First High-Res Pics from NASA LRO Received

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) sent back the first high-res images of the moon’s surface at the night/day boundary. Check out the Wired article for the pics and more about the orbiter and its mission.

One of the goals of the LRO mission is to scout potential landing sites for future missions. It will also look for resources and characterize the lunar environment. … The LRO will get as close as 19 miles above the surface, but will spend most of its mission 31 miles up. These pictures were taken to calibrate the cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully they'll take pictures of all the Lunar Landing sites so these conspiracy idiots that believe the lunar landings were faked can be shown for the idiots they truly are.
 
qdemn7 said:
Hopefully they'll take pictures of all the Lunar Landing sites so these conspiracy idiots that believe the lunar landings were faked can be shown for the idiots they truly are.
Click to expand...
You honestly think they'll see that as any proof?

IMO they've been shown for the idiots they are already.
 
qdemn7 said:
Hopefully they'll take pictures of all the Lunar Landing sites so these conspiracy idiots that believe the lunar landings were faked can be shown for the idiots they truly are.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/lroimages/

From the comments section:

Posted by: madchad | 07/2/09 | 10:58 pm said:
Id say that until I see pictures of a flag with a landing site that I still don’t believe they went to the moon, but I’m pretty sure nasa would just fake those too.
Click to expand...
 
I'm no conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it happened, whatever - but I do find it terribly odd that we were able to go to the moon so easily in the 60's, but can't go there now without doing a shit-ton of atmospheric tests, regarding radiation, lunar conditions, flyby's to map out the terrain, etc.

You'd think that going to the moon would just be the easiest thing by now.
 
stop!theradio said:
I'm no conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it happened, whatever - but I do find it terribly odd that we were able to go to the moon so easily in the 60's, but can't go there now without doing a shit-ton of atmospheric tests, regarding radiation, lunar conditions, flyby's to map out the terrain, etc.

You'd think that going to the moon would just be the easiest thing by now.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're just being more cautious.
 
stop!theradio said:
I'm no conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it happened, whatever - but I do find it terribly odd that we were able to go to the moon so easily in the 60's, but can't go there now without doing a shit-ton of atmospheric tests, regarding radiation, lunar conditions, flyby's to map out the terrain, etc.

You'd think that going to the moon would just be the easiest thing by now.
Click to expand...




Every astronaut that set foot on the moon has a cataract to some degree. They all mentioned seeing flashes of light when they closed their eyes.

If we're going to keep someone on a moon base for a prolonged period of time, we damn well better know just how much risk is involved.
 
rayman2k2 said:
Every astronaut that set foot on the moon has a cataract to some degree. They all mentioned seeing flashes of light when they closed their eyes.

If we're going to keep someone on a moon base for a prolonged period of time, we damn well better know just how much risk is involved.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't sending them out of Earth's atmosphere just as dangerous as sending them to the moon? Astronauts are still as vulnerable weather they're on the moon or not. Why has it been such a troublesome thing just to send people out on a space shuttle mission until recently, yet it was so easy back then? You'd think they'd have a little of what's safe and what's not safe figured out in the nearly 50 years since we last went to the moon.
 
stop!theradio said:
I'm no conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it happened, whatever - but I do find it terribly odd that we were able to go to the moon so easily in the 60's, but can't go there now without doing a shit-ton of atmospheric tests, regarding radiation, lunar conditions, flyby's to map out the terrain, etc.

You'd think that going to the moon would just be the easiest thing by now.
Click to expand...

1.) In the 60's the US was in a pissing contest with the Soviet Union. Sending someone to the moon was less about scientific exploration and more about who got to brag about getting there first. We've mostly since absolved this childish notion about who has the bigger d*ck. There really isn't any reason to send people back to the moon right now.

2.) The moon is constantly being bombarded with debris. Sending people back/building colonies is a very tough thing to do. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/21may_100explosions.htm
 
stop!theradio said:
Well, isn't sending them out of Earth's atmosphere just as dangerous as sending them to the moon? Astronauts are still as vulnerable weather they're on the moon or not.
Click to expand...
The Earth's magnetic field provides some protection close to the Earth, remember the Space Shuttle flies in the neighborhood of 200 miles off the surface, the moon is 240,000 miles away.

