So we did go to the moon?

[Virago]

Who would have thunk it?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/10203870/new-photos-show-traces-of-mans-lunar-visits-40-years-ago/

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg

Will await the conspiracy theorists claims of "photoshop".

[admenk]

The mess was left by interplanetary freedom campers :facepalm:

[imdying]

Will await the conspiracy theorists claims of "photoshop".I'm not sure why you think a few pixels vaguely in the shape of what they claim them to be is going to be enough to convince anyone. These photos don't even help it get past the mangled Occam's razor test.

[gijoe1313]

It was Mr Black in the drawing room, using the candlestick! :innocent:

[Banditbandit]

I'm not sure why you think a few pixels vaguely in the shape of what they claim them to be is going to be enough to convince anyone. These photos don't even help it get past the mangled Occam's razor test.

Oh just go there and fucking look for yourself then ..

[DEATH_INC.]

Conspiracy theorists :laugh:

I'm sure the us and the ussr had no intention of ever going there...that's why they tipped billions of dollars and years of time and research just to make up some dodgy story. :facepalm:

[Winston001]

Why can't they find Donald Trump's hairpiece birth certificate...?? :innocent:

[mashman]

it's just space junk :shifty:

[ellipsis]

...at the top right edge about an inch in on that pic, I saw something move...

[imdying]

Oh just go there and fucking look for yourself then ..Patience, it'll be a while before optics (or space tourists?) gets that far along, but it'll happen.

[Scuba_Steve]

is it just me or does the "challenger decent stage" look out of place???

The photo doesn't show the footpath the TV propaganda said they built

[DrunkenMistake]

Conspiracy theorists :laugh:

I'm sure the us and the ussr had no intention of ever going there...that's why they tipped billions of dollars and years of time and research just to make up some dodgy story. :facepalm:

I dont think its a question of, Did they land on the moon,
But when did they really land on the moon.

IMO.

[onearmedbandit]

They should have taken a high school student with them. The we would all know it happened due to the 'I waz hair' and 'F.T.W.' messages scratched into the moons surface.

[imdying]

They should have taken a high school student with them. The we would all know it happened due to the 'I waz hair' and 'F.T.W.' messages scratched into the moons surface.Wot coz we couldn't photoshop dem on too?

[spajohn]

Who would have thunk it?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/10203870/new-photos-show-traces-of-mans-lunar-visits-40-years-ago/

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg

Will await the conspiracy theorists claims of "photoshop".

Hell, I'm waiting for Greenpeace to kick up a fuss ...

[Scuba_Steve]

Wot coz we couldn't photoshop dem on too?

Na I just think it's cause no self-respecting photoshop'r would :lol:

[Usarka]

Will await the conspiracy theorists claims of "photoshop".

The conspiracy theorists are too busy telling us that climate change is a hoax.

[Bikemad]

it's just space junk :shifty:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DMVqVXDUdaU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[nodrog]

Fuck the moon, I'd rather go to Uranus.

[Usarka]

Fuck the moon, I'd rather go to Uranus.

Or a black hole.

[nodrog]

Or a black hole.

bleach it man!

[meteor]

It was Mr Black in the drawing room, using the candlestick! :innocent:

Why do people always blame the dark guy?

[avgas]

While I do think we went to the moon. This evidence is bullshit.

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn, but all the gazzilion pixel camera's on earth combined with the super telescopes we have now (and off it) can take a clear photo of a 5m high moon lander sitting on the closest rock to earth.

NASA has to come up with something better than this.

[imdying]

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn, but all the gazzilion pixel camera's on earth combined with the super telescopes we have now (and off it) can take a clear photo of a 5m high moon lander sitting on the closest rock to earth.p.Google Earth does not have to look through the atmosphere in its entirety before getting a shot at the distant target.


NASA has to come up with something better than this.They did, Hubble etc etc. They'll get there.

[gijoe1313]

Why do people always blame the dark guy?

