed ideas would be handled by his/her brain almost exactly the same way most people's brains handle an assertion like "black and white are the same color!"