back to article US flags from the 1970s SEEN ON MOON

A NASA probe craft in orbit around the moon has confirmed that most of the US flags planted on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts of yesteryear are still flying, despite some scientists' having theorised that their fragile materials would have failed to survive extremes of temperature and radiation over the decades. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. gaz 7

    but where's

    The London Bus

    The Lancaster Bomber

    and the secret Nazi Moonbase

    I suspect a conspiracy

    1. Viv
      Happy

      Re: but where's

      I thought it was supposed to be a Flying Fortress not a Lancaster?

      1. Mike Flugennock
        Alien

        Re: but where's

        I thought it was supposed to be a Flying Fortress not a Lancaster?

        As I recall from the Weekly World News report, it was a B-17. Who are we to doubt the WWN?

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: but where's

          The spacecraft from Cybertron?

          Icon is obligatory Michael Bay explosion.

          1. Wize

            Re: but where's

            "The spacecraft from Cybertron?"

            obscured by camera flare

        2. Ali on the Reg

          Re: but where's

          The Sunday Sport also found a Spitfire up there in the 1980s

  2. Sir Runcible Spoon

    Hale-Bopp companion

    Can we get NASA to turn the camera around and look out to space on it's way round?

  3. No. Really!?
    Joke

    NASA faked the moon landings so completely they sent men to the moon to plant evidence the missions happened!

    1. Pete B

      Obligatory XKCD reference

      XKCD

    2. Wize

      Isn't it cheaper to fake the photo too?

  4. Khaptain Silver badge
    FAIL

    Hubble

    Surely hubble or one of the other powerfull telescopes could have seen these images in high res. But instead we get to see vague black blobs....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hubble

      http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php?id=77

    2. Martin Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Hubble

      "The moon is a difficult target for Hubble because it moves across the sky faster than Hubble can track it and is very dim in ultraviolet light."

      That's a quote from this interesting page. - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html

      Fantastic resource, the internet.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: Hubble

        I did mention "or one of the other telescopes".

        This seems so unbelievable that we can "send a man to the moon" but we can't take a fu****ing picture of the damned thing. Can't we attach that 21Gb Camera to something ?

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: Hubble

          The problems that would apply the Hubble also apply to the other earth-orbiting scopes. In addition their focal length rather rules it out; they simply can't focus on something that close. It'd be like asking you to read a screen right in front of your eyeball.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Boffin

            Re: Hubble

            This isn't right: the moon is effectively at infinity for hubble, as for other telescopes. Even if you're not convinced by this, you should be convinced by one of the earlier links, which is to a picture of the Moon's surface taken by Hubble.

            In fact the reason they can't see the Apollo sites is because they can't resolve them. For a telescope with radius D, using light of wavelength lambda, then its angular resolution is approximately theta = lambda/D. Equivalently D = lambda/theta. To resolve something on the moon 1m across, where the moon is about 370x10^6m away, then theta is approximately sin(theta) is 1/(370*10^6). The wavelength of visible light is around 500*10^(-9)m.

            So plugging all this in you get D = 185m or for an object of 4m (lunar module is about 4m across) D=46m.

            Hubble's mirror is 2.4m, and it's effectively on the surface of the earth (orbit around 600*10^3m). It can work in UV so can gain something there, but it's nowhere near being able to resolve an Apollo site (and neither is an earth-based telescope)

          2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Hubble

            > they simply can't focus on something that close

            The moon is still 250,000,000m away - that's not terribly close for something with a 57m focal length.

            Your cell phone manages to focus on things 25km away doesn't it ?

          3. HeyMickey
            Black Helicopters

            Re: Hubble

            Of course, one of these might do the job:

            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/05/military_gives_telescopes_to_nasa/

            as they have adjustable focal length optics, what with being originally designed for spying. Might cost you $500M or so to fit it out and launch it. Or you could just try asking the NRO nicely - I'm sure they probably already have a couple of similar/better models in orbit. Wouldn't surprise me if they can actively track a fast-moving object in orbit too - I can't see the US not having spent the extra cash to have the ability to image other countries' space assets as well as their ground assets...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hubble

          "we can't take a fu****ing picture of the damned thing"

          Engineering is hard. This is because physics is hard. Who knew?