Because they're always saying things like "where all dem white wimmen at?" :innocent: Gosh, I see a saddle ablaze! :innocent:

[pzkpfw]

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn, but all the gazzilion pixel camera's on earth combined with the super telescopes we have now (and off it) can take a clear photo of a 5m high moon lander sitting on the closest rock to earth.

Firstly you over-state the detail available.

Secondly you forget that the best of those photos are not taken by satellites - they are taken by planes.

Not even the Hubble space telescope has the angular resolution to take a "good" picture of the Apollo landing stages. The reason it can show us Galaxies so far away, is that those Galaxies are so darn big.

Compare Apples with Apples.

[avgas]

Google Earth does not have to look through the atmosphere in its entirety before getting a shot at the distant target.
So you can't see the moon at night because the atmosphere is too thick?

[Banditbandit]

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn,

Fuck - talk about multi-tasking!!! Wanking and using Google Earth to watch yoursef at the same time ...

And isnt that taking auto-eroticisim to extremes?

[avgas]

Firstly you over-state the detail available.

Secondly you forget that the best of those photos are not taken by satellites - they are taken by planes.

Not even the Hubble space telescope has the angular resolution to take a "good" picture of the Apollo landing stages. The reason it can show us Galaxies so far away, is that those Galaxies are so darn big.

Compare Apples with Apples.
Actually the problem with Hubble is actually due fact that the lens it is setup for is designed to focus on things outside our solar system.

Its just disappointing that we seemed to be able to fixate on the fantastic images we get from orbiting mars, but we can't seem to get a good photo of the damn big thing sitting in the night sky.

We have much more out there including Hubble though. Saw a good film a while ago showed something like 40+ probes shooting past planets and moons in our system and sending the info back.

Yet we can't seem to focus on the lump of chalk 384,403 km away. Surely there is a camera out there that could focus on it.........I bet the Russians are hiding all their moon photo's lol

[avgas]

Fuck - talk about multi-tasking!!! Wanking and using Google Earth to watch yoursef at the same time ...

And isnt that taking auto-eroticisim to extremes?
Unfortunately the photos on google earth are from a while ago.
So I am not as big as I am now. lol

But back on topic. Thank god the mirrors were left on the moon so we can shoot lazers at them

[Scuba_Steve]

But back on topic. Thank god the mirrors were left on the moon so we can shoot lazers at them

And I know just the laser for it

Wicked Lasers' S3 Krypton. The Guinness Record-pending laser produces about 86 million lux and can be seen from up to 85 miles away, well beyond the edge of our atmosphere. Of course, at roughly 8,000-times the brightness of the Sun, serious safety precautions are needed when operating the S3.

[imdying]

You may need to reconsider how you prune quotes; you seem to be confusing yourself be removing pertinent information.

You wanted to know why you can't get high resolution images of the moon:

How come I can use google to zoom into me (to the point of me recognizing my own smile on my face) having a wank on the back lawn, but all the gazzilion pixel camera's on earth combined with the super telescopes we have now (and off it) can take a clear photo of a 5m high moon lander sitting on the closest rock to earth.

But now you're implying that the atmosphere can't be to blame because you can see the moon with the naked eye.

So you can't see the moon at night because the atmosphere is too thick?

Either your qualifier is being able to see a 5m high moon lander sitting on the face of the moon, or it isn't. Make up your mind.

[Pixie]

Conspiracy theorists :laugh:

I'm sure the us and the ussr had no intention of ever going there...that's why they tipped billions of dollars and years of time and research just to make up some dodgy story. :facepalm:

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html

[willytheekid]

:facepalm:Pffft! of course we did!....where else did cheese come from?:weird:

[Gremlin]

Fuck the moon, I'd rather go to Uranus.
Who cares.... can't ride there yet...

[nodrog]

Who cares.... can't ride there yet...

Thats not what I have heard.

