Hello everyone,

This is my first post and I've always been interested in science and space technology. I've been reading and watching a lot of information that claims we never went to the moon. Can you believe that?

Oh well, being an advanced monkey of sorts I have come up with a simple solution to end all this chatter.

I will first point you to a video I found on Google video which was released by the National Archives which shows that NASA sent an satellite to orbit the moon around 1967 to get closeup pictures of the moon to find a nice smooth spot for our astronauts to land.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 15 seconds to verify that they could in fact see a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9335412&q=moon

The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution to verify that the lunar landers and space vehicles exist on the surface of the moon. We could learn a lot from these new pictures as well.

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all.

...

Actually NASA is planning on doing that in a couple of years with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to be launched in 2008.

Good morning (or whatever time of day where you are!), softearth, and welcome.

The lunar landing issue was conclusively solved long ago when Apollo was tracked to, around, on, and back from the Moon, retrieved hundreds of kilograms of differentiated samples, and hand-placed scientific instruments on the Moon. There's no question it happened among anyone who spends enough time learning about it.

But to address your specific question: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Your question raises another one, though: given the evidence that already exists for Apollo, why should images taken by another spacecraft convince anyone? Any such image will be entirely electronic once it crosses the lens and hits the imaging array. What would stop NASA or whoever took such images from simply creating them in a computer? Why would they be convincing?

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Oh, and why, as a taxpayer, would I want NASA to spend on the order of a hundred million bucks to satisfy hoax believers?

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

They shouldn't and NASA will never convince people like Bart Sibrel. IMO this mission will definately convince fence sitters.

While all the advances in electronics, the internet and the massive amount of data that will be return, it will be a lot harder to claim hoax.

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

Well, that's exactly what Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (see links above) is for - helping identify good targets for the new landings scheduled to begin in 2018.

I'm not sure what you mean by "share the raw data". They did that back in the '60s and '70s, including lunar samples analyzed by scientists around the world.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...



Welcome to the BAUT, softearth. Have fun!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The raw data from the lunar landings back in the 60's and 70's was not shared in real time. It was filtered through NASA for approval and then released to the public.

How could it be shared in real time back then? There was no internet, and it was film, not digital, it had to be processed.

That depends on what you mean by "raw data". The mission communications and telemetry could be picked up by anyone with the proper antenna and receiving equipment. Most of the voice communication was "in the clear" and could be (and was) heard by many people worldwide, including the Soviet Union and others not under the control of NASA.

Similarly, the lunar samples were shared with any researcher in the world who requested it. You can't get much "rawer" than actual rocks and soils collected on the Moon! Yes, they were distributed by NASA, but quite freely -- and not a single researcher has disputed that the material came from the Moon.

Really, the evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions is overwhelming, so much so that anyone who refuses to accept it is very unlikely to change their mind based on some new photos from another NASA mission.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

And the lunar samples are still available to researchers. Link

Part of the problem is that those today that believe the landings were faked do so because that is what they want to believe. These people will continue to believe what they want no matter what evidence is provided. I'm sure new images will do little to put an end to the moon landing hoax theories.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...

That's a good point, considering that there are a few especially cranky conspiracists (such as the author of this page) who claim that the plane that struck WTC 2 was actually a missile with a hologram generator.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Don't forget, they already have an excuse for anything from Apollo that is proven to be on the moon. 'NASA has had 40 years to put it there.'

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Yep, as soon as you show further conclusive proof, the HBs will dismiss it as faked.

An example: 9/11. On a forum, some people (none engineers or similar) were going over the flight recorder data from Flight 93 and saying "look at this!" and saying how it proved that the aircraft was shot down.

An aeronautical engineer with 20 years of experience in data analysis, FDR analysis, flight modelling, etc, pops in and says in no uncertain terms that the data from the FDR is entirely consistant with the offical report.

So that would have to convince them, right?

Nope. Now it's "the data was faked", etc.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

Money

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Is raw data unavalible or simply only provided if specificly asked for (and not nessicarily for free)? The general public lacks the capability to make use of unprocessed data so making it avalible to them is fairly pointless, and given the large quantaties of data supplying it will have a significant cost.
Most likely because they all have decidedly limited budgets and as high resolution images are already avalible from Apollo obtaining new ones aren't high on the list of things to spend money on.