Why has it been such a troublesome thing just to send people out on a space shuttle mission until recently, yet it was so easy back then? You'd think they'd have a little of what's safe and what's not safe figured out in the nearly 50 years since we last went to the moon.
Click to expand...
Trouble some? It was more like they want to make sure they don't get another disaster like the shuttle exploding, or what not, something about that happening and funding to do missions mysteriously dries up... yet thousands of soldiers are dying on the other side of the country and meh.. it's no big deal lets throw more money at it to fix it. Something about priorities and what not.

Oh and the Space Shuttle couldn't fly to the moon if it wanted to.
 
The last time we went to the moon it was just to go to the moon, it didn't really matter where, just wherever was easiest. This time they want to go to the most likely places we would build a base. That means doing recon to see where the most likely places valuable resources would be, where you could build something to get maximum protection from solar wind etc.
 
I hope the LRO gets hi-res pictures of all the alien bases on the dark side of the moon!
 
stop!theradio said:
Well, isn't sending them out of Earth's atmosphere just as dangerous as sending them to the moon? Astronauts are still as vulnerable weather they're on the moon or not. Why has it been such a troublesome thing just to send people out on a space shuttle mission until recently, yet it was so easy back then? You'd think they'd have a little of what's safe and what's not safe figured out in the nearly 50 years since we last went to the moon.
Click to expand...



No, staying miles away from the Earth is not as dangerous as sending them to the moon. Where the Shuttle is sent is still within Earth's magnetic field for protection from solar rays, albeit less so then on the ground.


The moon is wide open.
 
Well the people they sent to the moon 50 years ago are still alive. If the radiation from the sun is as dangerous as it's made out to be, then why are they still alive? Lol...I'm just asking these questions now for no reason. As far as I'm concerned, they DID go to the moon. It doesn't really matter to me.

On with the thread and topic at hand.
 
stop!theradio said:
I'm no conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it happened, whatever - but I do find it terribly odd that we were able to go to the moon so easily in the 60's, but can't go there now without doing a shit-ton of atmospheric tests, regarding radiation, lunar conditions, flyby's to map out the terrain, etc.
Click to expand...

LOL- I was thinking the EXACT same thing today.

Pretty much words out of my mouth. I'm not one for conspiracy theory's either, but it's easy to see where they have an argument from. Technology changes every 6 months, all of us here know that more than anyone. So, we landed on the moon 40 YEARS AGO, and it takes us 10 years nowadays just to get a damned plan together...


Anyone know why we can't just pull out (if they're still around) an old Saturn V and launch it next month?
 
stop!theradio said:
Well the people they sent to the moon 50 years ago are still alive. If the radiation from the sun is as dangerous as it's made out to be, then why are they still alive? Lol...I'm just asking these questions now for no reason. As far as I'm concerned, they DID go to the moon. It doesn't really matter to me.

On with the thread and topic at hand.
Click to expand...



It's not that they shouldn't be alive - remember they all have cataracts to some degree - but its the matter of, if we go and establish a moon base (which is in the cards, since it would make launches to mars easier), what would prolonged (months, maybe a year or two) exposure to that radiation lead to?
 
jwhazel said:
1.) In the 60's the US was in a pissing contest with the Soviet Union. Sending someone to the moon was less about scientific exploration and more about who got to brag about getting there first. We've mostly since absolved this childish notion about who has the bigger d*ck. There really isn't any reason to send people back to the moon right now.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why. There's just no need for it at the time and the cost of sending people to the moon is just too much right now.
 
Ive always wonder.... why would people want to live on the moon? The one thing that would get me worried is water... I mean.... its not like it rains there... it could be a big hassle to ship water there every so often...
 
TechieSooner said:
LOL- I was thinking the EXACT same thing today.

Pretty much words out of my mouth. I'm not one for conspiracy theory's either, but it's easy to see where they have an argument from. Technology changes every 6 months, all of us here know that more than anyone. So, we landed on the moon 40 YEARS AGO, and it takes us 10 years nowadays just to get a damned plan together...


