Author Topic: NASA Photos Of Apollo Landing Sites (Read 4543 times)

GOBUCKS · « **on:** July 17, 2009, 03:27:25 PM »

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.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

Quote

S_E_Fudd (721 posts) Fri Jul-17-09 12:28 PM
Original message
Photos of Apollo sites released....very cool!!!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6088232#6088786

It is interesting to note that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) has examined these photos in detail, and is calling for an investigation into why she can find no evidence of the Mars Rover ever having been there.

USA4ME · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2009, 03:31:22 PM »

Here's another site worth seeing:

http://wechoosethemoon.org/

.

Chris_ · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:10:06 PM »

Quote from: GOBUCKS on July 17, 2009, 03:27:25 PM

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.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6088232#6088786

It is interesting to note that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) has examined these photos in detail, and is calling for an investigation into why she can find no evidence of the Mars Rover ever having been there.

Why would the Mars Rover be on the Moon?

Eupher · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:29:55 PM »

That's like failing to answer the question, "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?"

diesel driver · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:53:24 PM »

Quote from: lug-nut on July 17, 2009, 05:10:06 PM

Why would the Mars Rover be on the Moon?

Shelia Jackson-Lee was the DUmbass House member from Texas that was watching the first pics from the Mars Rovers and asked if they could take them to where we landed back in 1969....

Servonaut · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:54:09 PM »

That is one badass picture.

vesta111 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2009, 06:06:56 AM »

Quote from: diesel driver on July 17, 2009, 05:53:24 PM

Shelia Jackson-Lee was the DUmbass House member from Texas that was watching the first pics from the Mars Rovers and asked if they could take them to where we landed back in 1969....

Can't blame people who were not born for 10 years after the fact for getting all confused, especially since little of this has been in the papers or news except when one of the astronauts goes bonkers and swears he saw UFOs up there or found God on the return trip.

I remember that night we all waited until very late to watch the first man walk on the moon. The one thing that has stayed with me all these years is my first thought was who was taking the pictures, how did the camera get that far from the module , move about and photograph the action ?

I continued to wonder about this on each moon landing after and could find no one to tell me how it was done.

It reminded me of MacArthur when he stepped ashore in the Phillipeans and the famous picture of him as the first American to arrive--mean while in the background one could see Army Nurses who had been there for weeks, and the thought, who took that photo ??

With this in mind I took a jump over to the flat earth society forums and found I am not the only one curious about how the photography was done.

Some of the questions were interesting to say the least, why for instance did Moon Rocks become a felony to own by civilians ? Who actually OWNED those rocks, did the Astronauts get to keep just one, for their tourest collection of souvenirs ?

Another question, when the Astronauts jumped up and down, with low gravity didn't the moon dust fly up and obscure them from the camera ?

This led me to thinking about that moon cart they were driving. Anyone who has lived on a dirt road in dry season knows about the trail of dust a moving Vechel makes, just moving At 3 mph should raise a dust storm under that low a gravity conditions.

Then was it not just a week or 2 ago that we were told the original films went missing, all we have now are reproductions of the original.

It is easy for me to understand why there are men/woman of science out there that are very sceptical of events that took place 40 years ago.

Then one must realise that Nixon was president at that time and all the smoke and mirrors he created.

ironhorsedriver · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2009, 06:20:58 AM »

I don't think any real men and women of science question the moon landings.

NHSparky · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2009, 07:56:48 AM »

Quote from: vesta111 on July 19, 2009, 06:06:56 AM

Can't blame people who were not born for 10 years after the fact for getting all confused, especially since little of this has been in the papers or news except when one of the astronauts goes bonkers and swears he saw UFOs up there or found God on the return trip.

I remember that night we all waited until very late to watch the first man walk on the moon. The one thing that has stayed with me all these years is my first thought was who was taking the pictures, how did the camera get that far from the module , move about and photograph the action ?

I continued to wonder about this on each moon landing after and could find no one to tell me how it was done.

It reminded me of MacArthur when he stepped ashore in the Phillipeans and the famous picture of him as the first American to arrive--mean while in the background one could see Army Nurses who had been there for weeks, and the thought, who took that photo ??

With this in mind I took a jump over to the flat earth society forums and found I am not the only one curious about how the photography was done.

Some of the questions were interesting to say the least, why for instance did Moon Rocks become a felony to own by civilians ? Who actually OWNED those rocks, did the Astronauts get to keep just one, for their tourest collection of souvenirs ?

Another question, when the Astronauts jumped up and down, with low gravity didn't the moon dust fly up and obscure them from the camera ?

This led me to thinking about that moon cart they were driving. Anyone who has lived on a dirt road in dry season knows about the trail of dust a moving Vechel makes, just moving At 3 mph should raise a dust storm under that low a gravity conditions.

Then was it not just a week or 2 ago that we were told the original films went missing, all we have now are reproductions of the original.

It is easy for me to understand why there are men/woman of science out there that are very sceptical of events that took place 40 years ago.

Then one must realise that Nixon was president at that time and all the smoke and mirrors he created.

