LRO Revisits Apollo Landing Sites

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, LRO, has captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of where three Apollo missions were conducted on the moon's surface. The pictures of the Apollo 17, Apollo 14, and Apollo 12 landing sites were taken while LRO was in what's referred to as a "dipping orbit," where the spacecraft was roughly 15 miles above the surface. They reveal the twists and turns of the paths made when the missions' six astronauts explored these areas.

[@aa3680]

I think the LRO has been one of the more exciting missions NASA has launched recently. I don't understand that in a time where spy satellites can read a license plate through earths atmosphere, that these images are of such low quality and lacks clarity we should expect from a device of this nature.

[@andreleao1885]

Can these satellites do that actually? Edit: just realized your comment is 8 years old lol

[@dk8797]

@@andreleao1885 What is he died from COVID? I hope not.

[@_EightySix]

Lol, it doesn't use a typical camera like you're thinking... It uses sensors.

[@LisaAnn777]

This isn't a normal camera. Look into how they work.

[@patrick1564]

Yeah it's like Cuban missile crisis images "this is a rover"

[@kevinflick61]

Anyone who doubts that we went there should should ask themself a question: if nobody ever went to the moon why did the space race end? Sports teams don't quit after they make it to the playoffs and the competitive spirit within mankind would not have allowed the space race of the sixties to end without somebody making it to the Moon; besides now we have pictures.

[@tubecated_development]

They also need to ask themselves how they manage to tie their own shoelaces. The evidence for the landings is beyond overwhelming.

[@jimmystrickland1034]

@@tubecated_development because they were white men. Honestly.

[@truthof7382]

Couple things I don’t understand. They actually say “animation” in the notes under the video and obviously there is animation in the video. So the pictures are real, but all else in animated? Like, why mix in animations blurring the lines between which is which? Not saying we didn’t go, but this doesn’t do anything for me. Some of the little items are a little too white. Also why does the title of each landing location (appears on the screen in white right after you see the location) throw a shadow onto the moon surface? Weird way of doing this.

[@caseyjones831]

Taking pictures of a object the size of a mini van from 25 km up is an colossal achievement The next time you fly n plane take a camera out and see if you can take a picture of a football stadium you will fail and that's at 30 000 ft which is just under 10 km NASA shouldn't waste time and money to satisfy trolls

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

Truth of 73 To expect real footage is asking too much, but I understand your frustration I can't watch it either because of the simulation.

[@johnpaul8583]

Casey Jones. NASA has OUR money. They have a $65 million a DAY budget. It’s our tax money. Stop putting it out there like the money came from a bank loan. They have more than enough money to do things the right way and end all moon landing speculation.

[@jessejames4967]

Because it’s television

[@LisaAnn777]

​@@caseyjones831exactly. It's funny how paranoid conspiracy theorists expect NASA to spend billions just to satisfy them. NASA is about exploration and furthering scientific knowledge not proving anything to some redneck.

[@ninjamaster3453]

It's now 10 years later. Where can one find high resolution photos of the sites? Nasa or anyone else who did it.

[@veszely]

@Troy Goodridge Yes it is.

[@DANGJOS]

@@Formula1st It's probably hard to remotely take zoomed in photos of the lunar surface, while traveling thousands of miles an hour, from just 15 miles up.

[@timmyturner6575]

@@Formula1st we can take a picture of a black hole millions of light years away but cant zoom in on the moon :)

[@user-po6hn9id1t]

@@timmyturner6575 taking pictures of black holes is easier than trying to find your procreation tool. Let alone image it...

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

I don't think they exist

[@bc69006900]

I'm waiting for google moon :) Someday

[@timothygermann780]

Uhh....Go to google Earth and hit the astronomy tab at the top. They also have Mars.

[@ticktock8751]

@@timothygermann780 some one would pay google money to cover this up, any one would do any things for money now days

[@americanpatriot6355]

If you say anything that contradicts the official government narrative on the side, your post will be immediately erased,

[@Pun1Sh3r_360]

Why waste time on cartoons?

[@swaggabling8789]

It’s out now reminder google moon

[@photon-9551]

He had me convinced up to point he said 'we can see the dust kicked up by the astronauts as they walked around' BUT you can not see the crater caused by 10,000lbs thrust needed to slow 25tons that has been accelerating at 1.5m per second per second all along the descent?

[@srinitaaigaura]

Have you ever seen an F-35 land vertically? Even 40000 lb of thrust doesn't blow craters - scouring yes, but not craters. Btw, the Lunar Lander weighed only 10 T loaded, which weighed only 1.6 tons on the moon.

[@herbz2hot2]

@@srinitaaigaura would if landed in the desert lol

[@Herzeleydt_Diesentrueb]

@@herbz2hot2 : If there were no atmosphere over the desert - would it also blast a crater ? I have my doubts. But may be wrong...

[@herbz2hot2]

@@Herzeleydt_Diesentrueb well in that case there would be no foot steps or buggy tracks

[@davidschmidt6013]

Right. No one can see the craters on the moon. You're brilliant.

[@ordi75]

Glad to see even higher detailed pictures of the good ol' Moon!

[@tombeck2884]

HAHAHAHAHA

[@stuff31]

It's so strange to think that these places have been left untouched by human nor environmental influences for nearly half a century. I like to imagine that one day soon an astronaut will return to the moon and take one of the old lunar rovers out for a spin like it was only yesterday that it was last driven. It will not have rusted or failed, for there is no water or air on the moon. It will still be there, as it was the last time it was driven.

