# LRO Images of Apollo Landing Sites



## Ursa major (Jul 18, 2009)

> NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident.
> 
> The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was able to image five of the six Apollo sites, with the remaining Apollo 12 site expected to be photographed in the coming weeks.
> 
> 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.



NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites​


----------



## The Ace (Jul 18, 2009)

Too far away to see the Hasselblads, though  ( the cynical say they were left behind because not even NASA could afford the extra bits to keep them up-to-date).


----------



## Nik (Jul 19, 2009)

" The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident"

As I said on the PhysOrg board, 'Take THAT, all Apollo-deniers !'


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Just what I was thinking - but they'll say it's all done with Photo-shop anyway. 
Apart from dropping them all on the Sea of Tranquillity, (preferably without P-suits), they're never going to be convinced, sad little people....


----------



## Urlik (Jul 19, 2009)

I must admit that until this proof, I was a doubter.
I'm not now, no need to dump me on the surface to hammer the point home


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 19, 2009)

What I never got was, why do people not believe the lunar landings actually occurred?

Satellites are launched into space. So we can get large, metallic objects out of the Earth's orbit, and keep the insides cool enough as to not fry delicate electrical equipment, well, humans are tougher.

I always found denial of lunar landings an affront to the profession, both the astronauts who got there and back and those who all but shared the fate of 13.....


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Yes, it seems disrespectful, somehow, to infer that men like Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, not to mention all the other Apollo astronauts, would be parties to an enormous hoax - not only that, but live off that hoax for forty years, as well.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 19, 2009)

I never doubted that NASA got men into space, I just doubted that they got to the Moon for various reasons.
the cost involved right in the middle of Vietnam war 
the huge boost to the US by fullfilling JFK's promise to get to the moon before the end of the decade
NASA getting one over on the Soviets (who had been ahead in the space race until then)
and that the man in charge of everything was Tricky Dicky (if anyone was capable of initiating a conspiracy of such magnitude, it was him).

but as I said before, now we have real proof and it is no longer a matter of faith and I have gone from doubt to acceptance** 


**I use this term rather than belief as that still implies that it is a matter of faith


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

I can see where you might be doubtful, Urlik - the sheer improbability of the achievement is staggering, when you think about it.

But to me, the equally sheer magnitude of the cover-up necessary is just as unlikely - and what would be the chances that not one of the people involved in that cover-up has ever sold what would be the scoop of the century to the media?


----------



## Urlik (Jul 19, 2009)

it's now a redundant argument, but the cover-up requires less work than the mission.
everyone with a TV set was watching and in those times we were less sceptical and tended to believe without question what we were told by those in authority and what we saw on the gogglebox.
actually faking the images and film would have been easy considering that 2001 was released the year before.
it would just be a case of making sure that those involved continued to believe that it was in the country's and/or their best interests to keep it secret.


----------



## Nik (Jul 19, 2009)

Urlik, the British Interplanetary Society designed a workable moon-rocket in about 1938. 

As this was before liquid fuels, long before 'hybrids', it had lots of little solid-fuel modules to allow 'infinite staging'. Otherwise, it looked like something from ~1950. IIRC, when NASA came to design Apollo, they were astonished at the BIS' prescience...

Of course, when the first liquid-fueled V2s fell upon London, the BIS design was revised to suit. Apocryphally, it took a weekend, which rather beats NASA's system !!

IMHO, the nearest we now have to those nimble-minded rocketeers are Bert Rutan's team, and the rebel 'Plan-B' NASA engineers who want to put Orion/Ares back in the 'stupid' file...

Oh, yes, and UK's shoe-string 'Reaction Engines', whose Alan Bond (BIS, Daedalus, Hotol etc) may yet have the last laugh...


----------



## Urlik (Jul 19, 2009)

liquid fuel rocket engines were about long before 1938.
they first appeared in technical journals 1903 and there is even a claim that a liquid fuel rocket engine was tested in Paris in the late 1890's.
the first liquid fuel rocket actually launched was in 1926, so the BIS rocket could have been designed to use it from the start.

and seeing as you mention the V2s, they basically were the prototype for the Apollo mission as Werner Von Braun was head of Germay's military rocket program and then NASA, and one of his conditions for being director of NASA was the development of the Saturn V rocket.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 19, 2009)

Under the heading of "irony is seldom absent", within a day before the story linked above, there was this item:

NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it - Yahoo! News

Titled "NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it", it is by Seth Borenstein, via, AP, and datelined Thurs., July 16, 2009.



