NEWS: NASA to Take Photos of Abandoned Equipment on Moon

If they had tech to go to the moon back then they would have had tech to build the U.S. Space shuttle capable of going to the moon, the reason they haven't is because they never went to the moon.

The space shuttle is FULLY CAPABLE of landing on the moon. The only thing missing is the 30 mile(guessing) long runway to land on...


[edit on 13-7-2005 by Fry2]

I thought the moon landing was a hoax. Wasn't it filmed at Area 51? If it is a hoax, why wouldn't NASA admit it?

For those that think the moon landing was a hoax, answere this simple question.
1. Do you believe in airplanes?
That's all the proof you need right there. The same principles that keep a plane in flight also work towards getting a rocket out of earth's orbit and a shuttle to move in elliptical orbits.

This is a man who had the best answer's the whole idea of traviling into space is a masonic idea read carefully use www.hourofthetime.com...

Actually, to this end I would rather see photos from an independent Country. Just due to all the hoopla about doubts as far as being on the moon during the Apollo missions.

Dallas

Hey I have some pictures of my kids light sabre fighting on the moon, does that mean my kids were there? The only way they can proove they went to the moon is by actually going there this time, let me guess, NASA is going to take digital pictures... If they want to debunk the 'myth' then they need to take pictures on celluloid, not pixles. I can play with pixels all day on my PC and come up with fantastic images of Barney the Dinosaur eating the Lunar Module behinds clouds of water vapor coolants and rolling a doobie with the waving flag and manipulate light sources all day long. Maybe they could shop in a Van Allen Memorial there while they're at it. Folks, don't trust pictures, jesus, have you not seen Jurrasic Park, the Dinosaurs weren't real.. ah but you saw them huh? I bet they remove the prop numbers from the rocks in their upcomming photos this time though.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by twitchy]

I would have to say that with 50-60's tech it would've been impossible to send a man to the moon and have them survive passage through the Van Buren radiation belt since the rockets back then were essentially equivalent to a pop can in terms of sheilding from radiation. The radiation belt is proven fact. Wether or not we went to the moon remains to be seen. It would seem however that NASA is just a bit too eager to prove their point.

Originally posted by twitchy
....
The only way they can proove they went to the moon is by actually going there this time, let me guess, NASA is going to take digital pictures... If they want to debunk the 'myth' then they need to take pictures on celluloid, not pixles.
....

Going there actually has its consequences, as the astronauts that return to earth after such missions undergo extreme cases of depression. Such information is not released to the public as it is not in NASA's best interest to deliver bad news.

Technology has become more advanced since the 70's. With the use of such pictures the general public can see what an astronaut would see, and hence create an overall greater level of interest in NASA and its future objectives.

Also they're not just taking pictures but getting data from the moon as well, which would be used in upcoming missions. Such technology can be viewed through sources like google and the Nasa site as well as Nasa's subsidiary sites.

i do believe the russians confirmed we were on the moon. Think about it what greater propaganda to the superiority of communism than to say to the world the USA lied to the world and the soviet union can prove it! that never happened because their scientists confirmed it. they kinda just kept quiet about it.

24 years later hardly seems like too eager to me. Its the Van Allen belts FYI - and actually the doses recieved getting to the moon and back arent fatal.

At the time of the landings , at the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union - failure to produce a moon landing was seen as not an option so I propose that the moon landings scream of Occams Razor - which is more likely?: That we actually invested billions, risked life and limb , and potential failure to show we could get to the moon, or me spent millions making it appear to the world that we went to the moon ( with no risk of failure )?

IT'S NOT ONLY the VABelt its being outside of that exposed to the sun's rays which are 100x more lethal than the belt, don't people learn in school the atmosphere protects us from the suns rays, now look at the flag on the moon it's a normal flag " cotton" if it were on the moon it would melt or burn up the way things burn or melt outside of the van allen belt. BTW not to take us off subject but did u guys read and Russia and China moving troops close to US bases in Central Asia, this comesa week after Rus/China asked US A TO LEAVE Central Asia rense.com... thetruthseeker.co.uk...://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index779.htm

There's no convincing those morons still spouting out pseudo science and internet truths that we went to the moon. Back in your caves with the lot of you.

In other news, computers are powered by leprechauns hidden in boxes.

With all the powerful telescopes on earth someone should have been able to capture an image of this before. You would think it would be a pretty hot item. So NASA is going to send up something to take photos of this when it should be able to be done from earth? Sounds extremely suspicious. NASA knows where the stuff is or should be. Just publish the coordinates and let astronomers see for themselves.

Something doesn't smell right.

Originally posted by Indy
With all the powerful telescopes on earth someone should have been able to capture an image of this before. You would think it would be a pretty hot item. So NASA is going to send up something to take photos of this when it should be able to be done from earth? Sounds extremely suspicious. NASA knows where the stuff is or should be. Just publish the coordinates and let astronomers see for themselves.

Something doesn't smell right.

IO'm sorry, but before you make statements like that, you might like to try and look through a telescope yourself. The atmospheric distorion is amplified so much, as is and imperfections on the mirrors and lenses that even spotting it with the Hubble is impossible! I have no in depth knowledge that I can spout out to you, but I do have some limited experience, I myself own a pretty good telescope and even that has to be left outside for a few hours just to settle to the stmospheric temperature before everything stops being all blurry and shakey.

I'm not the man to explain to you in proper scientific language why what you say is wrong, but my experience alone can assure you that you are, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by websurfer
For those that think the moon landing was a hoax, answere this simple question.
1. Do you believe in airplanes?
That's all the proof you need right there. The same principles that keep a plane in flight also work towards getting a rocket out of earth's orbit and a shuttle to move in elliptical orbits.

Ummmmm no its not the same principle bernulis law of airflow and lift is far from rocket science.

Originally posted by Magickesists
....
Ummmmm no its not the same principle bernulis law of airflow and lift is far from rocket science.

You would think so.

I was thinking more about Newtons laws of motion. Factor that in with the acceleration required to escape Earth's potential gravitational well, and you have a rocket in space. The left and right tanks then detach and fall back to earth leaving a spacecraft that obeys the lift and drag principle brought upon by Bernoulis principle. Bernoulis equation doesn't change, it just simplifies because of the absence of drag in space.

AgentSmith... I live in the city. I can barely see stars let alone anything else. On a clear night expecially in the winter or in desert regions I see no reason why this wouldn't be visible. If this distortion problem you speak of was so pronounced then it would render those large telescopes useless. I remember looking at the moon through a small telescope when I was younger and was always amazed at the detail. That was just a small telescope on a normal day. That wasn't a powerful telescope in the right conditions. I don't buy for a minute that the debris couldn't be located and photographed from earth especially when using the proper equipment and in the right conditions as I mentioned before.

Here is a nice moon photo taken from earth.

www.pict.com...

The image is crystal clear.

Originally posted by Indy
I don't buy for a minute that the debris couldn't be located and photographed from earth especially when using the proper equipment and in the right conditions as I mentioned before.

www.faqs.org...

The telescopes currently available STILL aren't strong enough. Sorry, but that's reality.

Ever consider that the information listed on that site isn't correct? Small asteroids can be easily spotted and tracked and they are much further away than the moon. We have had 35 years of opportunities to take the photos whether it be from probes launched, large ground based satellites or even any of the close to 100 shuttle launches. Nothing was ever taken. With all the great equipment we have I don't buy for a minute that we can't get the images. If a satellite in orbit around our planet can identify something as small as a quarter on the surface I am not convinced that we cannot find something as large as a lunar module on the moon.