[@jasonwhite1995]

It's all propaganda,no proof here

[@dertgild]

They can't use the rover because it ran out of gas

[@seigeengine]

First of all, there is erosion on the Moon. Something something electrostatics caused by the solar wind or whatever... basically, bits of dust fly around all the time, and later landings/impacts/etc. would have thrown dust around anyways, and caused wear on everything. That dust is also super-abrasive since it's not been eroded smooth. Secondly, it isn't just water or air that causes devices to fail over time. Even in ideal conditions eventually batteries will drain, and remember: the Moon has unfiltered UV radiation from the Sun, and goes through a temperature cycle ranging from over boiling temperature down to negative several hundred degrees. It may only do this once every lunar day, or about once a month tom us, but that's a big range, and it's been being subjected to that for 50~ years now. Third, it will have ran out of "gas." Not that it actually uses gas, but they used primary cell batteries. That is, batteries that are not rechargeable. Since batteries lose charge over time, these almost certainly will have gone dead over the years.

[@Bankable2790]

@@dertgild lol it uses gas

[@LisaAnn777]

​@@dertgild"gas" 🤦

[@LThill-ks2uz]

why is there a full minute of animation at the end?

[@Cacadordememes]

L. Thill because its not true

[@dianalopez-ix1wi]

Because we’re not allowed to see the truth ... maybe ancient ruins of city’s and machinery or space is a Freud ...

[@DANGJOS]

@@Cacadordememes There are actual videos of the LRO's view orbiting the moon. Go look them up instead of assuming things aren't real.

[@Cacadordememes]

DANG JOS com on man

[@DANGJOS]

@@Cacadordememes It's true. Go look it up.

[@Nestorb24]

Fotos de la mayor hazaña de la historia de la Humanidad. 👏👏👏

[@allgood6760]

Awesome.. I saw Buzz Aldrin speak for an hour here in NZ in 2010 about his experiences ON the Moon.. thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿

[@wpgangi1]

"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still"

[@MoreGore]

This is fantastic...Footprints! WOW. We saw little dots last year that showed the decent modules, but to see the Luna Rover and it's tracks really brings it home to me must return to deep space. I just wish we could invent a faster form of travel that what chemical rockets can provide.

[@calabub456]

Are you a sheep ?

[@user-wv2tl2yh9k]

Ppl say no one went to the moon, Shame on Them!

[@michaelreece458]

Fantastic! The footprints, rover tracks and equipment will remain in a pristine state for millions of years. General Motors constructed the rover so that all it needs is a new battery to become operative again, for hundreds of years.

[@LisaAnn777]

I'd like to bring a new battery for the Rover and try to see if it's still operational and take it for a spin lol 😆

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

You were right about the "hilarity to follow"!

[@GermanGreetings]

Thank you.

[@deeweyant3164]

King Kong was ravaging Tokyo that year too , I saw it on tv.. Isn't it 260 on the moon ? Pritty hot , battery life wasn't much back then... long way to broadcast a tv signal with small amount of watts. Pritty tricky , film melts at 150 , man they were "lucky" 🎭

[@xlgapelsin6173]

Me when i actively refuse to educate myself on how they went and therefore just repeat everything i see on Facebook

[@ukshik5014]

Who cares about a talking head, when it should be all about images from the site?

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

Ukshik A 'trying too hard' talking head and a gulping one.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Totally. A real lunch money victim. That was the best they had to offer? Good catch on the gulps.

[@adams250]

Very convincing

[@shanebairstow5926]

I really like to believe the landing took place , however this video is not from a independent source, the photos are supplied by NASA , they have a vested interest here.

[@seigeengine]

It's not like there's literally a wikipedia page about third party evidence of the moon landings...

[@robben896]

@@seigeengine Did you read his comment? He said NASA supplied the pictures so why would they , if they faked it, not try and give out as bad and misleading as possible photographs?

[@seigeengine]

@@robben896 What are you even talking about? They're complaining the photos of the Moon landing are from NASA so can't be trusted, so I pointed them to a page listing third party evidence of the Moon landings.

[@robben896]

@@seigeengine I thought you were talking about the landing site photos taken afterwards.

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

Why is the guy so nervous, and gulping a lot?

[@oldtintoys]

Okay...post one!

[@N0616JCProductions]

I wonder what is the megapixels on those cameras. The highest ones that I know of is about 18 MP. I'm guessing that the cameras on the spacecrafts are much more higher than the ones down here.

[@biggest23]

If you turn your volume on full and wear headphones, you can actually hear the goalposts being moved as each new piece of evidence is revealed.

[@maxwattage6631]

Revealed ? They need arrows, need one say more.

[@Alrukitaf]

I wonder what that dark stuff is around the descent stage gear left behind. Oh is that the burn marks made by the lunar ascent stage rockets that seemed invisible as the craft left the moon? Remarkable!! I’d like to see a clearer picture of the rover though. We see two tyre tracks, we see foot marks that appear as continuous lines (?!!?) but not a clearer picture of the rover. Pity.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@seigeengine Normal surface variation huh? So what you are saying is that the retro-reflectors are bunk and they just used some bright spots for the claim. Ok.

[@Alrukitaf]

Graham any electronic engineer can rig a machine to show a spike on a graph. Doesn’t prove the retro reflectors are there. I’m not saying they’re not there necessarily, I’m saying the laser ranging equipment giving a spike on a graph is not proof that retroreflectors are on the moon.

[@Alrukitaf]

seigeengine I note with interest how abusive US loyalists get when people dare to question the might and supremacy of the US. Incidentally they were not shadows, because they appear around the landing stage (see 0:16) Shadows would only appear on one side of the landing craft base.

[@Alrukitaf]

seigeengine did you not see the way the Astronauts hopped around; they weren’t slithering around like snakes, you ignoramus. The hopping would leave a series of dots, not a continuous line. The darkness around the descent stage has a sharp edge to it, and is much darker than the shadows in the craters. Also you can see that the dark patch goes all around the landing stage, but a shadow would only be on one side of the object. So I suggest you improve your powers of observation and reasoning.