> WASHINGTON – NASA could put a man on the moon but didn't have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.
> 
> In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.
> 
> ...


 
That last is an unfortunate addition -- albeit necessary -- as it is only likely to stir the entire mare's nest up all over again.... (And yes, I mean that phrase in both its more modern and original senses....)


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 19, 2009)

first off: 


Never doubted


However: In this day and age fiddling footage - a doddle

At the time given the pros and cons, pretending to go to the moon would certanly have been easy. There where enough nutters about to execute a coverup if the alterntive was to sshow that the US were bumbling bafoons.

Technically I seem to recall all transmissions were rellayed through the command module so all that was needed was a luner orbitor to bounce the transsmission through. Eight gave them all the Earth pictures they would need and why not take some LEM's to scatter around for good measure.

What amuses me is everybody seems to have forgotten the added heightened tension at the time because a russian rocket was on its way to do we knew not what. So at the back of everyones mind was Cuba all over again.


----------



## Dave (Jul 19, 2009)

pyan said:


> I can see where you might be doubtful, Urlik - the sheer improbability of the achievement is staggering, when you think about it.


I'm amazed that people don't believe it happened, but for the first time, Urlik's reply has given me an insight in to why a normally sane person could think that. However, I don't think the achievement is that improbable. Not wishing to take anything away from it, but a lot of money was poured into it and many great minds turned to making it happen. In the perspective of the time period, also don't see it as more staggering than the tiny little sailing ships that discovered America and Australia from Europe and went around the world. What I do find impressive is how they managed to do so with the loss of so few lives. There were a couple of Mercury accidents, and Apollo 13 almost went pear-shaped, but considering how dangerous this was, they were either very clever or very lucky.


----------



## iansales (Jul 19, 2009)

Urlik - I find it staggering that you believe 400,000 people would keep a secret for 40 years. As for the cost - Apollo cost around $25 billion, in 1969 alone the US spent $30 billion in Vietnam.

Dave - what Mercury accidents? The first deaths in the US space programme were the Apollo 1 crew - Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee - during a plugs-out test of the CSM.


----------



## Dave (Jul 19, 2009)

Apology- I was thinking of the fire in Apollo 1. My point, still valid, was that the space program up until the Moon landings had an incredibly good record for safety. Even if you include the Space Shuttle, it is still good compared with an 18th Century sea voyage, or even a big construction project.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

There were some pretty spectacular failures in the early years, mind you - but no casualties, as far as we know...

Early U.S. rocket and space launch failures and explosions

The one at 1.45 is a doozie...


----------



## iansales (Jul 19, 2009)

Dave said:


> Apology- I was thinking of the fire in Apollo 1. My point, still valid, was that the space program up until the Moon landings had an incredibly good record for safety. Even if you include the Space Shuttle, it is still good compared with an 18th Century sea voyage, or even a big construction project.



True enough, although it's more dangerous to be an astronaut than a cosmonaut. The Russians have lost four cosmonauts in 120 missions over 40 years, the Shuttle has lost 14 astronauts in 120 flights over 25 years. And the Shuttle is supposed to be safer than Soyuz...


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Um, yes, Ian - but with the proviso that the USSR actually made public news of all the cosmonauts that didn't make it back alive. There's a strong possibility that, for political reasons, their triumphs were shouted out to the world, but their failures were kept very quiet - and unlike the USA, a state secret in the USSR _stayed_ a state secret...

And possibly the Chinese are applying the same rules....


----------



## iansales (Jul 19, 2009)

There were no cosmonauts killed in space other than those four. There have been enough people poring over their records in the decades since glasnost for any "secret" deaths to have been discovered.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Maybe so - but I still find it easier to believe in a Soviet cover-up than an American one...


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 19, 2009)

And talking of the dangers of space travel, perhaps we should remember _all_ those who knowingly and calmly faced these great risks but did not flinch.

They were, and are, true heroes (and not the manufactured sort who all too frequently are described as such in the media today but whose only risk is in choosing the right agent/manager or the the best place to put their exhorbitant earnings).


----------



## Urlik (Jul 19, 2009)

pyan said:


> Maybe so - but I still find it easier to believe in a Soviet cover-up than an American one...