First off, vesta, a bit of history for you as well: (yes, it's teh Wiki, but bear with me:)

LINK

IOW, she was 19 when we landed on the moon. Second, she's a member of Congress. You know, sending your best and brightest to represent you, all that? Or maybe not so much?

And Nixon? Smoke and mirrors? Please tell me what you're smoking. If I ever get to the point where I'm not subject to urinalysis anymore I want some of whatever you're putting in the bong this morning.

RightCoast · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:15:42 AM »

Quote from: NHSparky on July 19, 2009, 07:56:48 AM

First off, vesta, a bit of history for you as well: (yes, it's teh Wiki, but bear with me:)

LINK

IOW, she was 19 when we landed on the moon. Second, she's a member of Congress. You know, sending your best and brightest to represent you, all that? Or maybe not so much?

And Nixon? Smoke and mirrors? Please tell me what you're smoking. If I ever get to the point where I'm not subject to urinalysis anymore I want some of whatever you're putting in the bong this morning.

Several of the CU "Owned" pics would be appropriate now.

Eupher · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:36:32 PM »

Let's see.

Vesta questions why dust storms didn't arise when the lunar rover was out and about.

Lord God Almighty. Her entire post reeks of trooferism.

I'm no cosmologist or lunar expert, but I'd think that the lack of an ATMOSPHERE on the moon might have something to do with the lack of flapping flags and dearth of dust storms.

I agree with Sparky. When I get to the point where I don't have to piss in the cup, I might like a taste of that bong that you're hitting.

Doc · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:59:00 PM »

Quote from: vesta111 on July 19, 2009, 06:06:56 AM

how did the camera get that far from the module , move about and photograph the action ?

I continued to wonder about this on each moon landing after and could find no one to tell me how it was done.

Another question, when the Astronauts jumped up and down, with low gravity didn't the moon dust fly up and obscure them from the camera ?

As a young engineer working with McDonnell on the lander radar, I can advise you that the photos were taken by a remotely controlled camera with a wide angle lens (15mm) that was mounted in an enclosure on one of the landers landing struts. it could be rotated and indexed from inside the module, or by radio link from the luner orbiter (In case the astronauts did not survive the actual landing)

This led me to thinking about that moon cart they were driving. Anyone who has lived on a dirt road in dry season knows about the trail of dust a moving Vechel makes, just moving At 3 mph should raise a dust storm under that low a gravity conditions.

The moon does have lower gravity, however it lacks the atmosphere to suspend dust particles into a "dust cloud" they therefore, when disturbed, simply fall back to the surface much like beach sand does when you release a handful.

Then one must realise that Nixon was president at that time and all the smoke and mirrors he created.

Other than make speeches, Nixon had little to do with the Apollo program, other than being a cheerleader.....

doc

PS: Since I actually received my paycheck for 18 months working on the lander, I can assure you that A. It was built, B. It was launched, C. part of it is still there, and can be seen by a good telescope, and D. Part of it came back.

GOBUCKS · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:08:41 PM »

I refuse to believe that anyone, even this DUmmy, could be that dumb.

They are treading on ground that is home only to Sheila Jackson Lee and Cynthia McKinney.

vesta111 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:35:47 AM »

Quote from: TVDOC on July 19, 2009, 01:59:00 PM

A couple years ago I went to the Space Museum in D.C. looking in AWE at those capsules humans climbed into to head out for the unknown.

After a couple of hours I left the museum still shaking my head at how on earth anyone would willing climb into those all so very small vehicles to go 100 feet off the ground much less to the MOON.

All the science fiction thoughts of colonizing the Moon is sort of nuts to my thinking.

At this time outside of a few research labs, there is no way for us to build deep sea living spaces on our own planet. We know more about Mars and the, if it can be called, weather patterns then we do about our own.

We spend all this time and money to get to places that will take forever to study, map and explore.

We will be trying to equate any knowledge we find that will be useless to us until we can understand with some kind of a Rosetta Stone to make sense.

We know so very little of our own planet, we can only guess at what is under our seas, volcano's, huge pockets of methane, life forms that can thrive in conditions unheard of for us topside.

We have to learn to crawl before we walk, dive into our own mystery's before we even think of ignoring home to go anywhere that holds mysteries we cannot comprehend.

thundley4 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:50:47 AM »

Um, yeah. Scientists are totally ignoring the Earth and there is no research being done into those subjects you mentioned. Ever hear of multi-tasking?

Chris_ · « **Reply #15 on:** July 20, 2009, 12:14:28 PM »

Quote from: vesta111 on July 20, 2009, 06:35:47 AM

A couple years ago I went to the Space Museum in D.C. looking in AWE at those capsules humans climbed into to head out for the unknown.

After a couple of hours I left the museum still shaking my head at how on earth anyone would willing climb into those all so very small vehicles to go 100 feet off the ground much less to the MOON.

All the science fiction thoughts of colonizing the Moon is sort of nuts to my thinking.