As jrkeller mentioned, expect the LRO in 2008. As for why not so far, the moon is in our backyard. It just hasn't been considered a priority, scientifically or politically. Interplanetary probes and other juicier projects tended to get the money. Now that we are planning on going back to the moon, it makes sense to get better information on it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Money is it in a nutshell. It costs money. They have a limited budget, why waste it on trying to prove that which they have already proven? No other country has felt the need to go take pictures of our lunar trash from space for the same reason. Not even the USSR who had the most reason to check up on us. We'll just have to wait until 2008 which I think will be very cool.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Just to be clear on this: There is absolutely no justification for going to the moon just to take pictures of where we have already been. The only reasons for lunar survey are scientific or to better plan for lunar settlements. Aside from the cost, a "check up" would be irrelevent. The evidence that we landed is already overwhelming. Moon hoaxers would just say it was faked and everyone else would wonder why the money was wasted this way.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Are you saying that this was done with the Apollo pictures? If so, I believe that you are wrong. The only electronic pictures taken by the Apollo missions were television. Everything else was film. Hundreds or thousands of 70mm Hasselblad frames, and loads of 16mm movies. The film was developed and printed on Earth. The astronauts had enough to do besides fooling with developing chemicals in free-fall.

I will, of course, accept correction from those who know more about it than me.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

It seems that after doing some research on the subject of going back to the moon, NASA isn't the only one interested. I found a few resources for reference.

Ref: http://www.transorbital.net/media.html

Ref: http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...al_030715.html

The funny thing about this link is that it says:

A test mission was launched into Earth orbit in December 2002 to check out TrailBlazer's launch vehicle, a Dnepr rocket, and the spacecraft separation process.

"That launch performed flawlessly," said Laurie. "Our second step is to go to the Moon." TrailBlazer's launch is set for early 2004.

WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

Ref: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/future/future.html

So it seems there is great interest in going back to the moon, not only for science, but commercial use as well.

Hope this helps explain away why cost isn't an issue.

G'day softearth, I'm with you, I can't understand why they haven't been back.
Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions but imagine the full disk view of Earth from a small soft lander, there must be some value in being able to observe the Earth as it goes through it's phases from the lunar surface.

Those of us who regularly read www.space.com heard about it when it happened. It's interesting to note that the TransOrbital website (http://www.transorbital.net/bluespar...p?action=index) hasn't been updated since 2004.

BTW, why are you shouting?

Perhaps the reason TransOrbital has been delaying further missions for years now is due to money, or lack thereof. Same thing applies to the Russian proposals too.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Try reading all the posts in this thread.
They have samples from the maria, highlands, craters, mountains, rilles, etc., that they're still working on. They will have more samples in a few years. What value, other than pretty pictures, of which we already have a plethora? Plus we currently get a multitude of Earth pictures from various geosats, weather satellites, the ISS, etc., which are much more detailed than what could be produced from the Moon.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The data wasn't held for "approval" but rather for processing and for those investigators who had done all the work to have first crack at it. There is nothing unusual about this in scientific practice. In any case, basically all data from Apollo has been available to anybody for decades.

Additionally, telemetry from Apollo, and the ALSEP experiments, was tracked and downlinked worldwide.

Finally, suppose the taxpayers coughed up about a hundred million bucks for a high-resolution imager meant specifically to "broadcast" data to any interested party. What would prevent the imagery from being faked onboard? We have the onboard computing capability nowadays to add a few pixels to a genuine Moon image. Your scenario is still untenable as "proof" of Apollo's reality; it doesn't hold a candle to the actual proof we already have from four decades ago.

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

This was not the case with Apollo, which used both direct video and film which was processed on Earth.

It seems that after doing some research on the subject of going back to the moon, NASA isn't the only one interested.

The Chinese have a manned lunar program going. They are currently planning to land there around 2025 (last time I checked). Other nations have lunar exploration programs of various ambitions.

WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

We did; it made the usual news sources, though as usual politics and explosions and celebrity scandals received about a million times as much press. Apparently you don't follow the space business regularly, like many of us do.

Hope this helps explain away why cost isn't an issue.

No, it doesn't. Building up a space industrial infrastructure is enormously expensive and both progress and return on investment are far from certain. Private (or publicly-held) businesses don't spend that kind of money on their own. Governments don't spend that kind of money without public support (aka votes), and the taxpaying public hasn't had that kind of consistent interest in space since the first manned Moon landing. In the U.S., interest in unmanned projects has flared up episodically with Mars landings, but that's about it.

Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions

Er, why would petroleum geologists be interested in samples from a basically sterile body like the Moon?

but imagine the full disk view of Earth from a small soft lander, there must be some value in being able to observe the Earth as it goes through it's phases from the lunar surface.

Aesthetic and spiritual value, yes. But not much scientific value, in particular when compared to Triana and other Earth observers. (And Triana was shelved anyway.) In any case, there is no point at all to having such an imager on the lunar surface; if you just wanted pictures of the Earth from the Moon, it would be far easier to take them from a lunar oribiter.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

A petrologist studies various kinds of rocks and is not necessarily involved in petroleum exploration et al. Reference.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.