Skip to comments.NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Sees Apollo Landing Sites
Posted on 07/20/2010 9:45:53 AM PDT by Elderberry
LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites. 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.
This is a complete lie.
Everyone knows that Hollywood built spaceships, and sent it’s top crew of GRIPS and BEST BOYS to the moon where they constructed the ‘fake’ Apollo moon landing sites.
Hollywood Moguls and NASA officials knew that one day we would have better ‘resolution’ power on our telescopes and cameras, and be able to see if there were any evidence of actual landings.
So, they faked it.
P.S. If one lands on the Moon, one can prove this by taking photos of the ‘Apollo landing sites’ from the rear.
It is there you can see that the landers and such are just cardboard cut outs held up by sticks.
oh boy, Apollo 16 was right on the edge of pretty big crater.
That had to be an “whew” moment.
This is what our space program has become...an old geezer in a rocking chair gazing back at past glory.
Tell me about it! I’m finding out that there’s no demand anymore for Shuttle downlink telemetry testers.
I guess I’ll be in one of those rocking chairs too.
Will SpaceX be able to land on the moon and salvage that hardware?
I believe SpaceX will only achieve low Earth orbit.
these are the best pics they could get? without any atmosphere to interfere with the clarity of the pictures?
i get better pics of my house on google
256 meters wide... 1025 pixels... so the res is about 1 pixel for every 9x9 inch square on the moon.
meanwhile, a rough guess on the res used on google maps put it around 1 pixel for every 5x5 inch square (using parking lot markers for distance estimation)
i’m betting they have MUCH better images than this.
Report is from 07.17.09
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.
, emphasizing the contributions of the muslims who were instrument . . . . . no, they didn't have anything to do with that.
But, they . . . . . . no, those were Germans.
Well, for sure, they . . . . . . . no, muzzies weren't involved in that either!!
Don't worry, muzzies, NASA will help you find a way to appreciate your contributions to science and mathematics
(as soon as anyone discovers any!).
Well, thanks to zero's "stimulus" funding, at least you aren't losing your job over it!!
(End heavy sarcasm)
If it hadn’t been for the valiant efforts of the Moslem Waffen SS division, German rocket scientists wouldn’t have had the time to develop the V-2 Rocket, the direct ancester of the Saturn V moon rocket.
See? Bolden WAS right!
A spacecraft on orbit around the Earth can also be sent to the moon. You just send up more fuel for its rocket motor. Such a spacecraft need only add a little over 4 km/sec of velocity to its orbital speed of 11.86 km/sec to break away from our planet and travel in a free trajectory to the moon.
In any sort of rocketry, getting from Earth’s surface to space is the hard part. This is why rockets use heavy, high-thrust chemically-fueled engines to lift off and boost into orbit. Once you are in space, however, high thrust only reduces travel time; it is no longer a necessity for navigation. An amount of thrust equivalent to that produced by a butterfly’s wing applied over time is enough to get a million-ton spacecraft to Saturn. As the late Robert Heinlein once said, “An object on orbit is halfway to anywhere.”
That's good. I actually met a Chinese graduate student, from actual red commie China, who said the Apollo missions were very doubtful to most Chinese.
I told him that all you had to do was hit one of the retro-reflectors left on the moon with a sufficently powerful laser, and you would have your proof.
Ya, right, we went to the moon, uh huh ...
This article was from a year ago. July 17, 2009.
Cool! My son has a pre-Apollo Moon globe, and he’s always asking me where on the moon we landed. Now I can show him.
And what makes you think that SpaceX is bound only for LEO when their goal is to get to Mars?
Due to the transit time to get to Mars, I would hope for the Astronaut’s sake that the vehicle is much, much larger than the SpaceX. I would assume that the vehicle would be constructed in orbit, much like the Space Station was assembled.
I don’t know why but I was disappointed looking at the pics. I guess I am so spoiled with our technology that I expected to see detail down to the nuts and bolts and the sole marks in the sand.
A little tinfoil, a little cardboard, a little glue, you'd be surprised what a KEY GRIP or BESTBOY can do. Plus, they just dropped those from orbit before they came back home.
Due to the mechanics of going from orbit around one body, to another, the FASTER you GO, the FURTHER you must go to get to the same spot.
Speed, in this case, is irrespective of time.
Good grief! I never thought of that! It's true that a wadded up ball of tinfoil will act as an optically perfect laser retro reflector!
That's why so many people wear those aluminum hats! It's all clear now...