It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by absente
Let's face it: We had the technology do do a live video stream from the moon 40 years ago, using a simple VHF transmitter powered by first generation solar panels. I am sure there are a lot of reasons, the US government didn't do this, yet I can't get this idea out of my head, because it is "managable".

We see stories from kids launching rockets into space, making photos of he earths orbit, even "pet funerals" in outer space - yet no one has ever launched a project to simply place a cam on the moon?

My work involves R&D and programming as well as traditional design, yet I am a total nut when it comes to physics. I have plenty of free time and over the past two years, me and two friends developed plans for a unit that could do the job - for now on paper.

Let's assume we created a minimalistic robotic machine, 8 cameras supporting 360 degree view angles, an independent moving/rotating mechanism, any kind of main + secondary transmitter, motion detectors and 4 infrared units among other things. Let's also assume that we figured out how to supply that whole thing with enough energy. Weight: 82kg. Dimensions: 64cm x 64cm x 64cm.

My two major problems are uplink/downlink (e.g. communications - transmitter/receiver) and transportation. Secondary problems would be frequency jamming, radiation, technical failures, collision, misplacement.

Before saying that I am crazy and that it can't be done, let's just explore possibilities, step by step. I remember years ago, ATS was a place where projects (well, not of this scale) became reality, even headlines.

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"


edit on 19/10/12 by absente because: headline

I think its awesome you are considering this and trying to make it a reality...I like it when I see people take stuff out of the realm of officialdom and government and put it back into their own hands...and space is an awesome place to start =)

Its people like you that are going to put public domain rovers on the moon and mars so we can all enjoy the TRUTH without having to contemplate conspiracy based angles...Public domain free access is where the future is at...we have had the technology for a while for people who are passionate about what they share that freely for others to learn from and enjoy...the government and greed has been trying hard to keep that from the world and make it a crime...

If you get a decent enough project plan setup with some sound numbers...I would be willing to donate...
edit on 19-10-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
Thats a great effort to under take , did you calculate what this small business will cost you? and transmitting that data , not to mention all the counter interference that will struck you?

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM
Sounds like a great idea. But will NASA let you do it? There are a lot of theories concerning the moon, and what's on the dark side of the moon. Perhaps there truly is Alien ships/bases' on the Moon, would explain why we never went back, theres actually a theory that the moon itself is a spaceship (Similar to the Death Star in Star Wars, which by the way has similarities to the moon) George Lucas always did claim that his series was real life a long time ago. But who knows. Again, good luck this this! Hopefully you accomplish this task and nothing gets in your way!

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:46 PM
I think this is a good idea. If we think about what the largest expense to send things to space is the size of the payload, then if we could send small pieces (golf ball sized) into space then assemble them in orbit. somehow? We could send something. Size is a big part of breaking orbit and gravity. lots of small pieces that could collect together than go to the moon is our best bet without millions of dollars. Just my 2cents.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by inverslyproportional

That is a cool link. Thanks. It puts this into perspective.

Good graphics too.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-
The biggest problem would be the rocket, which would cost billions to build and develop. I think the robot would be doable on a limited budget. But not getting it there would spoil the fun.

At this point, I think a private company could accomplish the feat.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by absente


1) Need to accellerate payload to 11 km/sec (~ 7 mile/sec) to reach escape veolcity which requires a large booster

Just how large......

Thor Able - one of earliest boosters

The three-stage Thor-Able vehicle consisted of a modified Air Force Thor IRBM (liquid propellant, thrust about 153,000 pounds) as the first stage. A liquid-propellant rocket engine powered the second stage (modified Vanguard second stage, thrust about 7500 pounds). The third stage was a solid-propellant unit based on Vanguard design, rated at 116,500 lb*sec total impulse.[4]

This is payload (PIONEER ) - weight of 34 kg (70 lbs)

Pioneer 1 was fabricated by Ramo-Wooldridge Corp.(TRW),[3] and consisted of a thin cylindrical midsection with a squat truncated cone on each side. The cylinder was 74 cm (29 in) in diameter and the height from the top of one cone to the top of the opposite cone was 76 cm (30 in). Along the axis of the spacecraft and protruding from the end of the lower cone was an 11 kg solid propellant injection rocket and rocket case, which formed the main structural member of the spacecraft. Eight small low-thrust solid propellant velocity adjustment rockets were mounted on the end of the upper cone in a ring assembly which could be jettisoned after use. A magnetic dipole antenna also protruded from the top of the upper cone. The shell was composed of laminated plastic. The total mass of the spacecraft after vernier separation was 34.2 kg, after injection rocket firing it would have been 23.2 kg.

