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.

 

How long would a footprint stay visible on the surface of the moon?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SolidGoal
 




But, demanding that future missions do not disrupt those historic sites sounds reasonable IMO.


I suspect that the USA and NASA would get a much more sympathetic response from the international community if they request rather than 'demand'.

ETA



Enforcing a "no fly" zone on the moon sure sounds silly.


Silly, and impossible....unless??????



I hope we will be respectful enough to allow future generations to enjoy those historical sites.


What's the point of preserving them if no-one can visit and view them?
edit on 28/5/12 by Freeborn because: Add ETA




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply Freeborn.
What make you think no one will be able to visit those sites ?

It could be in a far or near future, it could be in person or done remotely, but I believe soon or later, someone will re-visit those sites...

Unless you have information that I am not aware of.
If so, please share.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SolidGoal
 




What make you think no one will be able to visit those sites ?


NASA have announced 'no fly zones' around the landing sites of the Apollo missions.

They propose that no-one can fly or land within a certain distance of these sites and that they can't be disturbed by robots or private visitors.
Apparently they are even trying to discourage anyone taking photo's of these sites on fly pasts?

Now I very much doubt the legitimacy of such a request and I don't know how NASA will police this.

This may be just a genuine desire to preserve a piece of human history etc but the more suspicious amongst us obviously feel there are far more sinister or secretive reasons behind it.

Initially I thought this was the usual alarmist sensationalised nonsense but upon further reading etc it seems NASA are planning on publishing some 'recommendations' for anyone or anything visiting 'US government property on the moon' as they are somewhat concerned about the results and implications of the Lunar X Prize and China's intentions.

But that still doesn't answer the question; what's the point of preserving the sites if no-one can visit or view them?

I am generally suspicious of conspiracy allegations - I feel the numerous and unsubstantiated cases deflect from the genuine which tend to be the important and influential cases.
Which is why I like to see a reasoned and detailed arguement before even accepting the possibility.
I also believe that the Apollo landings did happen - but I very much believe we know very little of what was found or the circumstances around the missions etc.

But I somehow can't help think that NASA aren't being totally truthful with their reasoning for the need of these 'no fly zones'



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


They propose that no-one can fly or land within a certain distance of these sites and that they can't be disturbed by robots or private visitors.
NASA requests that the sites be respected for their scientific and historical significance. Commercial entities have requested recommendations on how the sites may be preserved (in light of the X Prize).


Apparently they are even trying to discourage anyone taking photo's of these sites on fly pasts?
Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about.


Now I very much doubt the legitimacy of such a request and I don't know how NASA will police this.
They can't.


But that still doesn't answer the question; what's the point of preserving the sites if no-one can visit or view them?
Who says no one can visit or view them?


Initially I thought this was the usual alarmist sensationalised nonsense but upon further reading
What "further reading" have you done? Have you seen the actual recommendations? Apparently not.


As such, this document does not represent mandatory USG or international requirements; rather, it is offered to inform lunar spacecraft mission planners interested in helping preserve and protect lunar historic artifacts and potential science opportunities for future missions.
www.nasa.gov...


edit on 5/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




NASA requests that the sites be respected for their scientific and historical significance.


I think if you'd really bother reading what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote you will see that I clearly describe them as 'proposals' and 'recommendations'.



Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about.


Apparently you are an arrogant egotist who believes his own press and who doesn't understand the concept of common courtesy.

Or that's what some say - I've always reserved judgement, until now - at which point I'm tending to have to agree despite really not wanting to.



But that still doesn't answer the question; what's the point of preserving the sites if no-one can visit or view them?
Who says no one can visit or view them?


Well NASA if their recommendations are followed, at what point did that become too difficult to understand?



What "further reading" have you done? Have you seen the actual recommendations? Apparently not.


There are plenty of online articles on this, many of which are of so dubious nature that no-one of sound mind would use them as a reliable source, but there's still plenty out there, as I'm sure you are aware.

As I explained I am normally of a very sceptical nature and as much as I recognise that there are genuine and valid reasons for wanting to preserve the integrity of the landing sites but there is still something about this that just doesn't sit quite right at present.
Surely independant verification of the Apollo landing sites would once and for all put to rest a lot of the questions that constantly arise about the validity of these sites and as such would be in NASA's interest.

