Did The Moon Landing Occur - Yes or No?
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
Lunar Prospector was in a low lunar orbit: 20 miles above the surface. Low lunar orbits are problematic, however: they aren't stable. Lunar Prospector had to do a orbit stabilization maneuver more often than once a month when it was orbiting at 20 miles altitude.
The Moon has been hammered by asteroids since its inception. Because the Moon doesn't have plate tectonics, these asteroids stay on the surface of the Moon. These mass concentrations ("mascons") make the Moon's gravitational field very lumpy.
From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm:
Near the end of the mission of Apollo 16, on April 24, 1972, just before returning back home to Earth, the three astronauts released one last scientific experiment: a small "subsatellite" called PFS-2 to orbit the Moon about every 2 hours.
The intention? Joining an earlier subsatellite PFS-1, released by Apollo 15 astronauts eight months earlier, PFS-2 was to measure charged particles and magnetic fields all around the Moon as the Moon orbited Earth. The low orbits of both subsatellites were to be similar ellipses, ranging from 55 to 76 miles (89 to 122 km) above the lunar surface.
Instead, something bizarre happened.
The orbit of PFS-2 rapidly changed shape and distance from the Moon. In 2-1/2 weeks the satellite was swooping to within a hair-raising 6 miles (10 km) of the lunar surface at closest approach. As the orbit kept changing, PFS-2 backed off again, until it seemed to be a safe 30 miles away. But not for long: inexorably, the subsatellite's orbit carried it back toward the Moon. And on May 29, 1972—only 35 days and 425 orbits after its release—PFS-2 crashed.
"Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable," says Konopliv. As a satellite passes 50 or 60 miles overhead, the mascons pull it forward, back, left, right, or down, the exact direction and magnitude of the tugging depends on the satellite's trajectory. Absent any periodic boosts from onboard rockets to correct the orbit, most satellites released into low lunar orbits (under about 60 miles or 100 km) will eventually crash into the Moon. PFS-2 released by Apollo 16 was simply a dramatic worst-case example. But even its longer-lived predecessor PFS-1 (released by Apollo 15) literally bit the dust in January 1973 after less than a year and a half.
The intention? Joining an earlier subsatellite PFS-1, released by Apollo 15 astronauts eight months earlier, PFS-2 was to measure charged particles and magnetic fields all around the Moon as the Moon orbited Earth. The low orbits of both subsatellites were to be similar ellipses, ranging from 55 to 76 miles (89 to 122 km) above the lunar surface.
Instead, something bizarre happened.
The orbit of PFS-2 rapidly changed shape and distance from the Moon. In 2-1/2 weeks the satellite was swooping to within a hair-raising 6 miles (10 km) of the lunar surface at closest approach. As the orbit kept changing, PFS-2 backed off again, until it seemed to be a safe 30 miles away. But not for long: inexorably, the subsatellite's orbit carried it back toward the Moon. And on May 29, 1972—only 35 days and 425 orbits after its release—PFS-2 crashed.
"Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable," says Konopliv. As a satellite passes 50 or 60 miles overhead, the mascons pull it forward, back, left, right, or down, the exact direction and magnitude of the tugging depends on the satellite's trajectory. Absent any periodic boosts from onboard rockets to correct the orbit, most satellites released into low lunar orbits (under about 60 miles or 100 km) will eventually crash into the Moon. PFS-2 released by Apollo 16 was simply a dramatic worst-case example. But even its longer-lived predecessor PFS-1 (released by Apollo 15) literally bit the dust in January 1973 after less than a year and a half.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What makes you feel they are afraid to do so? Why should they use any method of targeting the lunar landing sites just to satisfy the interests of groups of brain dead individuals whose personal lives is so bereft of meaning they have to find a conspiracy behind every door?
You have a problem believing we landed on the moon? I'll tell you what, that is your loss. You miss out on the greatest engineering achievement of all time, and on one of the greatest adventures that mankind has been involved in. And, in addition, you earn the contempt and pity (or more likely the indifference) of the rest of us.
The LRO will take high-resolution pictures of the Moon. The primary purpose of this mission is to accurately map potential Orion landing sites. Since it will fly over the old Apollo sites, it will capture images of those as well.
From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.
The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.
Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.
The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.
Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.
a 4x6 pixels of white on a grey surface besides who know how much dust got kicked up and covers the hardware it could be tricky to spot. Annyway it will be somewhat nice to have men back on the moon if they have a good surface program. Somewhow I hope singularity would voluntair for the mission.
Really? Just remember that they didn't design the cameras for the purpose of satisfying the kook crowd - they have much better uses for them.
Really? Just remember that they didn't design the cameras for the purpose of satisfying the kook crowd - they have much better uses for them.
Hey, google satellites are far far away compared to the moons, just look at the images of google maps.
What kook told you that? The Satellites that Googles uses for Google Earth are actually quite close to Earth. As in barely out of our atmosphere close.
Oh, wow!!!! Talk about completely ignorant!
Why don't you check into that little "mis-fact" on your own???
So u mean moon has 50 miles thick atmosphere ?
Where did you get that? Oh right you took a word and played with it. Look at my statement again, read it, have your teacher read it and after they explain it to you you can apologize for such an ignorant post.
If i am trolling then y dont u BUMBLE head tell me why can we have more hires images of moon than of earth.
Singularity, what makes you think we should have more hi-res images of the Moon than of the Earth?
We have satellites capable of taking hi-res images of the Earth because we need that imagery for many, many reasons. One important reason why Congress and its equivalent in other space-faring nations fund the development and operation of those satellites is because many of these needs for Earth imagery are connected with dollars.
That need doesn't exist yet for lunar imagery. Congress is not going to fund a hi-res lunar imager just to satisfy a bunch of woo-woos.
We have satellites capable of taking hi-res images of the Earth because we need that imagery for many, many reasons. One important reason why Congress and its equivalent in other space-faring nations fund the development and operation of those satellites is because many of these needs for Earth imagery are connected with dollars.
That need doesn't exist yet for lunar imagery. Congress is not going to fund a hi-res lunar imager just to satisfy a bunch of woo-woos.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
I think you'll find that Google does not rely on satellites alone for its images. The higher resolution ones come from sources that provide aerial photograghy.