[@letitsnow8518]

They saw tHe Tire TrAck but not THE rover that carried THE TIre? Funny

[@jamieball]

@jasleil In Chile, The VLT Survey Telescope (VST), the latest addition to ESO’s Paranal Observatory, boasts a 2.6-meter telescope, with the huge 268-megapixel camera OmegaCAM at its heart. Must be so fun to play with that camera!

[@megaaaa2784]

NASA please make the photo clear and shape for your tax payers.

[@Serty161]

Yes, it's true in my town where i live i can see my home roof now where is possible see the solar panels mounted on it! Incredible they don't want let see us the rover module parking in the apollo 17. The only explanation is that the cameras on the lro are not able to do this zoomed pictures. Surely with a satellite like SPOT 6 you can see also the Charles Duke photo of his family!

[@ericduffy2270]

@@Serty161 what?

[@noahhughes2501]

You fund the military more than your space program, your self serving politicians use the organisation as a tool (Trump's new budget of NASA set to decimate funding of earth science and monitoring) - I think those scientists deserve a couple of secrets. Or at least, to be infuriated. Edit: just noticed that it wasn't clear that by "you" I mean America

[@XIIIStefanC]

@Blob B I know this is late but he means that the satellites they use to make the google maps photos are detailed enough to see the solar panels on his roof so why don't they have better quality images of the moon surface.

[@mikeivey2332]

You call these stunning and High Resolution? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[@MikaelBrogren]

Apollo 11 Would be the interesting one to see. Anyone know if this kind of footage is done and available?

[@nortavon]

All 6 missions have been documented, find on Nasa's site

[@MikaelBrogren]

@@nortavon no the Apollo 11 is not to be found. They conveniently erased those. This has been officially confirmed. So please go and look for them if you haven't done your homework.

[@Gubble-oq6dn]

@@MikaelBrogrenpeople like you could see mounds of evidence and witness testimonies and still disregard it so why bother trying to convince you?

[@MikaelBrogren]

@@Gubble-oq6dn or you could look into it yourself. But people like you never do. 🙈🙉😶‍🌫️🫥

[@rubensflorentino548]

For a spacecraft orbiting the moon with 2011 technology, I was expecting waaaayyyyy better pictures.

[@seigeengine]

Let us know the next time you send a spacecraft to image the Moon's surface, and get higher resolution photos than these by altering the trajectory of your satellite camera system to get closer photos of certain regions.

[@drewbeans]

Can you do some actual research?? LRO was launched in 2009. Not 2011.

[@dannygjk]

They didn't just take some photos they mapped the Moon's surface. The total amount of data is huge. As for quality they have to stay within a budget. Anyway you can access the LROC Moon map data and see the Apollo 11 lander/base. It's at Lat 0.674 , Lon 23.473 .

[@rubensflorentino548]

@@dannygjk Ok, I kinda understand that but please, they should not advertise it as "Breathtaking pictures".

[@srinitaaigaura]

@@rubensflorentino548 Try taking a camera pic of something 31 miles away and let me know how good the resolution is.

[@jett888]

Is that ash and baking soda " lunar dust"? I remember seeing a cross hatch behind an image at the nasa website

[@tomuchcoffee100]

Wouldn't the luner rover have been parked a whole lot closer to the departure site? Just sayin"

[@seigeengine]

Not necessarily, especially for Apollo 17, where the lunar rover was being used to record the take off.

[@whereisgaz]

Also it.could had been a problem with the takeoff

[@nickbenchman921]

They said they landed on the moon in the late 60's with a computing power compared to a late 1990's mobile phone or a tamagotchi toy. With the technology that we have now, landing on the moon now should be a walk in the park, let alone landing on the moon, we should have a moon base by now. 'Houston we have problem'

[@Katzelle3]

The problem is called funding.

[@Katzelle3]

John Sergei Cool, still doesn't change the fact that Congress has been lowering NASA's budget to the point where they can't even fully staff their own space station.

[@manifestgtr]

It's so funny how politically naive some people are. Like little kids talking about disney world. "We should go tomorrow, we can afford it right? But we just got a new car! Let's drive! We did it last yearrrrrr" You have no idea what really makes the world turn, dude.

[@kennethdixon4057]

Nick Benchman We're going to mars. The moon is old news.

[@badguy1481]

The computing power of the Primary Guidance and Navigation Computer WAS limited. But the software wasn't. The software got the Apollo missions to the moon and back (although, one should add, MANY of the guidance calculations were done back on earth, during the mission, and the vehicle course correction burn information was sent up to the astronauts).

[@nathaniel4756]

They drove the moon go cart in a perfectly straight line never even tried to avoid any of the holes..

[@rmacdlol]

Because you cant avoid the holes

[@noahhughes2501]

@@rmacdlol yeah, they're everywhere

[@janne-mans8295]

unmanned landings also leave marks the tracks can be remains of unmanned experiments, with unmanned buggies, to obtain some basic measurements so whatever does not break these resolutions need not say anything of manned visits they could have stopped future exploration missions as these measurements pointed out already, it would be impossible for a human without enough shieldings to safely return the biggest challenge with all the scripting and the control of putting together feeds ideally there would be leaked footage, of holding up instruction boards, for mission control members, to demonstrate joy, excitement, stress situation we should not look at the mission feeds, rather on weird inconsistencies in the control room footages

[@erac5855]

@@janne-mans8295 😂 this is wack AF. As are most nut job comments in this comment section. Nothing will convince ignorant people of reality, and I’m finally starting to be able to laugh about it.

[@corvettegeorge1979]

Super High Resolution high definition 144p is the best NASA can come up with? NASA never a straight answer.

