Does anybody know what the outcome was of observing the lunar landing sites using the ESO VLTI in Chile ?
More on this here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html

I saw an article on the internet in 2005 that a telescope from Earth was able to see the radial features of Apollo 15 leaving the moon back to the earth.

I don't have it's URL but I guess you could find it using google or something.

Here's the URL: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missi...otos_010427.htm

I hardly know where to begin.

Neither the VLT nor any other telescope including Hubble could see anything that would settle this issue. And if it did, the so-called doubters (very few of whom believe what they promote) would easily explain it away. We already have images from lunar orbit showing the LMs, rover tracks and other evidence of astronaut presence on the moon, taken 35 years ago during the last three Apollo missions. If that doesn't do it, why would new images?

And finally... read my book! (this time next year). That includes all the images I mention above.

Phil

Thank you Phil - I really didn't want to go through this one again.

Doug

Indeed, nor Hubble Space Telescope nor the VLTI have enough resolution capability to see the small Apollo hardware on the Moon ...
Let's settle the issue because soon some company will offer trips to the moon and we'll be able to take tourist photos at the Sea of Tranquility

Aw.. just for once I'd like to see a tabloid with a headline like this:

INCREDIBLE PROOF DISCOVERED
Ancient astronauts landed on Moon!
Scientists bemused

Faced with undeniable proof that human beings have landed on the Moon in the distant past, Dr. Wotme Wurry, Ph.D. pronounced himself "flabbergasted". "No one could have believed," he added, "that either the technology or the will to accomplish a trip to the Moon was available in the 1960s! History books will have to be re-written to record this amazing feat."

By 2018 or so, Neil Armtrong will be "only" about 90. There's a raisonable chance one or more of the now remaining original 8-9 moon walkers will still be around. Then, the moon will be enhabited nearly forever. Testimony could leave among them.

"People who believe the Apollo landings are fake, believe that professional wrestling isn't."
-- Mallard Fillmore

It's not about facts or logic, it's about the psychology of mass movements. Read The True Believers by the philosopher Eric Hoffer, a short and very fascinating book. True believers cling to a political, religious or pseudo-scientific dogma, because it is integral to their weak self esteem. When fear, uncertainty or doubt challenges that belief, only a flimsy counter-argument is required to restore their faith.


"Why do you laugh? Change the names, and the story is about you."
-- Horace

It's also a cautionary tale. Every person at one time or another believes something really stupid, and with great passion. It takes discipline to examine beliefs or to change your mind about something.

This is why Carl Sagan claimed that Kepler was a hero of science. Kepler believed the orbits of the planets were perfect circles related to platonic solids. He spent decades studying Tycho's data, trying to fit it to his theory, and he managed to get it to fit within a few minutes of arc. To most cranks, that is a hundred times more precision than they would need. But Kepler eventually concluded that his life-long theory was wrong, and the planets travel in ellipses. How many scientists today could actually make that mental leap?

Neil Armstrong was 38 years old in 1969, during Apollo 11. Aldrin and Collins were also 38 at the time. That would make them all about 87 years old in 2018.

The youngest man to walk on the Moon was Charlie Duke, who was (IIRC) about 32 years old for Apollo 16 in 1972. That would make him only 78 years old when we're scheduled to return there -- practically a spring chicken!

There were 12 original Moon walkers, BTW, and of those, nine are still alive. I believe Ed Mitchell, who was 40 when he walked on the Moon in 1971, might be the oldest of the remaining group (though that would still mean he was born in 1931, so Armstrong and Aldrin may still be as old as he). I fully expect to lose at least half of the remaining Moon walkers within the next five years...

-the other Doug

I totally agree, Don. It seems to me that this is the same phenomenon we've seen throughout history -- people get overwhelmed with a world that's far too complex for them to understand, so they are attracted like moths to a flame to simplistic world-views that offer them the chance to feel like they really understand what's going on in the Universe. Hence the creation of fairy-tale religions which offer some kind of feeling of worth and self-importance by assuring people that, for example, they don't have to worry about things like Global Warming, since weather is controlled by God, used by Him to reward believers and punish sinners, and any talk from scientists about the subject is not only wrong, it's blasphemous.

Especially in the last couple of hundred years, our understanding of the Universe has grown to the point where the average person feels like a complete idiot in comparison with the vastness and complexity of what we can now see Out There (or In Here, for that matter). That seems to lead to severe self-esteem issues in a lot of people, and they seem desparate to fall in with simplistic "answers" that make them feel like they *know* what's going on. In fact, they seem to try and crow about how they "know more than them damn-fool sci-in-tists what think they know everything."

