Trump orders NASA to return to the Moon

Originally posted by @suzianne
As soon as I find the photo again, I'll post a link.

What you CAN see is a trail of footprints on the lunar surface around a landing site on the moon going to the rover and to sites a distance away where there are science instruments set up. The trail is, of course, bigger than the individual footprints.


EDIT: Here is the page on the NASA website, ...[text shortened]... , be sure to click on the links to "Show Only the Left" to see the newest, more clear, pictures.

Thank you for pointing that out.

In fact I had menatlly added from the earth, assuming that the OP was never on the lunar orbiter.

The fact is that an earth based telscope can not distinguish features below several dozen meters. Even from Hubble which is an excellent instrument, already covers 10% of the distance and has not to fight with atmospheric turbulence can't find footsteps...

Have I really to admit of believeing the earth to be a sphere, the moon to be another sphere some 380000km distant?

Originally posted by @suzianne
As soon as I find the photo again, I'll post a link.

What you CAN see is a trail of footprints on the lunar surface around a landing site on the moon going to the rover and to sites a distance away where there are science instruments set up. The trail is, of course, bigger than the individual footprints.


EDIT: Here is the page on the NASA website, ...[text shortened]... , be sure to click on the links to "Show Only the Left" to see the newest, more clear, pictures.

Nice article and great photos.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Relax sir, I don't think he will travel in cargo.

LOL...I don't think anyone would be traveling in cargo...Funny stuff though!!!

-VR

Originally posted by @suzianne
EDIT: Here is the page on the NASA website, showing three Apollo landing sites.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

These pics are a long way off from the claim

You can literally SEE the footprints on the surface with a telescope

🙄

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
These pics are a long way off from the claim

You can literally SEE the footprints on the surface with a telescope

🙄

People will always argue just to argue.

So, then I guess we can lump you in with Freaky as a naysayer?

So are you really arguing that since we can't see a single footprint from the earth, that we never went?

Originally posted by @suzianne
People will always argue just to argue.

So, then I guess we can lump you in with Freaky as a naysayer?

So are you really arguing that since we can't see a single footprint from the earth, that we never went?

What? 😲

I was just questioning Ashiitaka's claim.
Of course men went to the moon.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Read it again.

That was an attempt at humour.

The only thing wrong with Trumps's announcement is he didn't say how much money they will get to do the job. I guess he figures Elon Musk will do it for him.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
What? 😲

I was just questioning Ashiitaka's claim.
Of course men went to the moon.

There are still those who believe man never went to the moon it was all done from a private military base called area 51.

-VR

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
Well, of course it's a conspiracy! You don't think the moon really is large enough for people to walk on, do you? I mean, look at it. You can cover it with your thumb at arm's length! Even at the horizon it's hardly larger than a tall tower - probably smaller than the Vehicle Assembly Building itself. So how could a Saturn possibly land on it?
And any ...[text shortened]... closer than They want you to believe, we could get there easily. What we can't do is land there.

Which is closer, the moon or Italy?

The moon, obviously -- I can see the moon from my back yard. I can't see Italy from my back yard.

😉

Originally posted by @moonbus
Which is closer, the moon or Italy?

The moon, obviously -- I can see the moon from my back yard. I can't see Italy from my back yard.

😉

You just don't have a mirror high enough.....

Originally posted by @moonbus
Which is closer, the moon or Italy?

The moon, obviously -- I can see the moon from my back yard. I can't see Italy from my back yard.

😉

Yeah - and unlike the moon, you can actually walk around in Italy. I've been there, five times. I've never been to the moon. What more proof do you want?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Which is closer, the moon or Italy?

The moon, obviously -- I can see the moon from my back yard. I can't see Italy from my back yard.

😉

ROFLMAO...Now that was Funny!!!

-VR

Originally posted by @suzianne
As soon as I find the photo again, I'll post a link.

What you CAN see is a trail of footprints on the lunar surface around a landing site on the moon going to the rover and to sites a distance away where there are science instruments set up. The trail is, of course, bigger than the individual footprints.


EDIT: Here is the page on the NASA website, ...[text shortened]... , be sure to click on the links to "Show Only the Left" to see the newest, more clear, pictures.

Those photo's show lines but not actual footprints which the conspiracy assswipes will say, just robots did that or some such crap not realizing there was no robotic technology in the 60's capable of doing ANYTHING on the moon much less make tracks on its own.
But the images shows definite human activity for any reasonable person.
From Earth the Hubble splits a 360 degree circle into about 25 million parts and the moon is roughly a quarter mil away so 500,000 miles diameter orbit times Pi making the full circle roughly 1,5 million miles around and that shows Hubble can only resolve about 150 foot features at best which is something like 50 meters so even if it were ten times more powerful it could not resolve the tracks much less footprints. The orbiter at 30 odd km or 20 odd miles would take a MUCH better resolution image simply because it is so close, so 20 miles X2, 40 mile diameter circle times three, about 120 mile diameter circle and we can guess say 1/3 meter res so metric circle about 200 km so the lens did about one part in 600,000 which is about 2 arc second res, so it was a small scope. If it had been the hubble, it would have at that range given a res of about 6 MILLIMETERS, about 50 times more res than that little scope on the orbiter, roughly 1/4 inch which would have shown not only the footprints but any deterioration caused by day/night cycles and cosmic ray impact, and so forth.

and NASA doesn't reveal their own measurements regarding the moon being hollow..