[@seigeengine]

NASA gives nothing but straight answers. You're just an idiot.

[@LisaAnn777]

This is almost 30 miles up and able to see footprints, how much more do you want? There's no pleasing you nuts.

[@raymondeaton5692]

They absolutely did go to the moon. Even if someone goes back and broadcasts live from a previous landing site someone else will claim it's a lie. It took a lot of ingenuity, courage, and some luck, but they did do it.

[@hannible1002]

I wrote a letter, yes a letter lol to NASA and asked why they dont send a small probe to prove they went. They sent one back and said exactly what you wrote. This was 20 odd years ago before the internet. You are 100% correct.

[@raymondeaton5692]

Radio telescopes followed Apollo 11 all the way to the lunar surface. They absolutely did go to the moon.

[@markwhiteash1296]

I agree with you, they went to the Moon.

[@chriswest7220]

And not to mention some great acting. Neil should have won an Oscar for his performance.

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

Chris West Collins should have been booed off when he fluffed his lines.

[@JamesMulvenna]

Why have these pictures no detail? Why isn't their more detail?

[@jonathanwalther]

James Mulvenna *there

[@TheGreyhoundGames]

AffiliatePro You are aware that the LRO was launched almost a decade ago, right? Camera's have come a long fucking way within that period. The proof you're looking for is out there literally at your fingertips but because you apparently don't know how to or decidedly refuse to look up info that can easily be found on Google itself, you're going to just stick with your little closed mind that says "Oh, I don't understand any of this stuff, so it just CAN'T be possible guys!" You then turn to the supposed 'experts' that were never involved with the Apollo missions to begin with to try and "prove" your point, instead of learning how to use sources more reliable than some random jackasses that fall within your empty headed group think. So to quote your own post: Get it, *FOOL*

[@flappospammo]

hahaah, cameras have been stunning quality for ages - hassleblad anyone ? 50 years ago they were taking incredible quality pix lame excuse

[@NWOization]

@@TheGreyhoundGamesNASA invented a way to get past the Van Allen Belt in the 1960s and lost that technology. We can't send anybody to the moon now.... perhaps we need to go back to 16 bit PCs.

[@TheGreyhoundGames]

@@NWOization We have yet to return to the moon today not because we "lost" a way to magically go straight through the middle of the Van Allen Belts, but because costs of each expensive spacecraft, specifically designed for landing on the moon, were getting too high for administrators and politicians to support. NASA in fact had many possible plans for taking the CSM on orbital missions to Mars or Venus, and new designs to add onto the Saturn V to extend its usefulness, until Nixon came around to cut all funding for the program. The question has never been about technology for getting back to the moon, it has just been finding enough political support for NASA to have enough funding for such a daunting task as to bringing humans to an object hundreds of thousands of miles from the Earth safely and reliably with the lack of a large enough rocket to get there. As for Mr. Flappo, you're comparing photos taken from a handheld camera used on the surface to an orbiting satellite which is taking theirs at distances around five times the distance to the horizon itself when viewed from ground level. You'll be lucky to even catch the remains of a spacecraft 9 meters across from that height, so unless you've somehow got a photo of those similar parameters in greater detail than that, try again at dismissing more of the scientific and engineering feats that have been achieved in the history of humanity as a species. I cannot believe I subjected myself to an hour of personal research and writing for this response to deconstruct the arguments of two people who don't research themselves about the things they do not understand, and so let the crackpot "testimonies" of others and their limited views on the world be used to even attempt at disproving those who spent their own time getting us to where we are today. Thanks for reading and I should have never commented in an echo chamber of intentional ignorance. Bye

[@thousandaireradio3199]

Looking for evidence seems to always be a let down

[@weekiely1233]

What do you mean.

[@weekiely1233]

There is zero evidence that the moon landing is faked

[@tomwilliams5832]

weekiely 123 look at they’re first press conference after getting back to earth man

[@weekiely1233]

Tom Williams what about it.

[@tomwilliams5832]

weekiely 123 just look how “happy” they are, just something to think about.. I’ll never know the truth, We might have gone, we might not have gone.

[@myREALnameISiAM]

WTF? "Some of the most stunning images of the lunar surface I HAVE EVER SEEN"(!) What about the ones taken from the fucking surface of the Moon???

[@Champion0fTheWorld]

Let’s all be honest and say the images are of such poor quality you really not able tell what it is without them pointing it out and telling you exactly what it is..

[@manifestgtr]

Dave Dude...let’s be honest. Look at almost any spy satellite picture and try to decipher it without explanation. Even google earth! Our own planet! We can barely resolve things like cars. Sure, the military has better stuff but guess what...they aren’t gonna park that money around the moon. You can be sure about that. So why would the reconnaissance orbiter, a spacecraft with the sole purpose of mapping lunar geography be able to properly resolve something so tiny? It doesn’t make sense...

[@paul8972]

@@manifestgtr because it would be nearer to moon

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

manifestgtr Err...because it was man's greatest achievement? (apparently)

[@neilbishop1686]

@@manifestgtr No matter the definition of a picture.. the hoaxer community still wouldn't believe the picture was taken on the Moon....so why waste the money trying to satisfy a very small percentage of the uneducated or just scientific illiterate members of the public.....

[@manifestgtr]

Neil Bishop Oh no, it’d be a total waste of time and money haha

[@abetilocos58]

remember Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

[@juniorsir9521]

That quote has nothing to do with this in any way.

[@nelis555]

@pleonic It probably can but we just have to wait until the orbit of the LRO is over the spots where they landed.

[@MediaEasier]

LRO travelled 238,855 miles to the moon, yet didn't bother getting closer than 25miles to the surface of the moon, bit weird hey?

