LRO- First images released

well here it is and looks like its working ok.

www.nasa.gov...

lol.. NASA out collecting high def images for the next fake Moon landing

So when do we get to see all the moon landing sites? you would think it would be one of the first things that NASA would want to set the records straight on.

Nice pics though




[edit on 2-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
lol.. NASA out collecting high def images for the next fake Moon landing

So what will it take to convince you we're really going to the moon?

So when do we get to see all the moon landing sites? you would think it would be one of the first things that NASA would want to set the records straight on.

NASA's not interested in making the preferences of conspiracy theorists who hate them their top priority. Their top priority is to veryify all the cameras are properly working and to settle into the proper orbit for observations.

It looks nice but the largest image is only about 650 kb in size.

I asked if they would post the original, raw image XD I'll check back and see if the moderators approved that message XD







[edit on 2-7-2009 by star in a jar]

At this point in time i don't think there is much that could provide solid evidence that the moon landing wasn't faked.

Id love to see NASA try another moonshot using the same equipment as they did in the Apollo missions. With no radiation shielding for the suits or the ship and the computing power of a Commodore64.

This site concerns the availability of raw LRO images.

www.nasawatch.com...

It's your money. These should be your images.

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
At this point in time i don't think there is much that could provide solid evidence that the moon landing wasn't faked.

There's plenty of solid evidence the moon landing wasn't faked, but that's not what I asked. I asked what would personally convince you it wasn't fake.

Id love to see NASA try another moonshot using the same equipment as they did in the Apollo missions. With no radiation shielding for the suits or the ship and the computing power of a Commodore64.

They had radiation shielding for the ship; aluminum and q-felt fibrous material make great shielding against particle radiation like the kind found in the van allen belt. Once you're past that you don't need any special shielding for short space/moon walks. The computing power also wasn't an issue since the desired trajectory was pre-computed on the ground - people have tested the real apollo software emulating the real hardware and found it sufficient to go to the moon:
nassp.sourceforge.net...

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by star in a jar
It's your money. These should be your images.

The raw images will be released, here's the full res version of the first images:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
As a 128mb tif:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...
All images here:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

Umm... 28 inch resolution!
Not too shabby.

Then i guess they wont need to be updating any of the equipment for the next attempt?

I didn't start off a moon landing skeptic but for years ive tried to find that one bit of solid evidence that could prove it really happened. I haven't found it yet. I know that no one wants to pander to conspiracy theorists but come on guys.. how hard is it to get a shot of the moon landing? They have had 40 years and if it really happened it should be simple to confirm. You would think they would want to take a picture for National pride if anything..
Spending 400 billion of the tax payers money and then refusing to even try to provide proof they even did what they said they did is slightly rude dont you think?

Just having a mirror on the moon is is not even close to poof of a successful moon landing. How about leaving a video cam there that sent back more pics?

If some other country apart from the USA had sent something up there to get some shots of the moon landing i would have been happier. But now with the advances in unmanned craft it wouldn't be to difficult to set the whole scene up before anyone could tell the difference. Im not saying that's what happening its just that because its a possibility that cant be eliminated we can never be 100% sure.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
I didn't start off a moon landing skeptic but for years ive tried to find that one bit of solid evidence that could prove it really happened. I haven't found it yet. I know that no one wants to pander to conspiracy theorists but come on guys.. how hard is it to get a shot of the moon landing? They have had 40 years and if it really happened it should be simple to confirm.

Getting this kind of resolution is anything but simple. It certainly isn't warranted just to prove something to people who already ignore all the other evidence. Even selene provided tons of verification.

But now with the advances in unmanned craft it wouldn't be to difficult to set the whole scene up before anyone could tell the difference.

If you're willing to believe that with blind faith, you're willing to believe anything except the truth you're avoiding. Show me a shred of evidence anyone's launched anything large enough to the moon to carry a descent module, rover, flags, footprint-maker, and then explain how all the amazing robotic equipment that set it up vanished without leaving a trace on the scene.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Beautiful pictures, thanks for finding and posting them.

Don't get me wrong.. if i ever get to see independent shots of the landing site , the foot prints , flag etc i will be seriously reconsidering my position on the matter. But if it happens 10 years after NASA has been poking around up there on the pretense of another moon landing then i wont be so impressed.