          But lets get to the crux of the issue, which is "how much money should we have to spend to satisfy a bunch of grumpy crackpots"? To my mind, we should spend none at all. They will never be convinced (the new photos are faked too!) and our space programs get little enough cash as it is. The evidence ain't going anywhere in the meantime; you'll get your high res pictures one day. Patience.

          1. Fibbles

            Re: Hubble

            Why take photos for proof when shooting lasers at the moon is so much cooler?

            1. Colin Brett

              Re: Hubble

              "Why take photos for proof when shooting lasers at the moon is so much cooler?"

              And sharks orbiting the Moon shooting those lasers would be even cooler!

              Colin

              1. andy k O'Croydon
                Happy

                "sharks orbiting the Moon"

                Space sharks!

          2. Colin Brett
            Alien

            Re: Hubble

            Well said AC @30th July 2012 18:12 GMT, though the question

            "how much money should we have to spend to satisfy a bunch of grumpy crackpots"?

            should be rephrased as:

            "how much money should we have to spend to to send a bunch of grumpy crackpots to the Moon to prove it can be done"?

            Then, of course, we can boot the "grumpy crackpots" out of the lander without a space suit (also paid for by aforementioned money) and laugh as they suffocate! Then they might be posthumously convinced!

            Colin

            Alien icon, just in case they got there first :-)

          3. Graham Wilson
            Facepalm

            @A.C. --- Re: Hubble --- Adams had the right solution.

            ""how much money should we have to spend to satisfy a bunch of grumpy crackpots"? To my mind, we should spend none at all."

            Douglas Adams had the right idea: a one-way exit ticket. Send the bunch of grumpy Doubting-Thomas Crackpots to the moon to see for themselves then dump 'em there permanently.

            Earth would be a much better place rid of its Golgafrincham influence (for a while at least--until we'd bred another generation of 'em).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @A.C. --- Hubble --- Adams had the right solution.

              "Earth would be a much better place rid of its Golgafrincham influence (for a while at least--until we'd bred another generation of 'em)."

              Well at least house prices might come down a bit I suppose.

              1. Graham Wilson

                @A.C - - Re: @A.C. --- Hubble --- Adams had the right solution.

                Didn't think of that, but it's all the more reason. ;-)

        3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Hubble

          >but we can't take a fu****ing picture of the damned thing

          I believe there there is an English mission to make a brass rubbing of it

        4. Stevie

          Re: Hubble

          <<This seems so unbelievable that we can "send a man to the moon">>

          We can't, not any more. The Apollo project was compartmentalized and produced under the rules governing department of defense contracts, and after a certain number of years years any paperwork held by a company on such a project has to be destroyed by law. No-one thought the information worth archiving at the time and, well, there y'go. All that research, in the shredder.

          OMNI did an article on it some years ago. Rarely has my ghast been so utterly flabbered.

          If we could muster the public will to do it again, most of the key research would have to be done over just to get back to where we were. The costs will be ... interesting to contemplate. I imagine we'll measure them in Investment Bank Officer Bonuses to keep the numbers manageable.

          Cool article. It's about time we had some decent snaps of the landing sites. I was beginning to think we'd have to wait until Playmobil made a camera small enough for The Register to send.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hubble

            Ummm, dust off SA-514 and SA-515 and we have two working rockets. They could also reverse engineer them.

          2. Michael Hoffmann
            Trollface

            Re: Hubble

            We could ask the Chinese, maybe? I think their military and industrial espionage agencies prolly have it all nicely sorted and filed.

            (Hmm, troll or coat icon, which to choose?)

        5. Greg J Preece

          Re: Hubble

          "This seems so unbelievable that we can "send a man to the moon" but we can't take a fu****ing picture of the damned thing. Can't we attach that 21Gb Camera to something ?"

          Ummmm....you do know what distances we're talking about, right?

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "21Gb Camera"

          Also, what's a 21Gb camera?