[avgas]

You may need to reconsider how you prune quotes; you seem to be confusing yourself be removing pertinent information.
You wanted to know why you can't get high resolution images of the moon:
But now you're implying that the atmosphere can't be to blame because you can see the moon with the naked eye.
Either your qualifier is being able to see a 5m high moon lander sitting on the face of the moon, or it isn't. Make up your mind.
I think you'll find its the distance more than the atmosphere that stops us taking high res images of the moon. But it will happen eventually.
This is why we can actually see the moon....... but unfortunately our eyes can't zoom that far. And telescopes have a focal length that go a bit further......

These images are a bit old (so you will see where I am coming from). But OK. I was just hoping for a bit more this time.
Apollo 12 http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/apollo12-2.jpg

Crashed Russian Craft (1967) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bp7Rn44kD8k/TjLU9gozhaI/AAAAAAAACTs/WvYFxWJ1pBI/s1600/Lost%2B1967%2Bspacecraft%2BFOUND%2BCRASHED%2BON%2B MOON%2B00.png

Is it so much to ask that in the time it took since these were taken, and the fact that Moore's Law has been in effect this time, that we should have a photos of the same sites now but a million times better resolution than then?

but feel free to continue your rant. :corn:

[imdying]

I think you'll find its the distance more than the atmosphere that stops us taking high res images of the moon.Nup, I sure won't.

[pzkpfw]

Is it so much to ask that in the time it took since these were taken, and the fact that Moore's Law has been in effect this time, that we should have a photos of the same sites now but a million times better resolution than then?

Yes, it is too much.

Moore's law makes for better computers. So yes, modern bikes (for example) have some advantages over old bikes - but they still don't fly and run on banana peels.

Moore's law doesn't specifically make for better optics for telescopes. Nor does it specifically make for bigger rockets to launch bigger telescopes into space.

(With better computers we can design better rockets - but we don't ride the computers into space!)

Unless you can come up with a specific reason why you think we should have a better view of what's left on the Moon, it's you who is ranting.

[Winston001]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club. :D

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.

[DEATH_INC.]

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.htmlDammit! I knew I'd missed something.... :facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

It's all controlled by the Stonecutters
http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html

What have you got against the Masons?

[wysper]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club. :D

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.

Steady on Winston, that all sounds reasonable. Are you sure you are posting on the right forum?

[ducatilover]

Daddy tells me teh moonz is candy floss.

[avgas]

Unless you can come up with a specific reason why you think we should have a better view of what's left on the Moon, it's you who is ranting.
Camera MegaPixelling is where i was heading with that.
aka A-2-D converting.......

has also followed Moore's law.......

[avgas]

I'm not sure exactly how many orbital telescopes there are but Hubble and Kepler are the main ones for visible light. Others work on radiowaves, infra-red, and X-rays up to Gamma. One day hopefully we'll see a gravity detector in orbit.

Anyway, as I understand it Hubble and Kepler do not normally look at the Moon. Why? For one thing, it is too close. However, Hubble did do a Moon study in ultraviolet in 2007.

Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club. :D

Thirdly, even if these telescopes could look at the Moon, the time isn't available. To get time on Hubble you have to state a very compelling case for looking at a specific portion of the sky and you are up against hundreds of other astrophysicists from all over the world who reckon they have better ideas.

Fourthly the Moon moves too fast, faster than the orbital telescopes can turn to track it and keep in focus. Plus the movement changes the angle and blurs any image.
1) I pointed out earlier.
2) IS THE VERY GOOD POINT I WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER.........So you win the prize.......
3) Relates to 2.......so you also win the bonus round.........
4) Irrelevant, we have photos of things moving much faster. The moons speed is relative to where you are in context to it.

Every body green rep this guy - he has a clue.

[awa355]

\\\Secondly the Moon...well, its boring. Nothing to see here folks, move along. In fact its so boring that nobody has landed a rover on it to explore. Unlike Mars which has its own rover club. :D

Thirdly\\\\

Rover Club ???? British Leyland ?? on Mars?? Got there first?????????,
GEEEEZ!!!
Let me see, Valve grind every 12,000 miles, CV joints every 15,000, Thats, umm umm , amazing.

Didn't the Yanks also leave a buggy on the moon??