At this time outside of a few research labs, there is no way for us to build deep sea living spaces on our own planet. We know more about Mars and the, if it can be called, weather patterns then we do about our own.

We spend all this time and money to get to places that will take forever to study, map and explore.

We will be trying to equate any knowledge we find that will be useless to us until we can understand with some kind of a Rosetta Stone to make sense.

We know so very little of our own planet, we can only guess at what is under our seas, volcano's, huge pockets of methane, life forms that can thrive in conditions unheard of for us topside.

We have to learn to crawl before we walk, dive into our own mystery's before we even think of ignoring home to go anywhere that holds mysteries we cannot comprehend.

Either you are very young.......or you know little about science.........or both.

It would be my earnest suggestion that you do some study on the various topics mentioned above before making broad-brush comments concerning the state of the art in science........

doc

Ptarmigan · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2009, 05:07:53 PM »

Cool photo of the Moon. We should be on Mars and beyond by now.

RightCoast · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2009, 05:11:14 PM »

Follow the links to shots of footprints in the moon dust, gave me chills to think that they're still there

Sam Adams · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:11:38 AM »

Quote from: Eupher on July 17, 2009, 05:29:55 PM

That's like failing to answer the question, "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?"

Except the answer is Grant AND his wife.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:24:28 AM »

Quote from: vesta111 on July 19, 2009, 06:06:56 AM

Can't blame people who were not born for 10 years after the fact for getting all confused, especially since little of this has been in the papers or news except when one of the astronauts goes bonkers and swears he saw UFOs up there or found God on the return trip.

I would say "You can't be serious," but it appears you are. Mars? Moon? A person supposedly wise enough to make our laws, tax us, and spend the money wisely (Bear with me, the rest of you, it's the standard ol' Sheila is supposed to meet, no matter how short of the mark she really falls) has no clue about the difference, and has repeatedly demonstrated the fact? While I feel you take a great deal of undeserved abuse from some of our more aggressive members in a lot of threads, you deserve it all for that one.

thundley4 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:42:40 AM »

Whoopi Goldberg is apparently a non believer, and questioned whether we landed on the moon.

Chris_ · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:21:42 AM »

Quote from: thundley4 on July 21, 2009, 10:42:40 AM

Whoopi Goldberg is apparently a non believer, and questioned whether we landed on the moon.

...but she was a regular on Star Trek. She should know better.

Eupher · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:46:45 AM »

Quote from: Sam Adams on July 21, 2009, 10:11:38 AM

Except the answer is Grant AND his wife.

More obfuscation. You trolls are particularly bad at staying on topic, aren't you?

Vesta's musings are only slightly worse than your poor attempts at humor.

And Sheila's incredibly stupid remarks boggle the mind. Kinda makes me wonder if all of you have gone to and graduated from the School of the Moonbat.

thundley4 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:55:50 AM »

Quote from: Eupher on July 21, 2009, 11:46:45 AM

More obfuscation. You trolls are particularly bad at staying on topic, aren't you?

Vesta's musings are only slightly worse than your poor attempts at humor.

And Sheila's incredibly stupid remarks boggle the mind. Kinda makes me wonder if all of you have gone to and graduated from the School of the Moonbat.

Liberalism is a mental illness, 'nuff said.

Happy Fun Ball · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2009, 12:24:40 PM »

Quote from: vesta111 on July 19, 2009, 06:06:56 AM

Can't blame people who were not born for 10 years after the fact for getting all confused, especially since little of this has been in the papers or news except when one of the astronauts goes bonkers and swears he saw UFOs up there or found God on the return trip.

I remember that night we all waited until very late to watch the first man walk on the moon. The one thing that has stayed with me all these years is my first thought was who was taking the pictures, how did the camera get that far from the module , move about and photograph the action ?

I continued to wonder about this on each moon landing after and could find no one to tell me how it was done.

It reminded me of MacArthur when he stepped ashore in the Phillipeans and the famous picture of him as the first American to arrive--mean while in the background one could see Army Nurses who had been there for weeks, and the thought, who took that photo ??

With this in mind I took a jump over to the flat earth society forums and found I am not the only one curious about how the photography was done.

Some of the questions were interesting to say the least, why for instance did Moon Rocks become a felony to own by civilians ? Who actually OWNED those rocks, did the Astronauts get to keep just one, for their tourest collection of souvenirs ?

Another question, when the Astronauts jumped up and down, with low gravity didn't the moon dust fly up and obscure them from the camera ?

This led me to thinking about that moon cart they were driving. Anyone who has lived on a dirt road in dry season knows about the trail of dust a moving Vechel makes, just moving At 3 mph should raise a dust storm under that low a gravity conditions.

Then was it not just a week or 2 ago that we were told the original films went missing, all we have now are reproductions of the original.

It is easy for me to understand why there are men/woman of science out there that are very sceptical of events that took place 40 years ago.

Then one must realise that Nixon was president at that time and all the smoke and mirrors he created.

Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage would like to have a word with you.

News:

Author Topic: NASA Photos Of Apollo Landing Sites (Read 4543 times)