[@zachwagoner9570]

It's weird that an orbiter went into orbit?

[@steverodgers8425]

Orbiter must maintain a certain altitude to stay in orbit. To close to the moon will cause orbit decay due to gravity.

[@MediaEasier]

​@@steverodgers8425The moon doesn't have orbital decay as there is no gravity on the moon. Every year Moon is moving away from us for about 15 CM. Initially when Mars-sized planet hits the proto-earth, the junk and other materials ejected from the earth and gradually those junk particles attracted towards each other with the help of gravity and thus our Moon was formed.. When it was formed, the distance b/w earth and Moon was almost half the distance as now, ever since then the Moon is moving away from us at the speed of 15 CM/Year and currently, distance is around 3.85L KMs and this distance will get doubled over next couple of billion years

[@steverodgers8425]

@@MediaEasier the moon's gravity is approximately 1/6 of the Earths. Of course you will contend this is false.

[@MediaEasier]

@@steverodgers8425 no that is true, but answer this... Why don't radio control drones come crashing to the ground whilst in flight here on planet earth? Do you believe LRO is just aimlessly floating around in orbit, and disbelieve it has thrusters controlling its X Y and Z positioning?

[@iagle]

We sent probes to Mars so many times with high resolution that it is suspicious that we haven't done the same for the moon and let us see videos

[@LisaAnn777]

We already have high resolution photos and videos of the lunar surface though so that isn't correct.

[@iagle]

@LisaAnn03170 Oh, where are the probes on the moon? I googled it, but photos or videos are hard to find.

[@LisaAnn777]

@@iagle also just realized you aren't the same guy I thought I was replying to so sorry about calling you a flat earther, I've been debating with this crazy dude who thinks there's a magical firmament and I confused him with you lol 😆 Didn't mean to sound so rude to you 🤷‍♀️

[@officemaxsucks]

so what is stopping you from sharing the so called "most amazing images" with the rest of the world?

[@kaaba1364]

0:08

[@daveth8741]

2:33 What bothers me is that as time passes. all we get is this amazing 😉 "closeup/animation of the LRO whizzing by" over the Lunar Surface What bothers me, is that as time passes. all we get is this amazing "closeup/animation of the LRO whizzing over the Lunar surface. 🛰 🤔 Every waking day, I like to insert funny, animated Gifs, into short videos I "film" with an iPhone📱 Some people use Photoshop Software in making those Gifs

[@chrismuratore7084]

Why are the Apollo 17 lunar rover tracks so faint and how did it drive thru a crater with the left wheels and no tip over? And how did the astronauts get back to the lander without making tracks? Or did they jump back to the lander?

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

The tracks are faint because the LRV isn't heavy enough on the Moon to make deep tracks. It clipped the crater without tipping because the crater isn't as deep as you imagine it is. Just because you can't see all the footprints doesn't mean they aren't there.

[@loveflying2]

How did rover fit inside small craft?

[@ImieNazwiskoOK]

@loveflying2 It's no small, off the to of my head it's at least 4 meters. Also there are tons of videos and such explaining how the rover folded.

[@kinghenry238]

when did they put this up?

[@ellabet5858]

How are we seeing all these angles of the satellite? Zoom-in seems to work great when looking at the satellite, even going all the way around it, but no zoom on the moon.

[@GuaranaJones]

Are you mentally challenged? The Satellite Images is Just artificial to get the Idea of it. The moon Pics are real though.

[@jemedemande5166]

According to "how stuff works" - "Keyhole" satellites are nearly "13 times" further away from earth than the LRO was from the Moon yet they can tell whether there is a bike parked in your driveway". www.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm Even if the camera is more basic the LRO images should be far better than what we're getting and the question then is "why" are they not?

[@joy4118]

You are right. I was seriously trying to find good evidence for the manned landings and then I find this NASA LRO bs. Very disappointing pictures.

[@FosterZygote]

joy4118 So you conclude that the LRO images are faked because they aren't made with the highest resolution cameras currently available? The LRO isn't looking for bicycles in driveways, it's doing geological survey work. Keyhole satellites serve basically one function: to take spy photos of earth. They are cameras the size of city busses and they are in low-earth-orbit. The LRO is the size of a medium car and has six other instrument packages in addition to the survey camera.

[@jemedemande5166]

FosterZygote Those Pictures claim to show things which they clearly do not. Mentioning the key hole sattelites merely enhances the context of the concept.

[@FosterZygote]

je me demande " Those Pictures claim to show things which they clearly do not." What things are those? "Mentioning the key hole sattelites merely enhances the context of the concept." No, mentioning the keyhole satellites is a red herring. They are giant spy cameras designed to look at small object of interest to the US intelligence community. Complaining that NASA sent a package of geological survey instruments to the moon rather than a dedicated spy satellite is just silly.

[@jemedemande5166]

FosterZygote Ok I will spell it out yet again - If Keyhole Satellites are 13 times further away from earth than the LRO was from the Moon as which reported this clearly signifies that the LRO requires only a small fraction of the lense size used by the Key Hole Spy Camera's to achieve similar results. Which means even a standard 150mm telescope fore xample an Esprit apochromatic refractor mounted on the LRO would have given images of the rovers etc historic images in so many ways. To pretend that these images weren't important enough to be taken is almost as absurd as pretending pictures of the stars weren't important during the Apollo missions. So we have a guy at the start of this clip boasting about “Proof” of the landing sites while desperately trying to coach anyone gullible into believing this fantasy. Then we have an apologist on here saying there was no point in sending a standard telescope on the LRO because it “is just silly”?? “Who makes this stuff up”?

[@bcherbs]

If there is no atmosphere on the moon , why can't they bring the LRO to say 5 km above the surface ?

