Are There Images of the Lunar Landers from Orbit? 88
banditski asks: "We have pictures of Mars rovers from taken from orbit, like this photo of Opportunity, but I could not find any of the lunar landers from 60's and 70's? If they do exist, where are they?" More interesting photos from the MRO can be found in an October entry of the Bad Astronomer weblog, and interestingly enough this sentiment was repeated by a couple of posters, there. It won't be until 2008 until we get a fresh pair of 'eyes' on the Moon, but that doesn't mean that there aren't earlier, and just as interesting images buried somewhere on the net. Where can you find interesting orbital photos of the Moon, particularly ones that contain the LEMs, or other photogenic aspects of Tranquility Base?
No there arn't (Score:3, Funny)
Geez, I thought everyone knew that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No there arn't (Score:5, Funny)
How do you know that's not just a shiny rock?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It was well within our 1969 technology to send small unmanned landers to the moon, carrying retroreflectors. (Didn't every one of the supposed Apollo missions carry one?) That's how they got there, and how we're able to bounce lasers off of them.
Beyond that, even once we do have decent cameras in-place in 2008, remember that based on one of the referenced articles, NONE of the so-called Apoll
Re: (Score:2)
Boardwalk (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My bet's on the 'something stupid' happening first...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My wife operates the APOLLO lunar lasing system at Apache Point Observatory. The beam is fired through the telescope, so it's 3.5 meters wide exiting and heading towards the moon, apparently it's over 2km when it hits. I have no idea how b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Everything I've read about the reflectors left on the moon describes them as the corner-cube type of reflectors, although looking at a close up picture it's hard to tell if the mirrors are cubes or spheres.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Albedo is not the same thing as retroreflectivity. Albedo is the ratio of reflected to incident electromagnetic radiation, so it can't be greater than 1.
Retroreflectivity, however, is another matter completely. It's not a ratio, but just a measure of brightness (more or less), so there's no maximum. White clothing, for example, has a retroreflectivity of about one-third. The moon is only modestly better than this, at about one-half, iirc from high school. Most road signs have a retroreflectivity mea
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, how did that mirror get there? NASA has had the ability to land stuff on the moon since 1966 with the Surveyor missions [wikipedia.org]. They claim that it was set up by Apollo 11. But did anybody shoot a laser at the coordinates NASA gives before 1969 to prove that something wasn't there?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmmm, that's a partial debunking. Getting machinery on other planets is a sure thing. But a man is not a mirror. If we landed in 69 or no, it will be apparent when we get there [again].
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
> The requested URL (askslashdot/07/01/26/0432232.shtml) was not found.
Not found indeed. I'd go so far as to say that the moon itself doesn't exist. Just try finding any moon literature from before the 1930s. And notice how "coincidentally" only one side faces us, and it almost perfectly eclipses the sun, viewed from the Earth's surface. Makes you think, what's on the other side? Things get more contradictory from here: apparently it doesn't exist, yet we landed on it, and it has 4
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW to explain the way a sphere has 4 sides, see timecube.com for more information.
*giggle*
Re: (Score:1)
Myth [anarchistnews.org]
And this Slashdot version. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which, in reply, I wish to direct you here [dyson.com], here [hoover.com], or even here [shopvac.com]. Or if unmanned robotic efforts are more your cup of tea, here [irobot.com] (one of which just happens to be the subject for today here [woot.com]).
What, was somene not expecting a smart-ass reply to that?
Re: (Score:2)
He's asking about one that says things like, "You know, you really should consider vacuuming today. This place is a sty. Seriously, I've seen frat-houses that had cleaner floors. Come on, take me for a spin... you know you want to."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Link 1 [sfsidewalk...nomers.org]
Link 2 [cornell.edu]
here you go (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe for surface imaging but for (stellar) astronomical cameras bigger pixels are actually better. The larger the surface area of a CCD pixel the more photons it is able to collect thus making the imaging array more sensitive, even if that means lower resolution. To give you an idea, if you make a CCD array the sa
Re:Tin foil hat... (Score:5, Insightful)
Convenient to whom? It's very convenient for the conspiracy theorists as it means they can on thinking that everything is a lie.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, that's just what they want you to think.
X-Files Environmental Conspiracy... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
I believe it is because modern lunar orbiters have focused more on mapping minerals and such rather than on high-resolution imagers like the absolutely huge HiRISE [arizona.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Think about that. You'll get it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can look (Score:3, Informative)
exactly what you asked for (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you trust the Guvmint??? (Score:3, Funny)
(and I am sure there are people out there who would take the above seriously)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell no!
Nobody should.
Personally, I don't trust any organization with three or more people in it.
As much as I would like to believe in all the national history of US Space flight I'm really not a "believer" in anything except my ability to waste my own time.
