Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Reveals New Images of Apollo Landing Sites

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the looks-like-photoshop-to-me dept.

Moon 269

sighted writes "Sharp new images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites in amazing detail, including the last foot trails left by astronauts on the lunar surface." These pictures were grabbed after the LRO dropped its orbit from 50km above the surface to 25km.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's a fake!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319520)

Senator Vreenak knows what's up.

Re:It's a fake!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319578)

I'm still waiting the "amazing detail". Looks like some crap photos.
 
CAPTCHA: shrubs

Re:It's a fake!!! (5, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319776)

If you magnify the image, you can see Stanley Kubrick sitting in a director's chair in a crater.

Oh wait. (rubbing my LCD screen) Dead pixels.

Re:It's a fake!!! (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320296)

Dead pixels or dead director?

Re:It's a fake!!! (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320270)

You forgot to right click and select "Zoom-In" and then choose "Enhance".

Re:It's a fake!!! (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320112)

Of course it's fake. You think any reasonable person would park so far away and schlep all the way back to the ship in those damn suits?

Re:It's a fake!!! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320158)

they would if they ran out of gas for the rovers. I bet they were pissed too when AAA wouldn't drop them off a gallon.

Wow... they are really commited to the hoax (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319560)

They just won't let it go. ;-)

Faked! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319566)

I'm not falling for that one.

Poor NASA server (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319570)

That image is a hotlinked, bigass JPEG.

A bunch of admins are probably running into the server room with fire extinguishers at this moment. And hopefully one with a Scottish accent is yelling over a cell phone that the server is overloaded and can't take any more.

Re:Poor NASA server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319608)

That image is a hotlinked, bigass JPEG.

A bunch of admins are probably running into the server room with fire extinguishers at this moment. And hopefully one with a Scottish accent is yelling over a cell phone that the server is overloaded and can't take any more.

No, they're probably laughing and smiling that it works in browsers instead of showing a picture of a puzzle piece with a caption of "Download Plugin".

Re:Poor NASA server (1)

teridon (139550) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319678)

Not sure if serious...

NASA's main web site is served by Akamai; I doubt they'll have an issue.

# dig www.nasa.gov

; <<>> DiG 9.6.-ESV-R4-P1 <<>> www.nasa.gov
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3588
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.nasa.gov.                  IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.nasa.gov.           300     IN      CNAME   www.nasa.gov.speedera.net.
www.nasa.gov.speedera.net. 120  IN      CNAME   www.nasa.gov.edgesuite.net.
www.nasa.gov.edgesuite.net. 21600 IN    CNAME   a1718.x.akamai.net.
a1718.x.akamai.net.     20      IN      A       184.51.157.10
a1718.x.akamai.net.     20      IN      A       184.51.157.17

Re:Poor NASA server (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319716)

Oh good for them. It bogged down pretty hard when the article was first posted but I was finally able to load it about a minute ago.

Re:Poor NASA server (3, Interesting)

Artraze (600366) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319702)

Eh, it's only 1MB (which is actually quite large considering uncompressed would be 1.8MB by my estimate). Given how carelessly pages are designed these days, you're probably saving 100+ requests and 1MB of data by them not linking the page...

But hey, you don't have to listen to me; check out http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com/ [websiteoptimization.com]
Total HTTP Requests: 312
Total Size: 1828125 bytes

Woohoo! Slashdot is doing them a favor.

Re:Poor NASA server (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319766)

I believe that is called deep-linking, not hot-linking. It would be hot-linking if the Slashdot page displayed the image.

Re:Poor NASA server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320442)

Perhaps deep-dicking for what it's doing to their server.

Fake Landing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319576)

NASA really did their work faking these images since we never landed on the moon.

Re:Fake Landing (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319976)

I'm curious, are you trolling, or just a fucktard?

Re:Fake Landing (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320036)

does it have to be "or"? Could very well be "and".

proof of a conspiracy! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320268)

You notice they didn't release pics of the landing sites at the South pole!


jeeze, what a waste of effort on a crap horror movie. I feel dumb for even knowing that much about it...

Rick... (1)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319594)

I really thought I was gonna get Rick Roll'd when I clicked on the link.

Wait (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319604)

FTA;

The images do not line up perfectly because of differences in lighting conditions, angle of the LRO Camera, and other variables.

Like being on a different sound stage??

Re:Wait (0)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320364)

Oh for god's sake I sincerely hope you don't think you're funny.