[@bcherbs]

@rent a shill so it's a camera issue?

[@drewbeans]

Lunar gravity isn't constant which would cause an object in an orbit that low to fall to the surface within months

[@spacexstuff6752]

Mountains. It would just crash

[@ericschnakenberg8794]

Is it just me, or is this video oddly produced? I thought there was no sound until out of the blue, the speaker appears. Then silence again. Finishing with an unecessarily long animation. Why couldn't the speaker describe what we were looking at? Leave the animation out.

[@seigeengine]

Yeah, it's definitely a weirdly put together video.

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

The guy very nervous too, awful presentation.

[@jonathonmcglew4992]

high res?????

[@Daddyo930]

The ISS (International Space Station) is in orbit at 220 miles. That is well within the atmosphere. Anyone wanna dispute the altitude at which the ISS sits? There has never been a manned mission above 300 miles since they allegedly put a man on the moon. Not one manned mission past 300 miles.

[@kaaba1364]

Daddyo930 220 is not “well within” our atmosphere. The cruising altitude of a commercial airplane is only about 7 miles up.

[@LisaAnn777]

Lol "well within the atmosphere" 😆 not even close.

[@thatesedog805]

Ok ...they showed nothing

[@thegloriousmoodman2152]

At 2:03 we are supposed to be able to see footprints? I don't.

[@seigeengine]

Not individual ones. Those are the paths taken. Individual footprints aren't visible, but the disruption of the surface is.

[@Daddyo930]

This alleged satellite with the crappy resolution must be some kind of joke. How much did they spend on the camera? They must have gotten it at the dollar store.

[@passaroquetemasanaovoa]

Go there and do better

[@captaintoad-ef6zt]

It’s the moon you Pillock

[@hyderabadistock]

Nice ANIMATION Job by NASA, keep it up in the coming Decades too!!!

[@stechbucket4782]

Last 1 minutes of animation is an artifact from Apollo 11 landing video

[@carcinogen60yearsago]

The animation is LRO the space craft that took of the pictures has nothing to do with Apollo 11.

[@rammur1]

Who or what was taking a pic of the LRO, in space ?

[@seigeengine]

It's well known that NASA produces artistic renderings of things it can't show directly.

[@jean3xyz]

There is one thing I do not understand; when we look at the end of the launch of Apollo 17 module of the moon, the camera returns to the base of the module where we do not see any black spots around the module that we see on the current site ???

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

You mean... shadows?

[@jean3xyz]

@@Jan_Strzelecki that's it

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

@@jean3xyz So, that's the shadow, which is in a different position than it was at _Apollo_ 17 takeoff.

[@LisaAnn777]

Shadows change based on the suns location.

[@MrRunedrejer]

Well. . I knew it.. I've ALLWAYS known it 😂😂😂😂

[@davidskipsey300]

could the intended landing site before apollo 11 landed in a crater full of boulders be visible???

[@AdrianDucao]

so if LRO capture a blurry remains of the Apollo Missions... who took the clear video of LRO?

[@1_2_die2]

COME ON 🌎 redo this video and others, please: 0:30 "we have some of the most astonishing images of the surface of the moon" ..., but it's a blurry 720p soup with big encoding artefacts.

[@youreadthisinyourmindright2604]

Look at the date bruh

[@youreadthisinyourmindright2604]

Not like they landed yesterday with HD cameras

[@SummerTheFuzzy]

I still can't quite believe we managed this in the 60s, i hope there is another landing in my life time, this time shot in full HD

[@aubreebey1]

Now 8 years later we need 4k 8k resolution no bullshitting but they cant do it and they never could or did

[@michubern1444]

Hope you are still alive lol

[@LisaAnn777]

​@@aubreebey1the Apollo missions were all tracked by radio from both the US and Soviets and even amateur radio enthusiasts. So yeah they definitely went there brainiac.

[@kingdom777866]

What about apolo 11. ?

[@ClutchNixon]

I wonder when we're going to drive that rover again.

[@letitsnow8518]

How to drive it on the moon?

[@LisaAnn777]

It will need a new battery since they aren't rechargeable. But it should work, unless solar radiation has destroyed the wiring which is definitely a possibility. The designed if the rovers claims they would still probably work though.

[@PaulGreenwald]

If that was 15 miles above the surface what happened to the lense ?

[@drwoods]

+harooni22 i think google earth is fly-photo

[@scuttle77]

Learn to spell.

[@stephenbenjafield5436]

If the orbiter is only 15 miles above the lunar surface, why does the camera not zoom in to give us big clear pictures, all these pictures show, is tiny specks that could easily be doctored, this is not proof at all.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Because the LRO didn't go to the moon to take pictures of the landing sites to prove to a few morons that they landed on the moon. It was there to map the moon, and the photographs of the landing sites just inherently exist as a result because they are there. What would you consider as "proof" that they landed on the moon. Give me an example of something that would prove it to you.

[@AbdulSamad-yn3nc]

Willoughby Krenzteinburg Why you seem to be soo mad? Can't you properly give the evidence? Why call them morons for a small thing? Most people were asking a clear picture or some detailed picture not like the above one or some dark dot or some white circle or a disturbed part but a clear one which can actually be believable and definitely not from NASA ex : third party. they know there are many third party images in Wikipedia but they too are not clear(Not my words but most of the people were asking for these) If you have any such type of evidence just post the link. No need to be mad about it. CHILL✌️

[@flappospammo]

a sharp colour video and / or sharp colour photos is that too much to ask ? 4k preferably

[@flappospammo]

he sounds rattled to me no need for abuse if you're secure in your facts

[@flappospammo]

'freaks' , no we just aren't gullible mindless sheep like you , nice ad hominem attack you sound just as rattled as willoughby , probably one of your aliases anyway , welcome to my ignore list , not prepared to put up with arrogant rude posters like you

[@loveflying2]

I see computer generated animation but where is the evidence you are talking about?

