It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nasa puts alleged Apollo Moon landing sites off limits

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Nobody has been or will be going to the moon anytime soon.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: CB328

Read your link it explains they don't want small robotic landers disturbing the site with rocket blasts spreading debris around.

If you don't want to believe the landing was real then more power to you, but at least read your own link and apply some common sense.


Didn't they themselves disturb the landing sites with rocket blasts spreading debris around..when they left?

And of course, the USA has NO jurisdiction over any part of the moon, including the landing sites and any equipment abandoned there.

If NASA want the abandoned equipment protected, spend the money on lunar heavy lift vehicles and go back, scoop it all up and return it to Earth for a museum or something...if they leave it, they lose it.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gideon70

What ever.

This recommendation is to protect a historical, actually several, monuments. Kinda like UNESCO world heritage sites here on Earth.

Should the day come when Man is living, and working, on the Moon, I should hope that they'll be protected from stupid people. This is part of that--to preserve them for many, many future generations.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

Didn't they themselves disturb the landing sites with rocket blasts spreading debris around..when they left?



The ascent stage is on top of the descent stage. The design intended for the descent stage to sort of scatter the downblast, and if you've ever watched the liftoff of the ascent stage, you'll see that it does, mostly.

Also, what, you'd want them to die there to avoid disturbing the site? Seriously, there's a qualitative difference between hovering over the damned thing with an unmanned lander and leaving. Quibbling over it just looks childish.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gideon70

Except the dozens of satellites orbiting the moon....



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Should the day come when Man is living, and working, on the Moon, I should hope that they'll be protected from stupid people.


There's a really really good Heinlein imitation by John Varley called "Steel Beach", may I recommend it for your entertainment?

A toss off in the novel is that a group of fraternity members violated the UNESCO rules and destroyed the site with something like four wheelers (this is far far far before the sites were discussed as cultural heritage) and had to be reconstructed from photos but it was something that had not been generally revealed to the Lunar populace.

Steel Beach is a really superb novel. If you're into Heinlein, Campbell or hard-ish SF in general you will like it.

It's sort of a paean to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and 2001, in a very indirect way.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It's too hypocritical for words..too pathetic even for me, and i enjoy pedantic and arguably redundant rambling.

I simply cannot muster the intellectual energy required to be bothered to even point out the BS, although i would respectfully ask you to honestly think about the request from NASA in it's full, hypocritical and toothless arrogant glory before simply arguing the toss for the sake of tossing mate.

Actually...i can be bothered:

If NASA can understandably and reasonably retrieve their personnel from the landing sites, by firing rocket engines and so dispersing debris onto and across those same landing sites themselves...it's the height of hypocritical nonsense to 'request' no other space agency or independent space effort to not even *fly* and orbiter over or even near to the site in order to protect it from rocket engines potentially dispersing debris onto or across those same landing sites...no?

If NASA wishes to enshrine these areas of dust as holy of holies...go back and build a frigging dome over them then.

ETA: No, it doesn't. It simply means what i said originally before you chirped below, about it being too arrogant and pathetic to bother with...or are you calling me a liar?


edit on 1 2 2017 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
I simply cannot muster the intellectual energy required to be bothered to even point out the BS...


On ATS, generally that means you don't have the intellectual prowess to do so. But please, if you ever do, point it out. I'll wait.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
Actually...i can be bothered:

If NASA can understandably and reasonably retrieve their personnel from the landing sites, by firing rocket engines and so dispersing debris onto and across those same landing sites themselves...it's the height of hypocritical nonsense to 'request' no other space agency or independent space effort to not even *fly* and orbiter over or even near to the site in order to protect it from rocket engines potentially dispersing debris onto or across those same landing sites...no?

If NASA wishes to enshrine these areas of dusk as holy of holies...go back and build a frigging dome over them then.


Again, if you look at the design of the LEM the ascent stage sits firmly atop the descent stage, with blast deflectors. It did rip the mylar covering off parts of the descent stage and, I'm fairly sure, knock over some things left nearby. But there's no point in further damage. No scientific info to be gained by hovering over the site. And in future, they'll all be sites that should be preserved for history. Given that the land surface of the Moon is something similar to that of Africa, it's not like you have nowhere else to go with your unmanned lander. Asking people to leave them be is not out of line.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

An orbiter, cruising MILES above those sites would be VERY hard pressed to achieve the same levels of disruption to the sites as NASA has done themselves, as well you know.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Why don't you organize a letter writing campaign to President Trump demanding the answers? Or start a petition:

petitions.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Bedlam

An orbiter, cruising MILES above those sites would be VERY hard pressed to achieve the same levels of disruption to the sites as NASA has done themselves, as well you know.



That's not what they're talking about. Back to quibbling.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I've seen it around... I'll check it out next time I'm wandering around my local used book stores.

Thx.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I'd suggest reading the article linked in the OP (which actually refers to a document produced in 2011 see www.nasa.gov... ) and count how many times the words 'guidelines' and 'recommendations' are used. These are not orders, they can't stop anyone from doing whatever they want, but they can ask that people respect the equipment that is there by taking care how they approach and land near them.

The requests also refer specifically only to Apollo 11 and 17 sites because of their historical significance, the other 4 sites are not covered by the guidelines with as much rigour. You could also land some distance away from the site and still see that the equipment is there, or even land at a distance and send a rover in as has been discussed by one of the Google X prize contenders.

India and Japan have both imaged the landing sites and found evidence of the missions. You can also download their data and reproduce 3D views of the landing site that are an exact match for those taken on the surface by the Apollo astronauts.
edit on 1/2/2017 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: date correction



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

No nation has jurisdiction over any part of the moon. Therefore the equipment left there would legally have to be considered abandoned.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I remember a movie starring Andy Griffith about a guy that built a ship to go to the moon and salvage the lunar landing sights. I do not think we have an anti salvage agreement with anyone.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: CB328

In 2009 an Indian probe filmed Apollo 15 on the moon,so that one happened at least it didn't disturb anything so the explanation by NASA is bs unless your landing on such a site
Another hoax, the film does not exist



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: muSSang
The footprints alone are international treasures.

Im an Aussie and i can see why they want to preserve these.


That footprint is worth at least a billion dollars.

500 years from now, that would be a great talking piece to have in your space mansion.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Yes and no.

The article is incorrect in that it's depiction if the Apollo 15 EVA is wrong, but both India and Hapan''s probes have detected evidence of the effect of the lunar module descent engine. India''s probe has photographed evidence of human activity at Apollo 16 and 14 sites (I know because I'm the one that found them).

India and Japan''s mapping cameras can and have produced 3D representations of Apollo sites that are an exact match for Apollo views (I know because I've done them) and show small details that are visible in Apollo images bur not those taken before the landing's (I know because I've checked).

When they do land at these sites I look forward either to your long apology or your absence in threads about the moon.
edit on 3/2/2017 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join