      2. Mike Flugennock

        Re: Hubble

        Fantastic resource, the internet.

        Sure as hell is:

        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/14/image/

  5. joejack
    FAIL

    Obviously faked

    Zod destroyed all of the flags back in '77.

  6. b166er
    Joke

    'NASA faked the moon landings so completely they sent men to the moon to plant evidence the missions happened!'

    Not quite, but rest assured, as soon as NASA feel amateurs are within reach of sending reconnaissance vehicles of their own to investigate the moon, they will send a probe to 'plant' the evidence first.

  7. Dave 32
    Devil

    Flags

    What?!? The American flag is being desecrated by being allow to touch the ground (for certain definitions of "ground")?!? We must immediately develop a program to return to correct this wrong!

    Dave

    1. Darryl

      Re: Flags

      George W tried that... Couldn't scrape together the $$$

      1. Stevie

        Re: Flags

        Nah, he just said it on TV. There was never a serious attempt to fund a return to the moon, or much of anything else outside of The Haliburton Bottomless Cash Sinkhole.

    2. Martin 47

      Re: Flags

      No worries, I am sure the Chinese or the Indians will do it for you.

      1. Tel Starr

        Re: Flags

        The Indians need to turn the lights back on first.

        (Guess 8% of the worlds population losing its power supply is not a big enough story for the Reg)

    3. MrZoolook
      Mushroom

      Re: Flags

      Quote: The American flag is being desecrated by being allow to touch the ground?!? We must immediately develop a program to return to correct this wrong!

      Isn't the usual reaction to this kind of insubordination to just bomb the crap out of the offenders?

  8. Rick Giles
    Linux

    Just like Microsoft and tablet computing...

    The US will wait 'til someone else gets (back) there and then it will be a mad dash for us to build some space worthy vehicles.

    The reason we haven't gone back isn't because of the cash, it's because the Zionists want us all in one place.

  9. SoaG
    Black Helicopters

    Pics or it never happe...oh...wait a minute...

  10. Herby

    One way to be sure!

    Send people back to check it out. "How hard can it be?" (I just like that quote!).

    1. Colin Brett
      Coat

      Re: One way to be sure!

      Herby. Instead of

      "How hard can it be?"

      Maybe you should ask

      "What could possibly go wrong?"

      Other than that, I agree with you!

      Colin

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How long before Google send a streeview craft up there?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      @AC

      My guess would be at least until such time that there are any streets to view.

      1. SuperTim
        Trollface

        Re: @AC

        or until some has a wifi network for them to snoop on.

  12. 404
    Black Helicopters

    Drones....

    yeah... send drones! Find out what those conservative terrorists are doing, and blow them off our moon! Oh, and we'll get those picture you want...

    Yeah....

    ;)

  13. Mike Flugennock
    Pint

    Of course, all the moon-landing hoax nutcakes...

    ...will claim that it was Photoshopped. Retards.

    Conspiracist whackjobbery aside, here's another cold one for the guys'n'gals on the LRO Team.

  14. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Apollo

    The program that keeps on giving.

    +1 for the steely eyed missile men/women.

  15. P. Lee
    Coat

    Why are all the pictures of the Big Foot fuzzy?

    /gone

    1. Crisp

      Re: Why are all the pictures of the Big Foot fuzzy?

      Because Big Foot is fuzzy.

  16. JaffaMan
    Alien

    We Surrender?!

    So, basically, on our nearest natural neighbour, once visited and long since deserted by man, we have several flags which, if they are still standing, have likely been bleached white to kingdom come by UV.

    So one of the first thing any ET's will be a bunch of white flags, next to deserted equipment and territory, signalling our unconditional surrender!

    I'm off back to my bunker now....

  17. Derichleau

    All the shadows cast by the moon's hills are to the right, which means that they're being lit from the left. But the flag's shadow is on the right.

    1. Hedon
      FAIL

      light

      Those are not hills they are craters and lighting is as expected for a hole in the ground and a ship/flag popping out from the ground.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Derichleau, those are craters and not hills so the shadows are all correct.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021