Take a look at when the image we taken - Tue Jun 30 15:28:04 UTC 2009. Isn't this suspicious?

As for Apollo... yes, we most definitely went to the Moon, BUT did it with anti-gravity and all kinds of secret advanced technology, of which even astronauts knew nothing about. Cuz the Moon has 64% of the Earth's gravity and not 16,7% and you cannot lift off there without big rocket.
Therefore, even today NASA have to use anti-gravity to get to the Moon and go back.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by strNick]

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Don't get me wrong.. if i ever get to see independent shots of the landing site , the foot prints , flag etc i will be seriously reconsidering my position on the matter.

So you openly ignore the confirmation given by Kaguya/Selene then because it's not aesthetically detailed enough (not to mention that you've ruled out LROC before they even had the chance to photograph the landing sites)?

But if it happens 10 years after NASA has been poking around up there on the pretense of another moon landing then i wont be so impressed.

Considering amateurs like me will be following, tracking, and photographing those missions in progress, NASA will not be able to fake it by putting "props" there under false pretenses of going somewhere else on the moon while they're secretly visiting the old landing sites.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by strNick
Cuz the Moon has 64% of the Earth's gravity and not 16,7% and you cannot lift off there without big rocket.

If that were true the earth-moon barycenter would be WAY off of its reported location and every astronomer would know about it.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

So you openly ignore the confirmation given by Kaguya/Selene

No im just not aware of it. Ill be sure to have a look.

Yes to would be a lot harder to fake something with the millions of amateur astrologers in the world today. I just hope that doesn't mean there's going to be some kind of disaster that shuts the whole program down

Kinda like when someone suggested using the Shuttle to fly to the moon.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by strNick
Cuz the Moon has 64% of the Earth's gravity and not 16,7% and you cannot lift off there without big rocket.

If that were true the earth-moon barycenter would be WAY off of its reported location and every astronomer would know about it.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Werner von Braun told us, the the neutral point is 43 495 miles from the Moon's center and 200 000 miles from the Earth's; the Apollo missions did in fact verify this.
Math and Physics 101:

reply to post by strNick

Please show us where Van Braun said the "neutral point" was 43,495 miles from the Moon's center. Perhaps you're confused by an article in Time Magazine in which the author (not Werner) said

At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.

www.time.com...

As usual, the press didn't get it quite right. The ship was on the "downhill leg" but it was not simply because lunar gravity "dominated". The situation was a lot more complex than a simple two body calculation. There were actually 4 bodies involved (Earth, Moon, ship, and Sun) and all of them were in motion.

The many satellites which have orbited, and are orbiting the moon do so at the correct altitude and rate for a body which produces 1/6th of the Earth's gravity. There are areas of very slightly more and areas of very slightly less, but the average gravity of the Moon is 1/6th of Earth's.


[edit on 7/2/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Please show us where Van Braun said the "neutral point" was 43,495 miles from the Moon's center.

In the 1969 edition of History of Rocketry & Space Travel by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III, the following statement is made concerning Apollo 11:
"The approach to the Moon was so precise that the mid-
course correction scheduled for 8:26 a.m. (EDT) on the 19th was canceled. At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called "neutral" point, beyond which the Lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth. Consequently, the spacecraft, which had been gradually losing speed on its long coast away from Earth, now began to accelerate."

This is from:
John A. Eisele, Astrodynamics, Rockets, Satellites, and Space Travel, (Washington: The National Book Company of America, 1967), p. 350

So press did get it right.

Also, re-watch tapes from Apollo missions and you will see how astronauts and physical objects (like rover) act in a 64% if not 70% or 80% gravity.

If you work out the inverse-square law for the "old" neutral point - 24 000 miles from the center of the Moon - you get one-sixth of Earth's gravity -- so the formula is working as it should regardless of the Sun, Earth and other bodies.

Don't forget you are on a conspiracy site, there is a massive cover-up concerning the moon going on. The only best data is the old one.

Regarding Apollo: I cant' specify where this quote from, but here it is:
"Houston report the instant at which we leave the lunar sphere of influence, This means simply that despite the fact we are only thirty-four thousand nautical miles from the moon and still 174 000 away from the earth, the earth's pull has become dominant and the mathematical equations now recognize this fact."

[edit on 2/7/2009 by strNick]