why can there be no rover on the moon?

we landed on the moon and explored it but it wasnt what nasa showed the public. the moon aint a big rock.its something else thats why they are leaving it alone. a alien race already is occupying the moon thats why we are trying to colonize mars now

These are some photo's from the N.A.S.A website taken on the Apollo 12 mission.

Now take a look at this photo.

"Apollo 12 commander Charles "Pete" Conrad, Jr. works at the Modular Equipment Stowage Assemble (MESA) on the lunar module. In the foreground is the erectable S-band antenna. Behind Conrad is the carrier for the Apollo lunar hand tools. This was near the end of the first moonwalk EVA (extravehicular activity). Conrad is stowing the tools and rock samples that have been collected, Alan Bean is taking panoramic pictures. (Apollo 12, AS12-H-47-6988)"

I am struggling to believe that this "Lunar Module" flew through space and landed on the moon. Looks like a half wrapped christmas present held together with pop rivets! Check out the high tech metal work.

Why is the moon dust totally undisturbed beneath the main thruster?

Also, please take note of the astronauts footprints on the surface.

When we look at the next photo,

"This image shows the Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which landed on 20 April 1967, and in the background the Apollo 12 lunar module. The lunar module landed about 180 meters from Surveyor, and on the second moonwalk EVA on 20 November astronauts Conrad and Bean visited the craft, took pictures and removed some parts for return to Earth."

Now could somebody please explain how Conrad and Bean got to the far side of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft without leaving a single footprint on the surface? Shortest distance from point A to point B is a straight line. The panoramic shot shows no sign of footprints anywhere. Doesn't anyone find that strange?

I always thought we DID land on the moon, but now after viewing these photo's I'm starting to have doubts

Originally posted by Psychoses
I am struggling to believe that this "Lunar Module" flew through space and landed on the moon. Looks like a half wrapped christmas present held together with pop rivets! Check out the high tech metal work.

�Then the third stage is reignited at Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) to send the spacecraft to the moon. It burns for over 5 minutes so that it reaches 39,400 km/h or over 10 km/s. A couple of hours after TLI, the Apollo Command Service Module (CSM) separates from the third stage turns 180 degrees and docks with the Lunar Module (LM) which rides below the CSM during launch. The CSM and LM then separate from the third stage.�
www.fact-index.com...
The LM was protected in the body of the rocket for much of the flight. There is a classic photo of the storage area of this stage opened up like a flower.

The gold foil was a thermal insulating material. And yes, it may not be evident in that photo, but it some of it was damaged in the landings.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

It also tore off when the assent stage blased off.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Why is the moon dust totally undisturbed beneath the main thruster?

And how do you know that it isn�t? What is your preconceived notion of what it is supposed to look like?

Also, please take note of the astronauts footprints on the surface.

So? Please explain why you think this is significant.

Now could somebody please explain how Conrad and Bean got to the far side of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft without leaving a single footprint on the surface? Shortest distance from point A to point B is a straight line. The panoramic shot shows no sign of footprints anywhere. Doesn't anyone find that strange?

To begin with, that isn�t exactly a panoramic shot. The surveyor fills up most of the foreground. Secondly, you are assuming that they actually walked straight to the surveyor. You don�t know this for a fact. Finally, I see a number of shadows and patterns in the lunar soil that could be the footprints that you are looking for. Remember, it is often difficult to establish a proper sense of scale in some of these photos.

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

As you can see in the above shot, the astronaut�s footprints that are close to the camera are relatively faint. It is possible that they approached the Surveyor on an oblique angle and circled around before they approached the craft itself.








[edit on 18-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by konartis96
we landed on the moon and explored it but it wasnt what nasa showed the public. the moon aint a big rock.its something else thats why they are leaving it alone. a alien race already is occupying the moon thats why we are trying to colonize mars now

Are you kidding?

Were going back to the moon and then on to Mars, not the other way around.

Nasa will send a robotic mission to the moon in 2008, and continue with the probes until around 2020, when we build the first ever moon base. With video camera tech these days constantly advancing and with HDTV, We sill see amazingly clear crisp images, with enough of a resolution that you will know if its done by CGI or in a building or using cables.

So sorry to disappoint you, but when we go back to the moon you wont see any alien structures.

Originally posted by Murcielago
So sorry to disappoint you, but when we go back to the moon you wont see any alien structures.

It would be VERY interesting if a rover cant see what the astronauts claim to have seen on just about every mission (structures, UFO's... things...).