The scientific instrument package had a mass of 17.8 kg and consisted of an image scanning infrared television system to study the Moon's surface to a resolution of 0.5 degrees, an ionization chamber to measure radiation in space, a diaphragm/microphone assembly to detect micrometeorites, a spin-coil magnetometer to measure magnetic fields to 5 microgauss, and temperature-variable resistors to record the spacecraft's internal conditions. The spacecraft was powered by nickel-cadmium batteries for ignition of the rockets, silver cell batteries for the television system, and mercury batteries for the remaining circuits. Radio transmission was at on 108.06 MHz through an electric dipole antenna for telemetry and doppler information at 300 mW and a magnetic dipole antenna for the television system at 50 W. Ground commands were received through the electric dipole antenna at 115 MHz. The spacecraft was spin-stabilized at 1.8 rps, the spin direction was approximately perpendicular to the geomagnetic meridian planes of the trajectory.

2) Once launched how do slow down enought to land - would require sophisticated guidance and rockets
Unless want to do a "thumpdown" - fire a retro rocket just few meters above surface to reduce velocity to
survivable crash, then have some sort of cushion or air bag to mitigate impact forces This is what Soviet Luna 9

The automatic lunar station that achieved the landing weighed 99 kilograms (220 lb). It used a landing bag to survive the impact speed of 54 kilometres per hour (34 mph)

3) Ok you are on moon. Moon has a day/night cycle of 2 weeks where "day" temps reach +250 F (115 C) and
night temp of - 250 F. Require temperature control .

Also what do for power during lunar "night" when solar cells dont work

Can see would not be easy or cheap to do. Which is why only 2 countries been able to pull off in past 50 years

Then only after multiple failures

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:43 PM

Originally posted by 23432

Good idea .

Perhaps using a supergun type of launch is the solution .

Perhaps a railgun based around 2 poles to create an electromagnetic field in between in order to propel a conductive projectile would be worth considering as the materials are convenient for what it achieves. Although you have to look at the length of the gun, and how much distance would be covered/if the cost is worth the distance travelled.

It may still be one of the cheaper methods.

I haven't properly looked at this however, i'm just putting it out there, before my post gets scrutinised with cynicism, as seen by some of these comments.

Lets collaborate, rather than put down ideas. The key to success is persistence. Perhaps the reason we haven't been back is from all the pessimism. i.e. "they won't let us go back", "you don't have any idea what's involved", etc

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:57 PM
As has been pointed out, a camera would be a bit dull since nothing changes on the moon.

Instead, I suggest landing multiple seismometers, to create a lunar quake network.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:26 AM
Thanks for all the feedback, it feels great to know that there are still people out there that are interested in such a project. A lot of people asked about some more details concerning the investment and technical characteristics:

I have a more or less realistic figure about the investment. The MV (moon vehicle) has a $130k price tag so far. If I choose different suppliers I can get it done in under $60k, yet it would not guarantee a successful mission. The conditions on the moon are very "tricky" for any kind of electronics. Someone asked about the cameras/lenses - I am currently using a model made by a Japanese company, that specializes in military and aviation equipment. The lenses used allow me focal length's as low as f/1.2 @ 24mm. Each of the 8 cameras is being able to be accessed independently, using (for example) 4 cameras for a video feed and the other 4 for still imagery under extreme low light conditions. Some of you who are photographers know the "BULB" mode on their cameras - the technique is similar. Each of the lenses allows me a 10/fold digital zoom, without compromising the image quality.

No, the live feed will be available top the public for free, after a two-week time window. We choose not to do a big live event, since that could compromise the mission (government's jamming the signal). Just a handfull of people will know when the project goes into space, from where, how etc. Two weeks will be enough to get priority data, such as the atmosphere, ground conditions, places of interest on the moon. After official stories are confirmed or debunked the project goes live, for free.

Depending on what kind of transmission we are using there will be a delay of 2,7 - 5,9 seconds.