Re:Wait (2)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320464)

I sincerely hope that he does think he's funny. It's better than him being serious.

No stars in the photo! (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319622)

There's no stars in the photos! Obiously they're fake and the moon landing was a hoax!

On a more serious note, I love these photos. I'm fascinated by the moon landings. Just looking up at the night sky and seeing the moon and thinking humans have set foot there, when a little over 100 years ago the idea of flight was only a dream.

Re:No stars in the photo! (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319718)

Yeah, then I think it's been 40 years and we've achieved precious little else except cargo trips to low earth orbit that blow up once in a while, and an "international space station" which no one ended up wanting to pay for, was plagued with delays and budget cuts, and despite being much more expensive has not really achieved much more than Skylab; and I get depressed. Oh and we put some toy robots on Mars.

Re:No stars in the photo! (2, Interesting)

murdocj (543661) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320016)

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Except roving around for kilometers on Mars.

But yeah, other than Mars Rovers... oh, and orbiting Saturn.

Yeah, but other than Mars rovers and orbiting Saturn... oh, and orbiting Mercury. And ongoing missions to interstellar space. And a mission to Pluto. And orbiting an asteroid. And private space travel. And starting work on manned trips to asteroids...

But yeah, other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:No stars in the photo! (3, Interesting)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320440)

Yeah, then I think it's been 40 years and we've achieved precious little else...

Correction: Since then, we've done a lot of important and useful work instead of wasting time on spectacular Cold War PR missions.

NASA has achieved a lot more every year since then than they did on the Apollo missions. Sorry if it wasn't sexy enough for you, but the real work rarely is...

Re:No stars in the photo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320260)

when a little over 100 years ago the idea of flight was only a dream

Don't worry. 100 years from now everybody that was alive when it happened will be long dead and going to the moon will be a dream once again.

Re:No stars in the photo! (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320382)

There is no such thing as the moon.

But what we really want to see is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319676)

the Apollo 18 landing site!

Re:But what we really want to see is... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319986)

the Apollo 18 landing site!

and 19 and 20 [wikipedia.org] as well.

These missions were cancelled partly because hardly anybody was watching on TV any more (hence budget cuts because there were no votes to be had by supporting the program). I was one of those who watched every mission that went to or around the Moon, even getting up at weird hours to watch live footage from Apollo 8 and 11.

Re:But what we really want to see is... (1)

Randseed (132501) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320136)

Thank you for your service, sir. (Think about it.)

Re:But what we really want to see is... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320386)

Unless he was one of the Nielsen Families, his service was in vain.

Re:But what we really want to see is... (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320508)

I wonder if the same dumb-asses who canceled the Moon landings due to Nielsen ratings were working with the fucktards who canceled Star Trek due to (horribly flawed, completely and totally inaccurate and meaningless) Nielsen ratings.

It's hard to argue the credibility of a ratings system that shit-cans a TV show which later goes on to spawn more spin-offs than a sane person can keep track of.

You haven't fooled me NASA! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319682)

Some ugg boots, a remote sandy beach, and photoshop and I could do the same thing!

Re:You haven't fooled me NASA! (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320058)

Yeah, those doubters will not be silenced by this, it doesn't look convincing enough, looks more like a bad photoshop job. Try harder NASA, this is crucial, we need to dismiss those confusions, more.. we need to annihilate any last shadow of a disbelief about the landing, otherwise it only makes things worse.

Re:You haven't fooled me NASA! (2)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320444)

Or we need to ignore and marginalize dumb-fucks who get all of their information from other dumb-fucks.

They still won't belive it. (5, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319704)

The 'never went to the moon' crowd will only believe it when the can see it with their own eyes. Which is fine by me. Take them there and let them look. Jjust remember no helmets now, the visors could be ultra high def curved monitors.

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319894)

You just made them wear no helmets so that you could explain why you killed them to hide the secret that the moon landing was faked!

:D

Re:They still won't belive it. (2)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320180)

That's why it's crucial to ship them all.

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320282)

'B' Ark

Re:They still won't belive it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320192)

Yep, the faked moon landing people are about as bad as the AGW crowed these days.

Re:They still won't belive it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320494)

Oh there is AGW alright. Just today we saw that there's huge warming in the data coming out of the MET in England. There's no warming in the data from Scotland, Wales or Ireland though - but who cares. Not enough grants going in their direction anyway.

Re:They still won't belive it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320290)

A couple of white dots is hardly flyby surveillance photography. We're supposed to have satellites that can read the print on your newspaper, but newer technology in space around the moon can't take a single decent image of any area?