[@varuzhshakbazyan5732]

Hey where's that LRO today? Any new pictures?

[@seigeengine]

Around the moon. Idk, probably.

[@varuzhshakbazyan5732]

@@seigeengine How come there aren't any new pictures?

[@seigeengine]

Is NASA supposed to publish every photo they take? Am I supposed to go find you them? The best I found with a quick search is that NASA's website lists papers published using the LRO's data up through 2017.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@seigeengine Yes, it is supposed to. One day it could even publish the uncut Apollo 11 launch films, 50 years is a long wait for those. I wonder what they could be hiding? A slow, underperforming rocket.

[@dannygjk]

You can access the LROC Moon map data and see the Apollo 11 lander/base. It's at Lat 0.674 , Lon 23.473

[@RexR256]

But the point is. The LRO was launched in 2009, it travels above the moon at a Orbital height of 31.10 miles (50 km) and sometimes getting as close as 25 miles away from the surface with no atmospheric disturbances like we have here on earth. But the high res images from GeoEye or DigitalGlobe that google earth uses in it's maps online are a few hundred kilometers above the Earth (1242 Miles) and I can see my dog lying out in the yard. The Hexagon KH-9 Reconnaissance Satellites that were used by spies between 1971 and 1986 to capture pictures from 100 miles up took incredible photographs. Are you tell me somebody forgot to install a high Res camera on the LRO back in 2009? I believe we've been to the moon But obviously we aren't allow to see close ups. It just doesn't add up.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Google Earth uses many photographs of the same area of the Earth depending on how far you zoom in. They do indeed use satellite imagery, but only for the broad shots. When you zoom in to the point where you can see cars and even people, those photographs were *NOT* taken from satellites. Google Earth transitions to aerial shots taken from airplanes just a few thousand feet up when you zoom in far enough. We are allowed to see close up shots, and well over ten thousand exist. They took them while they were there. Remember those?!?! If these photographs are not sufficiently close enough to the action, then I'm afraid there will never be a photograph close enough for you. You don't get to just pretend those don't exist, or omit them from consideration. If those photographs don't prove that they were there, then a photograph from 30 miles away certainly won't prove it. The people that dismiss the thousands of photographs taken from the surface while they were there will simply dismiss any other photographs on the same non-basis. If it doesn't add up to you, the only conclusion I can draw is that you can't add.

[@flappospammo]

if they had the tech to take 10k full color closeups , why was all the video in blurry mono ?

[@flappospammo]

why not have a backup in 525 line full colour and RECORD it , saved for playback when they get to earth ? you know , to PROVE it 100% !!?? maybe even do a cinematic 70mm film copy while they're at it this doesn't add up

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Rex Go learn optical physics and you will learn about the Airy disk and F-stop for optical instrument resolution and you will discover from the equations that it would take a MUCH bigger camera plane and lens to do that. When you zoom in your Google Earth up close, the program substitutes aircraft camera images into the satellite locator images. The satellite images can barely resolve a blurry car or road.

[@JohnSmith-yy8hn]

Very well said, Rex

[@gregking7570]

where are the images?

[@Bgtrfvcde]

Dude's head is coming loose. It looks like it is about to fall off.

[@VladBordones]

You know where is the "Sea of Tranquility" right? the probe passed through "the Sea of Storms", close to the "The Sea that has Become Known" and the "Sea of Serenity" of course this probe won't have images of 11, 15 and 16 located in the Sea of Tranquility and Sea of Rains...

[@Daddyo930]

Good point. When did this thing launch? I believe the I-phone has better resolution. Something's not right with the whole CGI thing. Why bother when you have a satellite with a "good" camera? Is there something we aren't supposed to see? Like no landing sites?

[@ronaldsmith4153]

I can identify make and model of cars in my parking lot from a Google earth picture and all I see from LRO is poor quality photos that have lousy clarity and resolution. 550 Million for another cover up?

[@GlitterGulch]

Footprint photos. Taken from 25 kilometers above. Amazing.

[@darkfactory8082]

Footprints should not be visible, as those are not so deep, neither the tracks, considering the shadow cast of the "lander" (at leats 2 meters high), which points toward some manipulation.. Is it just me?

[@81overon]

@@darkfactory8082 You're correct. These are very low res pics. Footprint trails shouldn't show.

[@LisaAnn777]

​@@darkfactory8082the shadow depends on the angle of the sun. C'mon I'm sure you understand how that works lol 😆

[@EssexCountyPhoto]

WHAT FOOT PRINTS ???...

[@N0616JCProductions]

@jamieball That will be fun. I wonder what if you were to utilize that technology for everyday camera use. I think it will become a microscope of sorts. Can't imagine how are they going to fit that many pixels into something the size of an normal handheld camera. I mean some of the DSLRs that we have now are like bricks.

[@fredofosu]

why did this video come out just after apollo 18...

[@harleyneal4962]

What I find a bit unusual, at least seem unusual is that the Landsat 8 that google apparently uses for Google maps is orbiting at 435 miles above the earth surface with plenty of atmospheric interference and we can zoom in to clearly make out vehicles types, AC units etc. Yet, the LRO as he states came within 25 kilometers of the surface of the moon with no atmosphere to distort the images and yet there is no clarity. Just seems a bit odd...

[@kennethdixon4057]

Harley Neal The definition is equal to what Google Earth had at the time. You don't need a perfectly clear picture to see that these are perfectly accurate once you compare these photos to the photos that the astronauts took on the ground.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Harley Neal When you zoom in on Google Earth, the program swaps the satellite image for their GPS library of aircraft camera images appropriately. The satellite can barely make out cars and roads and only on a clear day. You're NOT looking at a real time image, man, you're looking at a smart library!!