 
I find it easy to believe that both were capable of cover-ups
in fact the US, being a democracy, would benefit most from cover-ups as they had to keep the public on side while the Soviets could do as they wished with a public ruled by fear


----------



## ktabic (Jul 19, 2009)

As I understand it, neither would have really done much covering up, because, height of the cold war paranoia being in place, both sides would let the other side know when they where launching spacecraft. Simply to make sure the other side didn't mistake it for a ICBM pre-emptive attack. There are other reasons to do so as well, even amongst enemies.
So there couldn't have been much covering up of launch accidents, even amongst the more covert spy satellite launches, since the other side would be watching for them.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Which argues against the Moon landing conspiracy theorists - the Soviets would never allowed the USA to get away with a LEO flight and an Area 51 film of an alleged landing, surely...


----------



## ktabic (Jul 19, 2009)

Yes, that is true. Still, the true Moon landing conspiracy theorists would just add in Soviet collusion, rather than changed their mind. Probably claiming the Soviets used the same facility as NASA for the various moon missions the Soviets had (they didn't put anyone on the moon, but did land a lunar rover)


----------



## Pyan (Jul 19, 2009)

Wouldn't that be a Lunar Lada?..


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 20, 2009)

ktabic said:


> As I understand it, neither would have really done much covering up, because, height of the cold war paranoia being in place, both sides would let the other side know when they where launching spacecraft. Simply to make sure the other side didn't mistake it for a ICBM pre-emptive attack. There are other reasons to do so as well, even amongst enemies.
> So there couldn't have been much covering up of launch accidents, even amongst the more covert spy satellite launches, since the other side would be watching for them.


 
I seem to recall that was all part of the cold war fun. Keep them Ruskies/Imperialist war mongers guessing. I think we just rellied on spying to know what USSR were up to Visa-versa


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 20, 2009)

*Moonwalk One tonight at 10*

BTW guys,there's a program on tonight at 10 about the lost Apollo 11 footage that was recently found. Could be interesting! 
Discovery Channel tonight 10-12.30


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 20, 2009)

Oh god i can't believe this guy on another site. He doesn't believe it happened and when I showed him those photos I got the 'But my 14 year old could do that in Photoshop' routine!
Some people!


----------



## Urlik (Jul 20, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Oh god i can't believe this guy on another site. He doesn't believe it happened and when I showed him those photos I got the 'But my 14 year old could do that in Photoshop' routine!
> Some people!


 
at least when the photgraphic evidence was made available I admitted my mistake and gave up on doubting and accepted that the Apollo missions** did succeed in getting to the moon


**except for Apollo 13


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 21, 2009)

Urlik said:


> at least when the photgraphic evidence was made available I admitted my mistake and gave up on doubting and accepted that the Apollo missions** did succeed in getting to the moon
> 
> 
> **except for Apollo 13


 
Noow did that really happen or was it a 'funding secial'?


----------



## Urlik (Jul 21, 2009)

there is a conspiracy theory that 11 got lots of coverage because it was a unique event, but 12 didn't get the same number of viewers so 13 added a bit of spice to get people interested again


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 21, 2009)

Urlik said:


> there is a conspiracy theory that 11 got lots of coverage because it was a unique event, but 12 didn't get the same number of viewers so 13 added a bit of spice to get people interested again


 

and I believe that resulted in a budget increase.


13 would have been easy to cover up too


----------



## iansales (Jul 21, 2009)

Apollo 12 didn't get as much coverage because Alan Bean inadvertently pointed the TV camera at the sun and burnt it out. It helps to get the facts right before theorising


----------



## Dave (Jul 21, 2009)

When have conspiracy theories had any need of the truth?


----------



## Urlik (Jul 21, 2009)

I didn't say it was true or that I gave it any credence, I just said that there is a conspiracy theory concerning the Apollo 13 accident.


----------



## iansales (Jul 21, 2009)

Urlik said:


> I didn't say it was true or that I gave it any credence, I just said that there is a conspiracy theory concerning the Apollo 13 accident.



I was referring to the conspiracy too. But as Dave says, when has a conspiracy theorist let facts stand in the way of their pat conspiracy?


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 21, 2009)

Dear god what is it with all the conspiracy theories? Crazy!


----------



## mosaix (Jul 22, 2009)

Manarion said:


> What I never got was, why do people not believe the lunar landings actually occurred?



Well it starts off with some guy wanting to make some money by writing some semi-scientific gobbledygook. He approaches a publisher who also wants to make some money. The publisher thinks there might even be a TV program about it, and so it snowballs.

And then there's the public who suffer from a diet of superficiality fed by the media and a mis-trust of government and government organsiations.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 22, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Dear god what is it with all the conspiracy theories? Crazy!