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320462)

The moon's a bit farther away...

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320292)

NASA providing pictures of the landing sites on the moon to prove they actually went there is like Bush providing pictures of weapon depots in Iraq to prove they had WMDs.

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320314)

Fuck I had the sarcasm tags but forgot that Slashdot strips them away...

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320422)

...which should raise the mean IQ of both deniers and everyone else....

Re:They still won't belive it. (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320432)

LOL. I'm picturing how fast an ordinary person with a brain would sort out that the monitor wasn't tracking his head movements.

Won't convince the deniers of course. (1)

Maritz (1829006) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319706)

Will be mildly interesting to see how the moon hoax crowd deal with this, they'll largely ignore it I expect. Some of them might respond to this by diverging into slightly milder delusions, such as 'oh just the first one was faked' or something along those lines. Just another illustration of how unwilling people are to change their minds once they're emotionally invested in a particular view. It's a shame that this is the default mode of human thought, in my opinion schools should be doing more to teach about these default tendencies of the mind.

Re:Won't convince the deniers of course. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319934)

Will be mildly interesting to see how the moon hoax crowd deal with this, they'll largely ignore it I expect.

Some will probably state that NASA sent folks up there to make those tracks so the "proof" could be faked, only they're too stupid to realize the faulty logic and admission that it is possible to get to the moon.

Re:Won't convince the deniers of course. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320008)

Remember, for a conspiracy theorist, evidence against a conspiracy is evidence for a conspiracy.

Re:Won't convince the deniers of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320066)

Well, if they believe the original videos and stills were faked than you'll never prove anything to them with photographic or video evidence. Special effects have only gotten better since the 1960's.

In theory they could go and see for themselves, but not until the infrastructure necessary for another manned mission is developed at which point they would trivially be able to claim that the 2010's+ era re-development was actually the original development of said technology and the sites were prepped sometime shortly before the first flight to include tourists was sent.

There isn't any way to prove the moon landing happened. The best you can do is ask the conspiracy nuts to provide evidence to the contrary and debunk that evidence whack-a-mole style.

Re:Won't convince the deniers of course. (1)

datsa (1951424) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320166)

Looks like a closeup of really bad skin to me. Maybe medical images from a NASA secretary's last dermatology visit...
That thing that looks like a lunar lander is really just a bad case of eczema.

Where did Apollo 18 Land? (1)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319722)

Just wondering...

Re:Where did Apollo 18 Land? (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319812)

/dev/null is the best place for it.

Re:Where did Apollo 18 Land? (1)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319964)

If you go around the South Pole of the moon, you will see a giant excavation. That is where the all copies of the movie, DVD as well as the writer and director of Apollo 18 will be buried to make sure no one has to go through the burden of ever thinking about that movie ever again. Think of it as Atari ET on a larger scale.

Freaking Flash (again!) (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319742)

What the hell do they need to use Flash to display images? What moron thought a simple picture file would be enhanced by embedding it within another piece of software?

Rule #2 of IT that should never be broken: Never let a web designer design your web page.

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319774)

I assume Rule #3 is never let anyone do the job they are paid to do?

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (3, Insightful)

darkshot117 (1288328) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319804)

You know you can click the link to the actual image right? The flash part is just showing a slider comparison between high and low res older pictures.

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (2, Insightful)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319882)

How, exactly, can we get that cool comparison-slider, without using something like Flash or HTML5?

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320026)

Ooo, I know! HTML 4.

Because the comparison slider isn't doing anything all that fancy and is something I could whip up in maybe an hour using JavaScript that could, conceptually at least, work in any reasonably standards-compliant graphical browser released in the past decade.

Hell, you should be able to duplicate that effect using JavaScript in Netscape 4. It would probably take some effort to get something that works in both Netscape 4 and modern, but it'd be doable.

Flash and HTML 5 are not needed for that comparison slider.

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (1)

Randseed (132501) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320202)

Exactly. This would be because they hired a bunch of Devrys and/or retards for their IS staff.

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320376)

lol javascript

Re:Freaking Flash (again!) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319980)

Another angry at the web iPad owner I see...

How sad is this (5, Insightful)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319792)

When our space program is reduced to trying to impress us all by looking 40 years in the past.

Re:How sad is this (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319848)

About as sad as the fact that a sizable chunk of the population needs proof, because they're too fucking idiotic to appreciate one of the biggest accomplishments of our civilization. If you had told people in the 1970's that this is how it would turn out, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Re:How sad is this (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319920)

If it makes you feel any better, the only moon landing deniers I know are 50+ years old.

