NASA scientists believe they may have found the final resting place of a 1960s space probe which took "the picture of the [last] century" before crashlanding on the far side of the Moon. A snapshot from the past... (click to enlarge) The information comes in new imagery from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), sent up to …
They'll probably find a big pile of odd socks next to it.
Didn't we read a story about a Trafficmaster bus stuck on the moon once?
OK, that was probably "News of the Screwz"
Alright, both gone now.
Nah, it was the good old Sunday Sport: "World War II Bomber Found On Moon", followed a week later with "World War II Bomber Found In Space!" as NASA diverted a space shuttle to pick up the Heinkel.
The London Bus was at the South Pole (complete with pictures of confused penguins).
And the thing was...
The 'paper' said at the time that it was a B17, but the picture showed a B-29, or similar, and most of the letters to the paper were correcting the papers aircraft-identification, rather than the fact that the vacuum would have made flying it there in the first place impossible (though the B29 did have a pressurised cabin).
That's how you know it was fake
I could believe that the Space Shuttle would drop a London Heinkel Bus at the South Pole, but confused penguins? Everybody knows there's no penguins at the South Pole! Just some crazed scientists and a John Carpenter monster.
One week later
The headline was :- World War II bomber found on moon vanishes
Really? News? They may have found the probe, which may have crashed on the moon after being programmed to, um, crash on the moon. This is like a lobotomised version of the Daily Sport.
Given their respective sizes, it'd be easier finding the one brain cell in your vacated cranium than finding that probe on the moon.
They really should crash land all the dying probes in the same place to support future manned moon missions, you never know when you will need a scrap yard for an extra bit of gold foil etc
0.15 grammes of it.
Lunar edition. Yeah.
... the Iron Chicken from The Clangers...
Technology and tall tales
Ah yes - so the craft, which flew round the moon 2 years before the Moon landing, managed to capture a picture with stars clearly visible in the background - the same stars which cameras of 2 years later couldn't manage to see.
NASA are getting sloppy.
At least one of the stars is on the surface of the moon.
Re: Technology and tall tales
Look again, you fucknut. Those aren't stars, (unless you know of any constellations where the stars sit in neat, evenly spaced lines?).
Not sure if this is a joke but it looks like dust to me. Of course everyone with a idea of basic photographic exposures would be shocked if you *could* see the stars in these photos.
Look at the picture again
The stars are visible only within the first few degrees above the surface and the length of the shadows show that it is fairly close to sunset (or sunrise). As expected you do not see any stars higher above.
If anything this picture confirms the pictures from the moon landings which all took place more or less at "Moon Noon". If the landings took place towards moon dawn or moon evening like this picture you would have seen stars on their pictures too.
And if you look, you can clearly see clouds near the horizon. Clouds? On the moon?
If you zoom in and look at the second hill on the right, you can see clear evidence of a wind blowing the clouds over the hill.
In the bottom right you can also see what looks like fog in a crater.
This was clearly taken before they'd agreed the protocol for creating the fake moon pictures.
Time NASA 'fessed up to their New World Order conspiracy and admitted the truth.
The Earth is the centre of the Universe, it is flat in all directions and we were made in the Perfect Image of the One True God! Throw down the Copernican Conspiracy and the Evolution Falsehood.
Set yourself FREE into the glory of GOD!
It could all be artefacts of processing/compression of course. There's less stars than one can see with the naked eye on Earth, so perhaps this was near the Lunar dawn and that not much reflected light. But really; which explanations are more likely?
@Technology and tall tales
Google "photography", then come back when you've read everything.
re: big yin
glad you put the joke icon on that, because on the interwebs you never know who is being serious.
but THEY know.
LOL... It was a Win...
Windy day in Arizona... I think I recall a flag fluttering as astronauts were near it.... Must've been a stage fan keeping the Klieg lighting temp from roasting the set dressers, hahahaha....
Fog in a crater?
Daft bunny. Not fog. It's someone having a smoke off-camera.
So not content with filling our own planet and orbit with junk
we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to foul up the next nearest one up too...
Are you serious?
The surface area of the moon is just under 38 million square kilometers. This probe takes up, what, 10 square meters, tops? That's the equivalent of a grain of dust in your house. It's nothing.
And let's not forget, until mankind sets up a colony on another planet or moon, our chances of long term survival are exactly 0. The space program is the most important research we do. Why not save this kind of hand-wringing for heavy industry? One probe on the moon nearly 50 years old is hardly an enviromental concern.
Depends on what you mean by long term doesn't it?
Given the ultimate fate of the universe (heat death by entropy), our long term survival odds will never be greater than 0.... ;)
When it gets close to that point, hopefully there will be sufficiently intelligent designers around who will simply reboot the universe so that we can all get back to arguing whether the universe arose by chance or not.
Might actually have helped
That probe might actually have carried viable microscopic life to the moon. It's happened before when camera lenses brought back from one of the Apollo missions turned out to contain life.
The probe might therefore actually have been the biggest positive 'environmental' impact the Moon has ever known.
"One probe on the moon nearly 50 years old is hardly an enviromental concern."
That depends on who the FIRST tenants are.... hahaha. Maybe it'll end up not us, but "The Others"...
@Depends on what you mean by long term doesn't it?
I think our goal should be to survive long enough to experience heat death by entropy. That's the best finish line I can fathom, short of escaping this universe in favor of a younger one.