But what do I know?

I have no intention to antagonize you or any other member of ATS but I don't appreciate being talked down to like some ignorant little child.
Manners cost nothing.

edit on 28/5/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

Thanks for your views.



Apparently they are even trying to discourage anyone taking photo's of these sites on fly pasts?

I don't recall reading this anywhere.
As you said, there is numerous articles concerning NASA's recommendations. Maybe it eluded me. But I think its some journalistic speculation.



They propose that no-one can fly or land within a certain distance of these sites and that they can't be disturbed by robots or private visitors.

Key words here is "certain distance".
I believe flying around the "no-fly" zone at a "certain distance" would provide fairly accurate and interesting images from the landing sites.



Now I very much doubt the legitimacy of such a request and I don't know how NASA will police this.

Perhaps with a very sternly worded letter to the offender.




Surely independant verification of the Apollo landing sites would once and for all put to rest a lot of the questions that constantly arise about the validity of these sites and as such would be in NASA's interest.

IMHO, not a chance. I believe some moon hoaxers are fairly anchored in their delusions, and no proof, arguments or independent verifications can make them loose their grip.

edit on 28-5-2012 by SolidGoal because: nuance

edit on 28-5-2012 by SolidGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I think if you'd really bother reading what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote you will see that I clearly describe them as 'proposals' and 'recommendations'.
Yes, I saw that. But your question about "policing" shows that you think that there is more involved, for some reason.


Apparently you are an arrogant egotist who believes his own press and who doesn't understand the concept of common courtesy.
I beg your pardon, let me amend my statement. Apparently you have been misinformed.


Well NASA if their recommendations are followed, at what point did that become too difficult to understand?
Please show me where, in the recommendations, viewing or visiting the sites is prohibited.


There are plenty of online articles on this, many of which are of so dubious nature that no-one of sound mind would use them as a reliable source, but there's still plenty out there, as I'm sure you are aware.
Yes, plenty of online articles which are as you point out, sensationalistic. Fortunately the original document is also available to allow someone who is interested to separate the sensationalism from the facts.


Surely independant verification of the Apollo landing sites would once and for all put to rest a lot of the questions that constantly arise about the validity of these sites and as such would be in NASA's interest.
Why? Surely those who believe that the landings were hoaxed would just as easily dismiss independent verification just as easily as they dismiss the mountains of evidence which currently exist.


I have no intention to antagonize you or any other member of ATS but I don't appreciate being talked down to like some ignorant little child.
I don't "talk down" to children. You displayed ignorance of the nature of the recommendations.







edit on 5/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Apparently they are even trying to discourage anyone taking photo's of these sites on fly pasts?


I read the entire NASA document where they made the recommendations (by the way -- they ARE only recommendations -- they are not enforceable rules). It doesn't say anywhere in that document that photographs should not be taken on fly-bys. In fact, the document actually encourages potential future rovers (such as the Google Lunar X Prize rovers) to take pictures of the Apollo sites, and gives specific reasons why they encourage imaging.

Obviously, if there is going to be a Google Lunar Rover X prize, NASA should give guidance to the designers/operators of these future rovers as to how to best preserve the historical significance of the Apollo sites.

NASA does request no overflights of the sites due to crashes caused by trajectory errors or possible contamination of the sites by propellants. Maybe you're getting confused with the request of "No overflights".

Here is an excerpt regarding no overflights:

A2-2 NO OVERFLIGHT

RECOMMENDATION:
The visiting vehicle trajectory should remain tangential to the D/L boundary to ensure no
overflight of the heritage sites as defined by the D/L boundary.

RATIONALE:
Overflights of the USG lunar artifacts could result in unwanted deposition of un-burned
propellants and possible collision with the site due to trajectory/navigation errors. Overflight
could also create a situation in which unexpected engine failure results in an uncontrolled
trajectory into (or too close to) the USG lunar artifacts.

NASA's recommendations do give suggested approach and landing paths that are tangential to the sites that have been designated as USG Lunar Heritage Sites, without actually flying over them.



Now I very much doubt the legitimacy of such a request and I don't know how NASA will police this.

It's simply a request, and NASA will "police" this request by reminding the operators of future rovers of these recommendations.