Anyone know why we can't just pull out (if they're still around) an old Saturn V and launch it next month?
Click to expand...

I think its all in the funding. With no Cold War competition, space seems to be the last of the country's priorities. Most cosmological research is shifting away from the US and into Europe now. The Large Hadron Collider near Geneva is an example. A bigger, better one was supposed to be built in Texas, but the politicians here in the US asked themselves, "what's the point of spending billions on another god damn particle accelerator?"
 
rayman2k2 said:
what would prolonged (months, maybe a year or two) exposure to that radiation lead to?
Click to expand...
I know this sounds terrible: but we won't know until it happens.

Either we have to build a little monkey colony there or figure it out on our own, but there's only so much you can learn from "studying" it until you have to put real flesh and blood out there to see what it does.

watertown28 said:
Ive always wonder.... why would people want to live on the moon? The one thing that would get me worried is water... I mean.... its not like it rains there... it could be a big hassle to ship water there every so often...
Click to expand...
I think it's a stepping point for them, for moving on to bigger things (like Mars).
I personally think the whole thing is a waste of time myself... But I do respect those who have a desire to try it.
My thing: is society is screwed up here on earth as-is. Moving to another planet won't fix our root problems, we'll run into the same nonsense there.

Yoshiyuki Blade said:
A bigger, better one was supposed to be built in Texas, but the politicians here in the US asked themselves, "what's the point of spending billions on another god damn particle accelerator?"
Click to expand...
Because it's rather pointless, IMO... Even once they get the one in Europe fixed, there's zero guarantee that we'll find out ANYTHING about it. It's one of those things that you eventually have to build so that you can test out a theory that may or may not lead to anything. Again, I respect the opinions of folks who thing we'll discover something, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd also disagree about NASA's funding... Here's the thing: they've done this once before. They already know HOW to do it, and they could do it pretty much the same way if they wanted to.
It's almost like they've completely lost all knowledge of how it was done previously (again- easy to see why conspiracy theorists have a position...), and are trying to re-invent everything all over again.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
TechieSooner said:
Because it's rather pointless, IMO... Even once they get the one in Europe fixed, there's zero guarantee that we'll find out ANYTHING about it. It's one of those things that you eventually have to build so that you can test out a theory that may or may not lead to anything. Again, I respect the opinions of folks who thing we'll discover something, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd also disagree about NASA's funding... Here's the thing: they've done this once before. They already know HOW to do it, and they could do it pretty much the same way if they wanted to.
It's almost like they've completely lost all knowledge of how it was done previously (again- easy to see why conspiracy theorists have a position...), and are trying to re-invent everything all over again.
Click to expand...

I think the LHC will be used for much more than just finding the elusive Higgs Boson particle. Otherwise, I'd also find it rather silly to build such a monstrous device to test one theory (although it's quite an important reason by itself). There's only one way to find out... Whether the theory is found to be everything or nothing, it'll be a significant discovery either way.

I also think space exploration rather pointless too at this stage of mankind. We have like what, 500 million years before Earth becomes inhospitable? That's the least of my worries at the moment. I'm sure everyone on this world don't genuinely care with only a century to live if they're lucky.

Even though they know how to travel to the moon and back, it still costs a lot of money. And the budget is probably spread across multiple projects too, not just a space race like before. We have a bunch of interestng satellites in the works to study the universe. I bet if they wanna plan another visit to the moon, it'll have a lasting, long-term value.
 
TechieSooner said:
I know this sounds terrible: but we won't know until it happens.

Either we have to build a little monkey colony there or figure it out on our own, but there's only so much you can learn from "studying" it until you have to put real flesh and blood out there to see what it does.
Click to expand...


No you're right, but with enough studying, you know what to expect.
 
TechieSooner said:
I'd also disagree about NASA's funding... Here's the thing: they've done this once before. They already know HOW to do it, and they could do it pretty much the same way if they wanted to.
It's almost like they've completely lost all knowledge of how it was done previously (again- easy to see why conspiracy theorists have a position...), and are trying to re-invent everything all over again.
Click to expand...