I don't see that there is any real solution to this. Idiots are just idiots, and I, for one, refuse to let their idiocy ruin a perfectly wondrous Universe...

-the other Doug

I like how this thread has turned out. Thanks Don & Doug for your inputs (and Doug for your precisions about moon walkers). Don't stop the debate guys

Normal people join practical organizations (e.g., a business) to advance themselves and their family. The crank denounces these forms of self advancement, because he has failed at them.

Consider a somewhat narcissistic personality who feels jealous of the respect science and medicine have in Western society. They will leap at a theory that debunks science or offers a quick road to superior enlightenment. The smug Velikovsky fan believes he knows more about planetary science than Carl Sagen. A SHAC or Greenpeace activist can be an ignorant slacker and still feel he is more important to the world than a highly trained scientist working to fight disease and famine. A creationist believes he is wiser than Darwin. A nut working on a gyro-magnetic warp drive is sure he has gone beyond Einstein.

Jim O describes them well 'Cultural Vandals'.

I think the time from 69 till whenever the next landing is is best expressed this way.

In 1969, everyone would have expected the children of the Apollo astronauts to be walking on the moon regularly....instead, we're now at a stage where their grandchildren are designing the vehicles to go back to the moon. The exploration of space by man in some respects has missed an entire generation.

Doug

I think part of the problem was the way Apollo was done. NASA's resources were focused on winning a propaganda battle with the Soviet Union. Get someone on the Moon, at all costs, as fast as possible! So what they got was an insanely expensive one-shot deal -- like building an ocean liner to carry two passengers, sinking it at the destination, and returning in one of the lifeboats. It's unsustainable.

There were ideas for building infrastructure to make travel cheaper, like you see portrayed in 2001: Spacy Odyssey. But the government just cared about beating the Russians. And frankly, there was no practical reason to go to the Moon, over and over again.

I do believe in the long-term value of human colonization of other planets. But I am frustrated that NASA seems to have no practical long-term goal. Sending men back to the Moon, or sending men to Mars is still approached as a propaganda stunt. Still an expensive one-shot deal.

For long-term human colonization, I see no benefit to sending people into space, not even it LEO, until there is a real destination for them to live in. Send probes, then rovers, then automated laboratories, someday even terriforming installations. None of that ever has to be manned.

I don't agree -- given the massive increases in our knowledge in geology, Earth history, and the history of the Solar system that arose from just the three geologically-oriented Moon expeditions (Apollos 15, 16 and 17) it seems to me very likely that additional expeditions to a greater variety of locations would have proven (and will prove) even more enlightening.

Granted, to some extent this can be done by unmanned missions, but since the mid-70s we haven't just abandoned human flights to the Moon, we've abandoned exploration of the lunar surface altogether -- no rovers and no sample returns, although the Soviets proved that this mode of exploration is quite feasible. And I can't think of any justifiable excuse for this omission.

And Don, as to your last point, I strongly disagree. But everyone knows that by now, there's no point in my belaboring it any more... *sigh*...

-the other Doug

I should have said, I don't think there is a good reason for people to go to the Moon over and over. I am also disappointed by the lack of lunar probes. Why haven't we sent a rover to the Moon? Why haven't we (i.e. NASA) practiced at doing robotic sample return?

As for sending people, its a cost/benefit judgement. It cost such an astronomical amount to send people to the Moon or Mars, that I think there has to be an objective that is more practical than nationalist propaganda. Remember, Apollo cost 5% of the US federal budget!

For the love of god do we have to have this bloody argument again.

..answer... No.

Stop it. Now.

I can promise you two things about the manned/unmanned/politics debate..

One - it will never end

Two - it will never take place here. Find somewhere else.

(Background : The debate for and against manned spaceflight has been going on since before man even made it into space. There are people who will sit on both sides of the debate firmly, without moving, and yell insults at one another because they don't have anything better to do. Discussions for and against manned spaceflight will end one way - in a vile argument. It's happened hear already and a member was banned for it for consistantly ranting on the subject - I should have stepped in earlier. That's why I've stepped in here, now, to stop this discussion. Yes - discuss the observations of Apollo sites etc etc - but when it turns into the political debate which this thread turned into in a matter ot a page - it's no longer acceptable for UMSF. I had multiple messages saying they found posts in this thread offenseive - from BOTH sides of the debate.

So - if you want to debate the pros and cons of manned spaceflight, or the eternal manned vs unmanned argument - by all means do so elsewhere, but NOT at this forum. Just because this forum is dedicated to talking about one half of that equation does not make it a plaform to rant against the other half.

You have all had the official heads up)

Doug