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.
Originally posted by mwm1331
Just one
www.badastronomy.com
Originally posted by Makuahine
I really believe that we did go to the moon. With all the rumors and speculation surrounding the landings, why hasn't there been more press on the European lunar module "Smart 1" that's in lunar orbit right now. Surely that probe can take spectacular photos of the lunar surface since it's been in orbit around the moon for over a month now! It returned some awesome pics of Earth when it was on it's way to the moon...The Smart 1 web site has only a few really lame photos - it would be nice to have a definitive answer to at least one mystery!
Originally posted by GB2005
I always wondered why no new photos of the landing site have ever been taken, you would think the public would get updated at some point you know? Like some photos of the rover &the flag.....
Originally posted by quango
Originally posted by GB2005
I always wondered why no new photos of the landing site have ever been taken, you would think the public would get updated at some point you know? Like some photos of the rover &the flag.....
I think it would just look the same as it did then.
There's no wind, no air, and so probably, little to no erosion and deteriation.
Originally posted by Slashpepper
Why would NASA photograph somewhere they've already been in anycase? These are expensive missions and they're not out to prove themselves to you, especially if it's expensive and a waste of time. Also, it's expensive enough getting the weight of a human to the moon, let alone shipping a spacecraft capable of taking the weight of minerals and mining equipment to, and back from, the moon. It's just far too costly when we have more than enough minerals here to leech off of.
Originally posted by Odd
No, it does not strike me as being.
The lunar Lander was really not that large... it comes as no surprise to me that even a very powerful telescope would be unable to pinpont the thing that far away. And if you really want pictures of the moon that badly, I believe it's still in the public domain.
[edit on 2/28/2005 by Odd]
Originally posted by Neon Haze
weight of minerals is next to Zero as there is nearly no gravety on the moon. They could mine the material and then just drop it at earth, Next to no energy is required to get it back to earth!!
Why should NASA photo the site?? Why not?? They already supposidly have a probe in orbit around the moon.... so why has there been no pictures??
The moon should be one of the most photographed of all objects just from a scientists point of view.... so where are all the pictures???
All I am saying is that if there is nothing to hide then why are there hardly any pictures of the moon???
There are more available pictures of Saturn and Mars and even Jupiter than we have of the moon....
Doesn't that strike you as being Odd??
Neon.
Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
[
No weight (or negligible weight) is not the same thing as having no mass. Since mass is part of what's figured in to an object's inertia, not weight, it will still take energy to move a load of raw materials from the Moon to Earth. At the other end, energy will be required to keep the raw materials from simply slamming randomly into our planet as well.
Not really. It's not that we have more pictures of Saturn et al than of the Moon, it's just that NASA makes a bigger deal about pictures of the other planets. The average, non-astronomy buff finds them more entertaining ("after all you can look up and see the moon most any night"), so NASA keeps sending out the "cool" pictures to keep the public happy. It's the same reason that you see so few true-color images of phenomena such as nebula or galaxies.