Re:How sad is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320550)

If it makes you feel any better, I don't know any moon landing deniers. I do, however, know some real-life trolls that say random stupid shit to get a reaction.

I avoid those kinds of people.

Re:How sad is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320032)

About as sad as the fact that a sizable chunk of the population needs proof, because they're too fucking idiotic to appreciate one of the biggest accomplishments of our civilization. If you had told people in the 1970's that this is how it would turn out, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Proof? What's this "proof" you speak of? We have Photoshop now so there is no such thing as photographic proof.

Re:How sad is this (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320052)

And why do they need proof? Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment. We're going on two generations removed from the event. It's hardly mentioned in the history classes and we all know the state of the education system so in many places it probably isn't mentioned at all. There are very very few deniers, but scores of those who are ignorant to the fact, and human nature will put those who don't know as knee jerk naysayers.
If you can't maintain progress, the achievements of the past fade away.

Re:How sad is this (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320098)

And why do they need proof? Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment.

The Moon Hoaxers were publishing books almost as soon as Apollo 17 splashed down.

Re:How sad is this (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320318)

Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment.

Largely because there's no need to. There is little if anything the moon of any economic value, and certainly nothing worth the cost of getting there. There's no more cold war pissing contest adversaries, so that motivation is gone.

We got what we needed from the original mission: enough scientific data to verify the leading theory about how the moon was formed. If we ever need to get more moon rocks, advances in robotics and automation now make it possible to achieve everything Apollo did and more with unmanned sample return probes, at a small fraction of the cost.

Mars will be pretty much the same story, just with all the costs increased by orders of magnitude.

Re:How sad is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320518)

Because in 40 years we haven't matched the accomplishment.

Largely because there's no need to. ...

His point was not that we have not gone back, but that we haven't "matched the accomplishment". Your argument is made irrelevant due to inaccuracy.

Re:How sad is this (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320092)

>About as sad as the fact that a sizable chunk of the population needs proof

Sizable chunk? Citation please.

Moon denial is a very minority position, like 9/11 truther (most of whom I've only seen on slashdot)

Re:How sad is this (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320252)

Moon landing denial, 9/11 truthers, birthers, and AGW people are all kind of a scary vocal minority trying to say that government and business is out to get us.

Re:How sad is this (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320468)

Don't forget ID proponents which I am afraid is a larger percentage of the US public.

Re:How sad is this (1, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320234)

The problem is that since then, too many conspiracies have popped up. There've been too many government cover ups, too many covert operations, too many things that the government does that goes against the will of the people.

People no longer believe in what the government says. People can no longer trust the government to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Why do you think radical movements like the tea party have gained popularity recently? Why do you think that every presidential election for the past twenty years involves candidates trying to dig up dirt on the other guy, and when that fails to appear, make up the dirt?

And the worst part is, the media is so enamored of politicans' dirt that they blow a smudge out of proportion into a BP oil spill. So anyone who isn't 100% clean (which is impossible) has to spend wads and wads of money defending themselves, and the one with the most money instead of the one with the best policies win. And the one with the most money got that way because of special interest groups' donations, which in turn fuels the covert operations and secrecy.

The cycle is vicious and has existed since the very beginning of the nation. It's only now with the easy access to information that people have come to realize what a corrupt group of people are sitting at the top. And so love turns to hatred, trust turns to distrust.

And the smart and ambitious are trying to ride this tidal wave to the top. They don't actually care what happens when it comes crashing down in a few generations, as they'll be 6 feet under by then. But they'll make it sound like they do.

Sorry for the rant.

Re:How sad is this (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319900)

If the US economy hadn't been pillaged by 1%ers and bled dry by the specter of some religious nuts who live in caves, they'd be in a space-faring dickwaving competition with China right now. Sad to think of what could have been...

Re:How sad is this (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320046)

Whats sad is attitudes like yours. The moon landing was a 150 billion dollar expense that didn't do much other than to show the Soviets that we could burn money faster.

For a TINY, TINY fraction of that money we are funding COTS which is funding all these private companies who will be tomorrow's leaders.

That's ignoring all the space science that's going on and the incredible missions NASA casually puts out. Hell, look at the NASA launch calendar from this year and last. Pretty amazing stuff that won't be on slashdot or "news for dummies" because it doesn't involve the Apollo missions or some other lowest common denominator low hang fruit.