Originally posted by Freeborn
Surely independant verification of the Apollo landing sites would once and for all put to rest a lot of the questions that constantly arise about the validity of these sites and as such would be in NASA's interest.

I'm not sure how this will change anything. If hoax believers have not yet been swayed by the pre-existing evidence of a moon landing (and the lack of valid [non-debunked] evidence that the Moon landing was hoaxed), then I'm not sure if any level of independent verification would appease them.

like I said in a post earlier, even if some of these hoax believers were personally taken to the Moon and shown the equipment firsthand, they would find a reason to doubt that the equipment was actually from the Apollo era -- or maybe they would even find some ludicrous reason to doubt were ever really taken there and shown the evidence.

No amount of evidence will ever convince some these people who have closed their minds to anything other than their pre-conceived notions that Apollo was a hoax.


edit on 5/28/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Thanks for the original link.
I skimmed over that news release on slashdot and never bothered checking the source at the time.
Can't remember what site the slashdot article was linking to (it probably also had a link to the NASA source), but it didn't sounded too sensationalistic from what I remember.
Anyways, thanks again.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
i see nasa's concern. i wouldn't want space tourists in hawaiian shirts trampling over my fake moon site and asking odd questions like where's the u.s. flag.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SolidGoal
 


I seem to recall reading about NASA seeking to prohibit taking photo's of these sites on fly by's on one of the more obscure and 'out there' sites, afraid I can't find it now and to be honest I wouldn't normally have mentioned it, and probably shouldn't have.



Key words here is "certain distance".
I believe flying around the "no-fly" zone at a "certain distance" would provide fairly accurate and interesting images from the landing sites.


Accurate and interesting definately, but certainly not definitive proof for some.



Perhaps with a very sternly worded letter to the offender.


There are some who would have us believe that NASA are more than capable of policing such a policy, or perhaps even some alien type ally of their's.



IMHO, not a chance. I believe some moon hoaxers are fairly anchored in their delusions, and no proof, arguments or independent verifications can make them loose their grip.


I'm sure you're correct, but quite a few moon hoaxers are otherwise perfectly reasonable and level headed individuals who are more than capable of reasoned and critical thought.
Presented with definitive proof verified from esteemed and independant sources then surely they would have no option but to accept the validity of the Apollo landings.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wewillnotcomply666
simple question , probably obvious answer but im gonna ask anyway . How long would the footprints of the first men on the moon last? We all know how close commercial and private companies are to landing on the moon, and in another article posted earlier (will link soon) NASA is encouraging people to staty away from certain areas of the moon(the US landing areas).. Basically what im asking is if someone was to check out the exact site the first foot was set on the moon ? should or would the footprint still be there to prove/disprove the MANNED moon landings ?


Pretty much forever, the moon is airless hence no weather.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I'm sure you're correct, but quite a few moon hoaxers are otherwise perfectly reasonable and level headed individuals who are more than capable of reasoned and critical thought.
Presented with definitive proof verified from esteemed and independant sources then surely they would have no option but to accept the validity of the Apollo landings.


this is a crowd that yelled "FAKE" the day the LRO images were released, and claim the mirrors for the laser experiments were placed by an unkown unmanned rover that the US never built or deployed

there is no doubt in my mind if they were taken up there and shown the artifacts they would say they were put there by unmanned rovers in about 2010. There is no doubt in my mind "way out" conspiracy theories fire off some kind of seratonin in some peoples brains, and they are junkies, and will never listen to reason

never



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
anyway, if the US cared so much about these "historical" sites they perhaps would have gone back in the last 40 years to keep an eye on them..........



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 

Why?
They aren't going anywhere.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Yes, I saw that. But your question about "policing" shows that you think that there is more involved, for some reason.


I think it's a valid question.

If NASA's recommendations were ignored would NASA simply leave it at that?

I don't know how they would or could react but I don't think they would just sit back and accept it, do you?

And my point was not so much how I think they would 'police' it but rather how some of those who believe that NASA are hiding something on the moon believe how NASA would police such a policy etc.

I don't think I made that point very clear.



I beg your pardon, let me amend my statement. Apparently you have been misinformed.


I sincerely hope so.