THEY HAVE lost all the knowledge
most of the engineers that work on Apollo are no longer alive we have some of the designes but becouse the tech was so primitive they cant make heads or tails of it and even then they dont know WHY it was done that way

when Columbia broke up and they had to investigate it NASA had to call in all the retired engineers to get the new guys up to speed and even then a far few are not alive
remember the shuttle is 50's tech
Apollo is 40's tech there is no one alive any more that designed the thing
 
watertown28 said:
Ive always wonder.... why would people want to live on the moon?
Click to expand...

The answer is as simple as "It's what we do".

Mankind has always been fascinated with just doing things because we could.....or to a similar extent because we were told we couldn't :)
 
TechieSooner said:
I'd also disagree about NASA's funding... Here's the thing: they've done this once before. They already know HOW to do it, and they could do it pretty much the same way if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Okay so they do it the same way and it would cost 1 Trillion dollars. So yeah. They better think about this one a little harder.


The entire Apollo programme cost $24bn in 1960s money - around $1 trillion in today's - and for several years was swallowing up almost 5 per cent of the US federal budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/21/apollo-fallen-dream
 
TechieSooner said:
I think it's a stepping point for them, for moving on to bigger things (like Mars).
I personally think the whole thing is a waste of time myself... But I do respect those who have a desire to try it.
My thing: is society is screwed up here on earth as-is. Moving to another planet won't fix our root problems, we'll run into the same nonsense there.
Click to expand...

society is screwed up here, but when has it been otherwise? the point of going into space isn't about fixing our problems here; if anything, it's an insurance policy in case they get too bad.


TechieSooner said:
I'd also disagree about NASA's funding... Here's the thing: they've done this once before. They already know HOW to do it, and they could do it pretty much the same way if they wanted to.
It's almost like they've completely lost all knowledge of how it was done previously (again- easy to see why conspiracy theorists have a position...), and are trying to re-invent everything all over again.
Click to expand...

they ARE trying to re-invent everything. they're trying to make space exploration less expensive. do you realize it costs US$10,000 to put one pound into orbit? that's about 2 million dollars for a 200lb. adult.

we also know a lot more now about the dangers of leaving the planet protective mechanisms for long periods of time and its effects on human anatomy, and being the ethical primates we are, we want to protect our astronauts from those dangers since we know about them a bit better now. that adds still further dimensions to the cost and complexity of manned space missions.

it's been pointed out that going to the moon in the '60s was about showing up the Soviets. these days, the space program's entire purpose is science, and the American public doesn't really get behind science, certainly not like it gets behind "issues of national pride." NASA's current aim is to doing everything on the cheap; it's why they're switching back to rockets (Aries V) instead of the shuttle or other spaceplane designs, and i'd also venture it's the reason why it seems like every other Mars probe gets screwed up in some way or another. they're trying to do more, scientifically speaking, with a good deal less money. the Apollo missions were mainly just rockets and life support systems, proof of the concept space travel. trying to send all manners of sensitive scientific equipment into orbit is a bit trickier.

they're also trying to do it with a little more than half of the budget, adjusted for inflation, that they received in the mid '60s. to put it into another perspective, NASA accounted for about 5.5% of the US budget in 1966, and in 2009 it accounts for 0.55%.

people can debate about whether or not the money is well spent all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's less than 1% of the national budget, and most of our wasted money is being wasted elsewhere (and i DON'T mean social services).
 
TechieSooner said:
Anyone know why we can't just pull out (if they're still around) an old Saturn V and launch it next month?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've never worked in a position having anything to do with engineering and planning.
 
The budget we had for space travel back then is at least twice what it is now. We had the budget then and we had the public support and initiative and we had the right space ships. Now, none of that exists anymore. The budget has been shot to crap, we couldn't land a tin can on the moon if we wanted to with this budget, no public support and the shuttle was never designed to go to and land on the moon. You do realize there were SEVERAL missions to the moon, we have landed on the moon a total of 6 times.
 
Cool, so now we can see High Res photos of ....grey...dirt.

Usually I get excited over this stuff, I am having trouble this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top