Would actually be pretty bad for NASA, since we then know its worthless to send a man to Mars (they wont be allowed to see more than the rovers can see), thus wont get funding.

Merka, do you have a source for your claim that the astronauts supposedly saw these things?

Here is a pretty cool article about the third stage from the Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo 12 mission.

neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

ShadowXIX
They dont even have the plans for the Saturn V anymore as part of the Shuttle deal they were destroyed. I have no clue why they did this though.

The Saturn 5 cost to much anyway, they costed 431 million, in todays money that makes it 2.4 billion, apiece.

When you can buy and modify a Delta IV Heavy to lift half of what it could lift, but for a fraction of that price. Plus the Delta 4 has a new rocket engine (RS-68), which is environmentally friendly and in todays world thats a must.

Originally posted by Psychoses
These are some photo's from the N.A.S.A website taken on the Apollo 12 mission.

Now take a look at this photo.

"(Apollo 12, AS12-H-47-6988)"

I am struggling to believe that this "Lunar Module" flew through space and landed on the moon. Looks like a half wrapped christmas present held together with pop rivets! Check out the high tech metal work.

So what if some of it's wraped up in gold foil? what's your point? The astronauts don't sit in that section of the LM. As Howard said, it's thermal protection for the cargo area of the LM. They needed to keep the design light weight, so that it would get up into space. That's why it looks fragile, but it doesn't have to deal with that much gravity at all.

Why is the moon dust totally undisturbed beneath the main thruster?

Well firstly, lets look at a better version of that photo. Yours was rather blurry. AS12-47-6988 [1mb] Now to me it looks a little disturbed. Not as much as you'd find here on Earth, but that's because there is no atmosphere on the Moon. I really suggest you read some of the links posted in this thread. I highly reccomend clavius.org

Also, please take note of the astronauts footprints on the surface.

Now could somebody please explain how Conrad and Bean got to the far side of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft without leaving a single footprint on the surface? Shortest distance from point A to point B is a straight line. The panoramic shot shows no sign of footprints anywhere. Doesn't anyone find that strange?

Why don't you look at all the previous photos if you want to find out how they got there? Yes, the shortest distance from A to B is a stright line, but how many people do you know that walk in a stright line to there distination all the time? Here are the photos in order...

AS12-48-7084 No foot prints infront of them, because they are still walking to it. The LM is towards the left outside of the photo.

AS12-48-7088 Still making there way to it.

AS12-48-7091 Getting closer...

AS12-48-7099 Much closer...

AS12-48-7100 The one you posted. Still not quite there, thus no foot prints around it yet.

Ok now i'm going to skip a few photos, just because they show close-ups of surveyor 3 itself and not much of the ground around it.

AS12-48-7121 Foot prints all over the place.

AS12-48-7133 Even more foot prints.

Hope that made things clearer. Still having doubts?

Thanks, jra.

In those photo's you provided it does appear that they walked in a circle around to the far side of surveyor 3.

if they sent man there 30 years ago then why cant we go there again. instead of sending a rover.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Merka, do you have a source for your claim that the astronauts supposedly saw these things?

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Originally posted by konartis96
if they sent man there 30 years ago then why cant we go there again. instead of sending a rover.

We are gonna go there again, but it takes time to build everything, We dont just keep a huge rocket on the launch pad waiting for the day we decide to go back.

Were going back in about 15 years. (possibly for good)

Remember, this time its not a race, its a journey.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by konartis96
if they sent man there 30 years ago then why cant we go there again. instead of sending a rover.

We are gonna go there again, but it takes time to build everything, We dont just keep a huge rocket on the launch pad waiting for the day we decide to go back.

Were going back in about 15 years. (possibly for good)

Remember, this time its not a race, its a journey.

15 years is too early since we need completely new spaceships and rockets, the ones we have are crapold and are beginning to break apart (rather obviously). NASA doesnt seem to put to much effort into making new spaceships. We could have had that a decade ago.

Merka. Thanks for that site. It is a real hoot!

I almost have to wonder if the author of that site isn�t trying to create a spoof or parody site. He certainly seems to have included every bit of lunacy he could find. [size=0]yes, that is a pun

We are also told that the famous Neil Armstrong 'footprints' will remain etched on the Moon's surface forever. We are told this precisely because the Moon's 'atmosphere' is a vacuum. The laws of physics demand that dust becomes hardened and will compress in a 'vacuum' therefore ensuring the 'footprints' remain undisturbed. And yet great plumes of dust can be seen spewing forth from underneath the 'Moon Buggy' as it travels across the lunar surface. Is this 'vacuum theory' some kind of wild hoax by NASA?