Please show me where, in the recommendations, viewing or visiting the sites is prohibited.


I spoke of proposals and recommendations, nowhere did I mention prohibiting.



Yes, plenty of online articles which are as you point out, sensationalistic. Fortunately the original document is also available to allow someone who is interested to separate the sensationalism from the facts.


Thank you for providing the link.



Why? Surely those who believe that the landings were hoaxed would just as easily dismiss independent verification just as easily as they dismiss the mountains of evidence which currently exist.


Some would, some wouldn't - but surely if practical then it would be a worthwhile exercise, wouldn't it?



I don't "talk down" to children.


Just as I was beginning to warm to you......
Apologies, for some reason it seemed like you talk down to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you or who is not as learned as you.



You displayed ignorance of the nature of the recommendations.


So that justifies talking to someone in an indignant, arrogant and supercillious manner?

I'd like to think that it's unintentional.
edit on 28/5/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Some would, some wouldn't - but surely if practical then it would be a worthwhile exercise, wouldn't it?
If an X Prize candidate (or a national sponsored effort) manages a soft landing or even an orbital mission which could produce higher resolution imagery than LROC succeeds, that in itself would be a worthwhile exercise. The idea that any such mission should be undertaken in order to provide "proof" to hoax believers is absurd and demonstrates the arrogance of their position; "prove it to me!".

If an X Prize candidate (or a national sponsored effort) manages a soft landing with a rover near one of the sites the recommendations allow for an approach to the 2 most important historical sites within 200 yards. Any planned approach to these sites would therefore be presumably fitted with telescopic imaging sufficient for close examination. The recommendations for other sites allow for an approach of a few meters or less. What more would be required?

Since you now have the document in hand and can read the rationales behind the recommendations, do you think they are unreasonable? Do you think the risk to the sites is worth "proving" the landings to those who don't believe they occurred?


So that justifies talking to someone in an indignant, arrogant and supercillious manner?

I'd like to think that it's unintentional.

Tone is often misread in this medium. Thank you for your understanding.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Sure, what you say may be true....but that still doesn't alter the fact that the US has no right whatsoever to proclaim a 'no fly zone' or anything at all on the moon.

It is an example of the American arrogance that seriously pisses off the rest of the world.

Obviously they deserve to have their opinion heard and given respectful consideration, after all they were US landings etc but any decision to preserve previous landing areas should be decided unanimously by the international community.

I'm not too comfortable with the idea of private companies going to the moon as their only priority will be profit but it seems individual nations are either reluctant or unable to spend the vast fortunes needed to fund manned flight to the moon.


No one said it's a no fly zone.

It was ASKED if people could have the decency to preserve the historical landing sites. No one said they weren't allowed to go there, but it would be a shame for people to screw with such a huge part of human history like that.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I know that this really is not my argument here, but after reading the thread I noticed that you primarily took a liking to this thread. It really is commical what I read here sometimes.

Here is your recent quote to Phage.



Apparently you are an arrogant egotist who believes his own press and who doesn't understand the concept of common courtesy.



I read your very first comment in which you stated.




If I was financing a private flight to the moon I would go where the hell I wanted and as a point of principle I would visit previous landing sites which if genuine, and I personally believe they are - just maybe they've been a bit economical with the truth about what they found there, would still display all the signs, remnants etc from the visits.


Common courtesy would be to respect the wishes of Nasa and not disturb the historical site.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for supplying the link to the NASA document.

I have begun to read it but it is a relatively large document and I'm unable to process large amounts of such information in one sitting so I'll be better able to answer your question a bit later but I must say that on first glance it appears to contain reasoned and justified recommendations.

That doesn't mean to say that I've changed my mind about NASA not telling us the whole truth about the Apollo missions and their space programme - but I guess that's for another thread.

I understand it's hard to convey tone etc and at times it can be misunderstood.
I've been accused of many things myself and have at times been quite alarmed and haven't realised how I've come across to other's.
And I can be quite tetchy at times.

No problems at all and it's good to find out that 'some people' may be quite wrong.

As a point of interest, and I realise it can only be a personal opinion etc, but how do you think NASA would react if someone was to blatantly ignore their recommendations and disturb one of the Apollo landing sites, especially that of Apollo 11?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join