[@LisaAnn777]

​@@rstevewarmorycomGoogle earth isn't all satellite photos.

[@biggawinnacrapsa3870]

Nice simulation at 3:05 . One sun shining on the LRO, a different sun shining on the Earth. Or maybe a big flashlight.

[@agnikeeling8263]

You think someone is actually filming the LRO at 3.05? LMAO. It's SUPPOSED to be a simulation, because no-one was there to film the actual thing.

[@pleonic]

Marvelous pictures LRO -- the next best thing to being there. But what about Apollos 11, 15, and 16? Can't you buzz them too?

[@josephdavis2427]

Where are the amazing images?

[@josephdavis2427]

Why are the "amazing" images are the ones taken decades ago? Wtf is going on? We need modern, high resolution images of these sights using drones or something.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

The LRO was 31 miles up; not 15. The specifications are easily verified if you took two seconds to do a tiny amount of research. Directly from the NASA/GSFC LRO home page : "LROC consists of two narrow angle cameras and a wide angle camera. The two narrow angle cameras provide extreme closeup images of the lunar surface with a spatial resolution of 0.5 meters (1.6 ft) per pixel [NOT 15 pixels per meter] over a swath that is 5 kilometers (3.1 mi) wide."

[@chadkline4268]

Plenty to see footprints 😂

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@@chadkline4268 and you do...

[@chadkline4268]

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg it's phony baloney 👍

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@@chadkline4268 k

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@@chadkline4268 k

[@paul8972]

When you went all that way why not go nearer than 15 miles? Pictures would be better then. Surely

[@supajasiu]

Its a orbiting satelite, not a specyficallt mission sent just to get photos of the site.

[@justinfendelet8675]

its 2020 that's expensive stuff lets go collect it ...

[@FABIOTHEBEST97]

Why in this video there is not the Apollo 11 landing site?

[@seigeengine]

why are you whining about a specific landing site no being imaged?

[@giannisgeorgioy]

So these blury dots are proves that we landed in the moon?Ok you convinced me..almost!

[@Formula1st]

You’ve got to be kidding

[@davidschmidt6013]

see above

[@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504]

I think both sides of the fence would have liked something a bit more convincing.

[@robben896]

xD

[@johnjones4593]

They remote controlled a video camera, able to pan up to see the pod shoot back up into lunar orbit, and with all our technology, they still can’t take an undoctored photo? Yeah. Right.

[@seigeengine]

The photos aren't "doctored."

[@BjornPalmen]

@forbiddenfoe Only the picture of the LRO in orbit is fake, because there was no other satellite that could have taken those pictures. hde LRO is inserted as an animation. The shadow on the LRO mast is wrong because the LRO is in orbit so the shadow should change.

[@Aexgamer48]

Where is apollo 11?

[@dannygjk]

You can access the LROC Moon map data and see the Apollo 11 lander/base. It's at Lat 0.674 , Lon 23.473

[@Aexgamer48]

Ok thanks

[@Aexgamer48]

Thx i found it

[@kratos5186]

But today you don't know how to landing on the moon,right?

[@seigeengine]

We still know how to land on the moon.

[@kratos5186]

@@seigeengine Show the telemetry and l believe you.

[@seigeengine]

Let's be honest, you don't even know what telemetry is.

[@Andrea_69]

@@seigeengine great answer!

[@Pun1Sh3r_360]

@@Andrea_69 LOL but we know what it is and he didn't really answer the question just provided a silly smartass zinger

[@cenny123]

There are 2 types of people, those that know we never went to the moon and those that haven't done enough research

[@seigeengine]

There are two types of people. Those who know we went to the moon, and delusional morons.

[@robben896]

yes

[@kaseimir]

They should send this thing even lower than 25km if it has enough fuel to decrease it's perilune.

[@pleonic]

@nelis555 That's what I'm hoping. Apollo 15 landed at a pretty high latitude so I was wondering if perhaps that would keep LRO from "dipping" over their site.

[@Trancemaster2052]

I'm no conspiracy theorist but you really can't make out much from these images. I'm surprised by the lack of clarity considering the kind of technology we have today. If I were a hoax supporter nut I wouldn't be convinced by these pictures. They're indistinct and not particularly sharp. I'd like to see maybe a probe land on the surface within the vicinity of one of the Apollo landing sites and take HD color pictures of the LM base, flag, leftover equipment, rover, etc.

[@billymatthews7346]

Agree....with your thoughts...the public has awaited such a move from NASA for a very long time.

[@robben896]

Agree....with your thoughts...the public has awaited such a move from NASA for a very long time.

[@MattJohno2]

You know what's cool? The flags left on the moon are likely bleached white now, and in the early days of sailing ships, a white flag means peace. I think the first Martian or Lunar base's flags should have a connected chain link, with Earth in the link, Showing that Earth is unified(I know it isn't, but it'd be amazing to look at).

[@davidskipsey300]

yes it's only meant to as the titles says,it's only for apollo landing sites!!!

[@robbmoody4857]

If consperacy theorists been around this long maybe one should take into consideration what they have to say instead of being misguided by pride.

[@Pun1Sh3r_360]

You're being really ignorant by putting all conspiracy theorists in the same basket

[@Gurumeierhans]

@robisilvi why do they lie ?

[@kc5hgv]

500 million dollars for an Recon Orbiter that takes photos like that. Man that is terrible camera optics. Somebody got ripped off.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Shorty454 So you didn't pay your taxes? Tell us more.

[@kratos5186]

@@rstevewarmorycom Yes. We go to the Moon to take a pictures but we don't have a money for better camera.