Heck, GRAIL launches on Thursday and its a moon mission, but I'm pretty sure people like you don't give two shits about that. DAWN just took a closeup shot of Vesta.There's a whole lot more going on than launching a super explosive shuttle that can barely do LEO. Funny how the ISS went from an expensive boondoggle of questionable utility to "humanity's last hope" and the shuttle went from "we should replace this monster" to "we need this to work forever and ever and never get past LEO!!!"

If you and I go to space it won't be on a rocket with NASA on the side, it'll be on a rocket with some private company's name of the side

Re:How sad is this (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320126)

You can't put a price on knowledge gained from exploration. Who knows what new inventions or ideas will come about from what we learned of the moon.

Re:How sad is this (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320188)

Then it was 150 billion dollars well spend.

If only GW would have spend a fraction of what became the Iraq war on an other moon or even Mars mission the US would have been admired by youth the world over, including the Muslim world.

Just admire the pictures ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319880)

Let's just admire the new photos of humanities first forays to the Moon, and forget about the deniers. There is no point in the latter, because they will never be convinced. The thing that really matters is presenting ever better photos (i.e. evidence) as our technology improves so that future generations won't be tarnished by the cynicism and denial of conspiracy theorists.

Re:Just admire the pictures ... (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320256)

The technology to get these shots is no less impressive. Too bad many folks take such advances for granted, they don't even realize what an accomplishment is to get photos at this resolution and instead concentrate on the 'scandal' of the purported hoax. We don't deserve to rule this planet.

Re:Just admire the pictures ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320392)

We don't deserve to rule this planet.

Speak for yourself, puny human.

Re:Just admire the pictures ... (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320402)

I think about how sad it is that stupid people with little minds have boxed themselves in to a world where we never went to the Moon.

It's almost worse than believing in a sky fairy that prevents you from understanding science. It's like believing in a . . . . bullshit fairy that prevents you from understanding reality.

I mean, there are people going to their grave thinking one of the most spectacular achievments of all history was fake. It's very sad. What a boring little world they want to inhabit.

*Whew* (3, Funny)

jomama717 (779243) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319892)

Cernan and Schmitt were probably sweating this release out, thinking the image might reveal the ridiculous number of donuts they pulled in the moon buggy.

landing site missing (1)

rava (618424) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319898)

Nice, nice, but I don't see any trace of the Apollo 18 landing...

Letter of Marque and Reprisal (3, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319902)

The U.S. Congress is authorized by the Constitution to issue Letter of Marque and Reprisal. I say Congress should issue one to Buzz Aldrin and let him punch moon hoaxers in face. That includes some of the idiots posting around here, Jay and Silent Bob style tracking them down and ringing the doorbell on their Mom's house. ;-)

Irrefutable proof (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319918)

At last we have irrefutable proof that the Apollo landings weren't faked! Now my idiot brother-in-law will finally have to shut up.

Oh, wait, who released the photos? Never mind...

Apollo Landing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37319954)

was FAKED !!!

Disappointing (1, Offtopic)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37319994)

I was expecting to see the rovers up on blocks with the radio and wheels missing. And the Russian one all decked out...

So Aldrin goes back into the LM and the door accidentally locks behind him.

When Armstrong climbs up, he knocks on the door

Aldrin: Who is it?

Circle of Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320084)

I see a circle of rocks East South East of Intrepid Descent Stage and North of Surveyor Crater. Eight rocks in a circle with one in the middle like a large sun dial....

Truth be told (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320106)

I guess that puts a lid on all those conspirators’ thinking the Lunar Mission was a fake!

Incomplete (1)

danielnashnz (1755160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320210)

Glad they remembered not to generate the images for 13.

One Word (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37320298)

Fake!

Lunar surface scarring (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320308)

wow... I'd seen the older, older, pictures but they were so horribly blurry that somebody might as well have sneezed on the image. But seeing these, I'm impressed that the tracks are still quite so visible. In fact, I can't help but think that astronauts pretty much scarred the otherwise pristine (as impacted soil goes) surface.
Still better than a giant Pepsi logo, I suppose :)

Hopefully they'll get even higher resolution images at some point - I want to know where those golf balls landed.

Where is the RTG? (1)

molo (94384) | more than 3 years ago | (#37320522)

Where is the RTG [wikipedia.org] ? I'm sure the future lunar colonists will want to be able to locate the RTG. If just to secure it. (FYI, this was part of the ALSEP [wikipedia.org] experiment package)

-molo

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?