[Winston001]

4) Irrelevant, we have photos of things moving much faster. The moons speed is relative to where you are in context to it.



Ta AV very kind.

As for point 4, as I understand it the only way a high definition photo of the Moon can be taken by an orbital telescope is by using a small aperture long exposure. The scope is orbiting Earth at 40,000kph, the Moon is travelling a different orbit, plane and speed, the two objects change their relative positions every second, all of which means a slow deep photo can't be captured.

We can do it from Earth but there's 200km of atmospheric diffusion in the way.

[avgas]

Ta AV very kind.

As for point 4, as I understand it the only way a high definition photo of the Moon can be taken by an orbital telescope is by using a small aperture long exposure. The scope is orbiting Earth at 40,000kph, the Moon is travelling a different orbit, plane and speed, the two objects change their relative positions every second, all of which means a slow deep photo can't be captured.

We can do it from Earth but there's 200km of atmospheric diffusion in the way.
Stop it. You sounded so smart before :)

Here is why we can't see the hardware from earth.....yet....
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

But even when asked if a satellite could do it - general response is "anything is possible........but we don't have budget to look at the rock..."

Interestingly enough we do have cool stuff like this:
http://www.lunarworldrecord.com/image.php
going on, on earth...........but it comes down to that "no budget to look at the moon man".

We will get there. But I fear by the time we do, my great grandkids will be living on mars and you may as well take a photo with a Polaroid taking the scenic route home to earth.

[Scuba_Steve]

This won't help NASA's case, conspiracy theorist's get more ammo in their arsenal

NASA loses moon rocks (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/6115327/The-Misplaced-Stuff-Nasa-loses-moon-space-rocks)

[Usarka]

NASA loses moon rocks (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/6115327/The-Misplaced-Stuff-Nasa-loses-moon-space-rocks)

That's supposed to say: NASA loses, and the moon rocks!

[pzkpfw]

This won't help NASA's case, conspiracy theorist's get more ammo in their arsenal

NASA loses moon rocks (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/6115327/The-Misplaced-Stuff-Nasa-loses-moon-space-rocks)

Yes, because in conspiracy land, a Government agency can accurately keep track of hundreds of items being loaned out to hundreds of scientists, over long periods, without there being some screw-ups.

(For me, this actually adds to the overwhelming pile of detail in the whole operation, that reinforces the fact of it being real. If it all was "perfect" (before, during or after), then I'd be suspicious...)

[imdying]

It's a crime how much they've lost... the original footage tapes, the blueprints for the Saturn V, so many of what was collected :bash:

[slofox]

Well, I dunno about you fullas, but I didn't go to the moon. I stayed home and listened to it on the radio...

[jrandom]

The moon landing was faked in a soundstage on Mars.

[Big Dave]

Well, I dunno about you fullas, but I didn't go to the moon. I stayed home and listened to it on the radio...


We all went into our school auditorium and watched it on TV.

[Edbear]

We all went into our school auditorium and watched it on TV.

We didn't have TV, so we listened on the radio and I went outside, looked up at the moon and marvelled that there were actually people up there!

[Winston001]

We didn't have TV, so we listened on the radio and I went outside, looked up at the moon and marvelled that there were actually people up there!

Radio eh? Luxury.

We 'ad to hang round corner shop and steal newspaper which we'd take ta teacher to read it to us. Radio huh!

[Big Dave]

Teacher! Luxury.

When I say TV I mean.....tell young kids today that etc etc

[Winston001]

Ha! We lived in a old leaky corridor when we went to the moon - and it was night time when we got there! No NASA welcoming parties and dodgy flag shadows for us.


But we were 'appy. ...

[slowpoke]

I've seen "Transformers 3", I know the truth!

[SS90]

I dont think its a question of, Did they land on the moon,
But when did they really land on the moon.

IMO.

I agree.

There is some pretty convincing evidence that points to the fact that the "first landing footage" was staged, (I could go either way on that one) however, I am pretty certain they have been there after that.

[Laava]

Sorry for the thread dredge but new evidence has come to light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5muY64Oyp10&sns=em