 

Come on AE35: It's almost been proven that when they got to the moon the aliens up there sent one of them back in time to shoot Kenedy from the grassy mound


----------



## K. Riehl (Jul 22, 2009)

Send any conspiracy theorists to Buzz Aldrin's house, he'll take care of them:

YouTube - Buzz Aldrin punch

It's a youtube link where the guy calls the 72 year old Buzz Aldrin a liar and Buzz knocks him on his backside.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 22, 2009)

I'd like to know how much of a barrier to Space travel the Van Allen belts are.


----------



## iansales (Jul 22, 2009)

None, apparently.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 22, 2009)

iansales said:


> None, apparently.



Thats what i thought,yet someone was positing it as the reason we haven't progressed into Space exploration.


----------



## iansales (Jul 22, 2009)

Apollos 8 and 10 to 17 all went through the Van Allen Belt, and so did at least one of the Gemini missions. None of the astronauts have suffered as a result. I think they individually picked up no more rads than they'd have got from a chest X-ray.

Solar flares, OTOH, could be a major problem....


----------



## mosaix (Jul 22, 2009)

K. Riehl said:


> Send any conspiracy theorists to Buzz Aldrin's house, he'll take care of them:
> 
> YouTube - Buzz Aldrin punch
> 
> It's a youtube link where the guy calls the 72 year old Buzz Aldrin a liar and Buzz knocks him on his backside.



The things is when these nuts start conspiracy theories to make a bit of money they don't realise that first - people will believe them, second - they are, in effect calling people liars and fraudsters. 

The guy in the utube piece gets everything he deserves and I'm surprised Aldrin was so restrained.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

K. Riehl said:


> Send any conspiracy theorists to Buzz Aldrin's house, he'll take care of them:
> 
> YouTube - Buzz Aldrin punch
> 
> It's a youtube link where the guy calls the 72 year old Buzz Aldrin a liar and Buzz knocks him on his backside.


 
personally I think Buzz acted in a disgraceful manner and actually damaged his argument by resorting to violence.

I would have more respect for him if he had turned round and said that he had had the priveledge of standing on the surface of the Moon and looking back at the Earth and that the conspiracy theorists were jealous because they would never get the chance to follow in his footsteps.

punching someone in the face because they don't agree with you is not a good way to promote your argument unless your argument is weak and you are a bully.

if that was the only "evidence" that the Apollo missions weren't faked, I would continue to believe that the Apollo crews spent a few days in low Earth orbit


----------



## iansales (Jul 23, 2009)

The bloke he punched wasn't some random nutter, but Bart Sibrel, a man who has made a career out of haranguing and harassing astronauts in order to promote his own home-made films "proving" that the moon landings were faked. Quite frankly, Sibrel deserves everything he gets.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 23, 2009)

Does anyone know if the theory of the moon landing was faked conspiracy was around before Capricorn One came out? Was the film based on the conspiracy theory or did the theory come about because of the film?


----------



## mosaix (Jul 23, 2009)

Urlik said:


> punching someone in the face because they don't agree with you is not a good way to promote your argument unless your argument is weak and you are a bully.



He didn't get punched because he didn't agree with Aldrin he got punched because he called Aldrin a liar, in public.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

I still say that if you have a real argument that is backed by facts, resorting to violence makes it appear weaker than stating those facts.

it is the same as resorting to personal insults. attacking the person rather than their argument can be seen as not having faith in your own argument.

I have no idea who Bart Sibrel is, but if he has indeed made a career out of calling the Apollo astronauts liars then rather than hitting him they should sue him for libel, slander and defamation of character and/or get a restraining order against him and anyone in his employ.

regardless of how much he has earnt through his conspiracy films, he can't have made much of an impact on the earnings of any astronaut and he can't have had that much of an effect on the general public's opinion of the Apollo astronauts.

when you are in the right, unless there is a threat of physical harm, violence is not the answer and it is better to take the moral high ground and point out the holes in the other sides argument. this is why debating societies tend to include intelectuals rather than boxers and wrestlers

edit to add that Capricorn One was inspired by the conspiracy theory


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm with Aldrin on this one! The guy is right in his face and calls Aldrin a coward and a liar! He got what he deserved!


----------



## mosaix (Jul 23, 2009)

I would normally agree with you, Urlik. But what wasn't taking place here was a debate. Sibrel walked up to Aldrin, in public, and called him a coward and a liar.