Despite all the advances in technology if we had a serious space program we'd stop throwing away money on on orbital trailer parks and create genuine spacefaring technologies and exo-orbital structures which would make hull-building
Re: (Score:2)
Three or more you say? Well... I have just my partner in my organization, so you can trust us! We sell bridges. We have a fine selection in the New York City area that we'd be willing to sell you, cheap!
Re: (Score:2)
"Personally I don't trust any organization trying to sell anything."
I don't mind organizations when they're altruisic and informative, it's when they're trying to sell something that things get trampled.
I guess that makes me "unamerican". It goes well with being an unbeliever.
Of course I'm not immune to the antics of the P.T.Barnum club, at least any more than most.
I tend to think that anyone who has a mortage and realizes the illusion of home ownership fits that descri
Re: (Score:1)
There is nightlife on the Moon [kuleuven.be]
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
No (Score:4, Interesting)
I seem to remember a photo from 1-2 years ago, though. It showed the shadow of the LEM and some nearby stuff (Surveyor?). Not enough resolution to resolve the objects themselves, but the sun was low on the horizon, creating huge shadows.
LRO is the first since 1972 (Score:4, Informative)
But that's the Moon for you - the inner city of the solar system that everybody says they care about but nobody does anything.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WTF? Four to Six Pixels!!???? That is about the size of ---} ' {---- that black thing there!!
Re: (Score:2)
Famous last excuses of NASA personnel.. (Score:4, Funny)
* Quick, launch that space junk towards the moon before LROC [nasa.gov] comes along !
* Oh, it seems that we couldn't photograph the landing site due to a metric conversion error.
* Giant moon storms have suddenly wiped out all evidence of any landing on the moon, what a coincidence eh ?
* OMG this is not the moon we landed on in 1969, we have been tricked !
* There is life there, but not as we know it - they made our moon landers disappear.
* OK, the moon landing was faked - see this little bunny, this funny little bunny ? Look how cute this little bunny is ! So cute !
* The russians did it !
* The chinese did it !
* The martians did it !
* The democrats did it !
* In a blatant act of time-terrorism, our moon landing was sabotaged and in fact never ever took place !
* Due to global warming, our moon landers have shrunk to microscopic size.
* Because we plan to go to the moon in a decade time again, we decided to clean the place up and remove all evidence of any moon landers. Neat eh ?
* Our moon landing was an advanced project, so advanced that we calculated the environmental damage the moon equipment would have on the moon would be enormous. Therefore we decided, back then in 1969, to make all equipment on the moon from bio-degradable plastics - and look : they have all degraded !
* The chance of a meteor hitting the moon is very large - by a mere coincidence meteors have struck the exact same places our moon equipment were at and removed all evidence of us ever being there.
You forgot one (Score:2)
Nice troll! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice troll! WTF?? (Score:1)
Fer chrissakes, is there no place for plain old curiosity anymore?
I watched the landings on live TV. And though one could say I was gullible, being just shy of six years old in July of '69, I never doubted the authenticity of the landings.
Be that as it may, I'd still LOVE to see some photos of the discarded equipment from o
Re: (Score:2)
You read him asking "If they do exist, where are they?" as "If the rovers do exist, where are they?".
However in context the question is "If orbital pictures of them do exist, where are they?" as he said he can't find any out on the net.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But are there images of... (Score:3, Funny)
"We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune."
Re: (Score:2)
its because the landed on the far side of the moon (Score:1)
Re:its because the landed on the far side of the m (Score:1)
About time (Score:1)
It doesn't matter how remote something is, and what happened there, we want a full panavision image of it pronto from CNN or with beach babe added from FOX.
No, seriously, with all the bogus information we get from our respective governments it isn't at all surprising that the disenfranchised might suspect everything under the Sun (or Moon). Maybe they (the US) should send a High Yield full spec package to take snaps of previous holidays spent on the moon for the kids ba
Not possible - - yet (Score:3, Informative)
No lunar recon probes have had the camera resolution to do it as far as I know. The closest was SMART-1 which was plowed into the moon.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEM1O6BUQPE_0
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this an AskSlashdot? (Score:2)
NASA photoes wouldn't do any good (Score:2)
Photos provided by NASA or any other agency would do absolutely no good. The nutters who say the lunar landing was faked will just claim that the photos of the site were faked as well.
It stands to reason that if NASA would fake the landing, the could also fake the photos and fake the science to take them. This is not the case.
If you think the lunar landing were faked take some real physics courses and then decide for yourself. Otherwise go back to working on the perpetual motion machine behind the traile
Apollo 12 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep... The moon's seen it's first example of the very human activity known as looting.
Moon landing hoax 100 years from now (Score:2)
There would be no way to prove otherwise, not only because humans would be incapable of independant thought outside Digg, but because China would have destroyed the moon in retaliat