I wonder what laws of physics he is talking about. None that I have ever heard of. If he is talking about the phenomina of �vacuum welding� that has nothing to do with irregularly shaped rock particles (lunar dust).
As for the rest, since one of the primary tasks of all of the Apollo missions was to study the geology of the moon, all of the astronauts received extensive geologic training prior to their missions.

Wilson writes (p.142): "And we might add that this is a very strange conversation. What are the real meanings of such terms used here as structure, blocked field, beaches, benches, terraces and the like? NASA claims that they are just metaphoric terms to describe unusual natural formations."

A few common geologic terms

Dome: A steep-sided mass of viscous (doughy) lava extruded from a volcanic vent (often circular in plane view) and spiny, rounded, or flat on top. Its surface is often rough and blocky as a result of fragmentation of the cooler, outer crust during growth of the dome.

Block: Angular chunk of solid rock ejected during an eruption.

Lava Tube: A tunnel formed when the surface of a lava flow cools and solidifies while the still-molten interior flows through and drains away.





[edit on 19-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

yeah true. nasa should get off there ass and start doing there job. and they could of already had a newer rocket design. and a better space shuttle. and the world should just work together for space travel. we will learn more. and do more

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A few common geologic terms

Dome: A steep-sided mass of viscous (doughy) lava extruded from a volcanic vent (often circular in plane view) and spiny, rounded, or flat on top. Its surface is often rough and blocky as a result of fragmentation of the cooler, outer crust during growth of the dome.

Block: Angular chunk of solid rock ejected during an eruption.

Lava Tube: A tunnel formed when the surface of a lava flow cools and solidifies while the still-molten interior flows through and drains away.

Good points, except how far would they have to travel to see all those things? The moon should be smacked by meteors, not showing much geological activity.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by merka]

Originally posted by merka
Good points, except how far would they have to travel to see all those things? The moon should be smacked by meteors, not showing much geological activity.

Actually Apollo 15 landed near one lava rille.


volcano.und.nodak.edu...
volcano.und.nodak.edu...

Four nuclear powered seismic stations were installed during the Apollo project to collect seismic data about the interior of the Moon. There is only residual tectonic activity due to cooling and tidal forcing,
www.solarviews.com...

we'll go back, with rovers. If they (nasa and rover) see something Joe Public won't understand they'll beam back stored default images of the surface and everyone will be happy.
I doubt man will ever go back to the moon for reasons we will never know, but we'll be told something that apparently makes sense to us all.

I understand that is a weird statement at best.
With regards to the moon however,what better platform to do research from? Why wouldn't have we gone back and setup shop to some degree? People go on and on about the moon being dead, nothing new to explore, blah blah blah- fair enough, how about setting up tech infrastructure to aid with comms, space forecasting, charting our system, the list goes on... Infrastructure that can be serviced by bots not humans....
How many scientists,geologists would say no to going moon? Really?

Has NASA had any projects running in the last 40yrs to construct lunar vehicles, better ships to get there etc.... ?? I'd be interested to know.

Oh another thing re the rovers, A rover won't lie, transmit data it shouldn't and if a rover goes missing - people will get over it.

help me pull the wool back over my eyes... Conspiracies bore me with predicatable precision.

Merka
15 years is too early since we need completely new spaceships and rockets

Ever heard of the Delta IV Heavy? Its first launch will be soon, it uses a new rocket engine called RS-68, and its environmentaly friendly.

Merka
the ones we have are crapold and are beginning to break apart (rather obviously).

Huh? - What rockets are falling apart? Because your obviously not refering to the space shuttle, since its rocket performed flawlessly, a chunk of foam from the external tank punctured a hole it the shuttles wing, cause the hot atmosphere gases to enter. So if your going to blame its destruction on anything, it should be the foam on the tank. Which BTW is one of the things being fixed before the Shuttles go to Return to Flight status.

Merka
NASA doesnt seem to put to much effort into making new spaceships. We could have had that a decade ago.

This one I would have to agree with you on. I am also very frustrated that Nasa cant make another succesfull spacecraft.
X-33 & X-34 were both good designs, and I think they either went black, or nasa has thier head up thier asses.
I'm hoping that private commercializing of space will get them in gear, so hopfully in the coming decade we will see some new spacecraft that sets Nasa apart from the other guys.