The debate had already taken place, over decades, and it was quite clear that there was not going to be any change of position on Sibrel's part.

What we see in the Utube piece is a man not just defending his integrity but also coming to the end of his tether.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

using violence when there is no physical threat, and where there are other means available (the courts) is not justified.

Aldrin, and everyone else involved in the Apollo missions, could have taken Sibrel to court when he started slandering them.
if he was also harrassing them, as that clip implies, they could also get a restraining order against him and anyone he employs to continue the harrassment.

there are laws in place for this purpose and if they had been used, Aldrin wouldn't have felt the need to use violence.


----------



## iansales (Jul 23, 2009)

They couldn't have taken him to court - Sibrel has every right to believe whatever crackpot ideas he wants to believe. Nor can they really take him to court if he calls them a coward or a liar - perhaps in the UK they could, where we have the stupidest libel laws in the world (so stupid that people prefer to be libelled in the UK because they can sue).

I don't condone Aldrin's violence, but I certainly understand it. He was doorstepped by someone who had been harassing him for years. That person insulted him to his face in public. And don't forget that Aldrin is ex-military and an ex-astronaut. What other sort of response would you expect from him?


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 23, 2009)

This Bart guy is a trouble maker,just like that idiot Dennis Pennis. Some guy needs to punch his lights out too!


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

Sibrel may have every right to believe what he does but that doesn't give him the legal right to call someone a liar without any proof to back up his claim.
also it doesn't give him the legal right to harrass someone.

there are laws in the US that protect against this and that is the course of action that Aldrin should have followed.

As Aldrin is ex military and an ex astronaut, I would expect him to have a greater degree of self control.
he should remember the playground rhyme


> sticks and stones
> may break my bones,
> but names can never hurt me


 
just because we feel that someone deserves a smack in the mouth doesn't mean we should go out and start hitting people.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 23, 2009)

Urlik said:


> Sibrel may have every right to believe what he does but that doesn't give him the legal right to call someone a liar without any proof to back up his claim.


 
You have to remember that the laws of slander and libel in the US are a pale shadow (if that) of the draconian ones we have in the UK.


----------



## iansales (Jul 23, 2009)

Urlik, I can call you whatever I like and you have no legal redress unless you can prove my slander or libel has damaged your reputation or caused a loss of earnings in your trade or profession. You must also prove I did it maliciously if you want to collect punitive damages.

(IANAL, btw, so this may be over-simplified to point of inaccuracy or uselessness )


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

iansales said:


> Urlik, I can call you whatever I like and you have no legal redress unless you can prove my slander or libel has damaged your reputation or caused a loss of earnings in your trade or profession. You must also prove I did it maliciously if you want to collect punitive damages.
> 
> (IANAL, btw, so this may be over-simplified to point of inaccuracy or uselessness )


 
but if I hit you as a result of your name calling, I could be charged with assault or grievous/actual bodily harm as it wouldn't be justified by a threat of physical violence towards me.

but putting the law to one side as I am not a lawyer either, resorting to violence shows a lack of faith in one's argument and the evidence that backs it up.

it is the same as an archaeologist or history professor hitting a creationist for saying that they are spreading lies about God's work.
if the conspiracy theory is wrong, it should be possible to show the flaws in it and in doing so, discredit and ridicule the person espousing it.

punching them doesn't do anything to disprove their viewpoint and to the uninformed actually makes their case stronger "he hit him because he couldn't prove him wrong"


----------



## mosaix (Jul 23, 2009)

sticks and stones
may break my bones, 
but names can never hurt me

Yeah, but it isn't true is it?


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 23, 2009)

Maybe he is an old fashioned man of honour and got angry at being called a liar and a coward?


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

no excuse
he should have acted like the hero he is and walked away ignoring him.

as they say, it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight.
all he did was add circumstantial evidence to the conspiracy theory (that may have been Sibrel's plan from the beginning)


----------



## Pyan (Jul 23, 2009)

We seemed to have moved a little away from the subject here, folks...


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 23, 2009)

Urlik said:


> no excuse
> he should have acted like the hero he is and walked away ignoring him.
> 
> as they say, it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight.
> all he did was add circumstantial evidence to the conspiracy theory (that may have been Sibrel's plan from the beginning)



Another clip of the same incident taken from a different angle ends with Sibrel saying did you get that on camera? So maybe he was just trying to provoke a reaction to record on camera.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 23, 2009)

more than likely


----------