A multi-step approach would raise the price tag enormously. In terms of cost, if you get into moon's orbit it's just a small fraction of the investment in order to land there, rather than providing images from moon's orbit.

Thank you for your words, I really appreciate it. People like you who share the same dream like me are my core motivation do engage in a project like this.

Depending on the transportation the minimum figure I am aware of is between $2 and $4 million. If we include advanced orbital testing, or creating a backup system in earth's orbit and moon's orbit for the up/downlink the amount could raise to over $20 million. As for now our budget covers the minimum figures.

As for counter interference: This is one of the hardest tasks in terms of planning - because you can rely only on official data. But if this official data is not true, it will compromise the whole mission. The thing that most concerns me is signal jamming by either governmental entities or (if all the moon theories are true) entities on the moon itself.
As for "natural" interference we will rely completely on official scientific data available at this moment.

As for NASA: It's not a question "if they let me do it", the question is if they will try to compromise it. A possible jamming attempt is already been taken into consideration, and we are trying to make the up/downlink as secure as possible, including several secondary options for transmission and control of the MV.

In terms of buying materials, yes. In terms of involvement and mission planning - no.

I am aware of those numbers. The biggest problem we are facing is the 82kg payload, which is over twice as heavier than the pioneer.

During lunar night cycles the MV will be 95% in hibernation mode, e.g. switched off. One of the hardest tasks to accomplish is to secure operation once the lunar night is over. That drastic change in temperature is a big risk for the electronics in the MV. A lot of testing on earth before the launch are the only way to find a good solution and then choose what to do during those periods.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 02:43 AM
Since the moon has no atmosphere or

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:27 AM
Now I am wondering why we have not had a moon rover: knowing mankind, we ought have driven all over that thing by now. It would seem especially we would have run a beta kind of run before jumping all the way to Mars. Good, though, not to mar the moon's surface with a bunch of tire tracks.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:33 AM
Like many I too have wondered why this hasn't been done. Some big sponsors, a bit of know how and some can do and giddy up we'd have MoonCam tm.

The thing that makes me smile though, noone on ATS would believe it was done, and would call it another. Conspiracy blah blah blah.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:40 AM
reply to post by absente

You'd need a physicist alright. A rocket scientist to compute a reverse Apollo 13 maneuver.

Use earth's gravity like a slingshot to the moon

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:27 AM
reply to post by absente

That's sweet
though what's On the surface is well known by now, 'majic eyes only in real time' though this will change soon.
They're now looking beneath the surface as seen here.

Be weary of what you see on the internet, especially anything associated with the fake Apollo moon landing as seen here revealing the actual taping of the TS lunar 'simulation' project. Humorous watching the space-aces falling all over themselves while being suspended with cables. lOl

Cosmic clearance is another world altogether.
edit on 20-10-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:45 AM
How come no one is asking the question why our own space program has never done so? We've landed multiple rovers on Mars now, for Chrissakes, why do we not have one on the moon just so people could explore history (old Apollo Landing sites, etc)

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:47 AM
just launching a sattelite is like 100 million bucks

I'll chip in $10 if I can pan over and show armstrongs camera he left up there !

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
How come no one is asking the question why our own space program has never done so? We've landed multiple rovers on Mars now, for Chrissakes, why do we not have one on the moon just so people could explore history (old Apollo Landing sites, etc)

The answer is in your own post: "just so people could explore history". Why would a nation spent billions on a project to document a history that is already very well documented?

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:58 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

I disagree.

Why do travel I droves to Rome, Paris, the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Wall of China, The Grand Canyon?

No one has seen anything on the moon that isn't 40+ years old except a few scientists, and a handful of astronauts. I want to see the moon with Today's technology: Landing sites (close up), dark side, earth views, etc.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by -PLB-

I disagree.

Why do travel I droves to Rome, Paris, the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Wall of China, The Grand Canyon?

No one has seen anything on the moon that isn't 40+ years old except a few scientists, and a handful of astronauts. I want to see the moon with Today's technology: Landing sites (close up), dark side, earth views, etc.

You can disagree, but it is the answer to your question: "why our own space program has never done so".
It just hasn't been an interesting enough mission. Where you disagree, I tend to agree. I think I won't have much trouble with coming up with a list of multi billion projects that I would much rather see happen.
edit on 20-10-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in