Well, that raises an interesting quandry there. (My intent is not to patronise with the next bit, bear with me)
1st law of thermodynamics - energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2nd law of thermodynamics - energy within a closed system will eventually all even out via entropy.
If we assume the 1st law is true, then all of the universes energy must have *always* been here. If it has *always* been here, and the 2nd law is true, then entropy would have already occured.
It's a fair assumption that both laws are true - the have both been under considerable scientific scrutiny for a couple of hundred years, with no sign of any way of side-stepping them. And, of course, it's fair to say that total entropy has not occured.
So one of the following is true:
1) The 1st law of thermodynamics is false. (very unlikely)
2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics is false. (very unlikely)
3) The energy within the universe was created by a supernatural force. :|
This is often used as evidence of a God, and is the main reason why Stephen Hawking believes in some sort of creator. I think most scientists just find the whole thing rather embarassing -2 of the most core tenants of physics coming together to basically prove the existance of meta-clangers.
I think there's a potentially viable 4 however:
4) The universe is not a closed system.
Our actual knowledge of the universe is primitive at best (many of the things we quote as absolute fact have only really been observed from on this one tiny little rock), and I think to sugest that we KNOW 100% that this is not the case is a stretch.
All that said, any one of them *could* be the case. The 2 laws are very much "good science" though, easily demonstrable and repeatable, and "a magic space monster dunnit" doesn't quite do it for me. "The universe is a closed system" is not necassarily "good science" - it's based on a hearty amount of assumption, hence I'm going to put most of my eggs in that particular basket, as it were.
And long-term? From the amount of "overdue" major life-ending events the earth is casually trying to ignore, I think we can give ourselves a hearty pat on the back if we make it another 10,000 years, let alone the *160 million* years the dinosaurs were lurking about for.
In fact, our chances of long-term survival are exactly 0 until we learn how to reverse entropy, since this will inevitably lead to the heat-death of the universe. Please forgive me if I pass on contributing to the research budget, though - I don't view the problem with the urgency that you seem to.
Steven Hawking and "why go is unnecessary"
Entropy Heat Death
Ah, an excellent reminder to reread Asaac Asimov: The Last Question;
you forgot to mention quantum
and vaccuum energy. The particle is a wave, the particle is here, the particle is there, the cat is dead/undead, your argument falls on its face, etc, etc.
I'd pin the falsehood of either law of thermodynamics as being substantially more likely than supernatural explanations. It wouldn't be the first time that a long-held law that matches reality very nicely eventually turns out to have important exceptions. A single exception that explains the Big Bang would be sufficient. As for the universe not being a closed system, isn't that just shifting the problem around? Just redefine the universe as also including everything outside the previous definition.
I couldn't agree more, the supernatural theory is the last one I'd expect.
One explaination could well be that the Big Bang can do things that nothing else can, but however you cut it, that would mean that energy CAN be created, and would mean the 1st law is incorrect, even if it is only in a single exception. As you say, this is far from impossible, but I think the notion that the universe as it is defined now is definately the totallity of existance is based on more guess work than the first law. From everything else I see in physics, I somehow doubt totallity is finite, but that's a lot of guess work too, obviously!
I still think that the multiverse theory is the most substantial. While you could change the defintion of the universe to incorporate the new external bits / other universes as well, I'm referring to the universe as it is defined now.
And of course, if there is a multiverse, it's entirely possible that <insert space phenomenon here> is spewing energy into our universe from another, meaning our universe would not be a closed system, and entropy heat death MIGHT not be it's eventual fate.
To the couple of others here:
To survive to experince total entropy of the universe really is "long-term"! That's not what I meant by long term, and your argument seems dangerously similar to this:
"I'm not going to live to be 1,000,000, so why worry if I live to see 40?"
We still need to get off the planet and found a colony in the relatively VERY near future. Essentially, I agree! - I'm not at all worried about our fate in *10 trillion* years time! :P
However, our fate in the next 10,000 is looking very shaky until we can spread the risk of our extinction around a bit.
..if you add 3 as a predicate, then you are by definition adding 4, as it is necessary but not sufficient for 3 - ie 3 implies 4.
Unfortunately, as 3 only implies 4, then we can construct a viable argument that as 4 is necessary to accept 3, then 3 is not defacto a requirement in the broader argument and there exists a valid case where 1,2 and 4 are true, yet 3 is false.
Ie, your argument is not logically sound. Shame really.
"2 of the most core tenants of physics coming together"
I think you mean tenets. Unless someone is renting physics to the laws of thermodynamics.
"If we assume the 1st law is true, then all of the universes energy must have *always* been here. If it has *always* been here, and the 2nd law is true, then entropy would have already occured."
Total entropy has not occurred because the universe's age is not infinite. There rest of your post is as superfluous as the supernatural non-sequitur.
Google "heat death" once your knickers have untwisted.
I might have misunderstood you, but I didn't think 3 really required anything to be assumed, as 3 was basically that physics applied to the natural universe, and that the energy had been created by a SUPER natural force, meaning that 1 and 2 could be true, 4 false, and 3 still true.
Certainly I think it's possible that 1, 2 and 4 are all true, and that 3 is false - I don't think the thermodynamics being correct, yet the universe not being a closed system really implies that there is a supernatural creation force. As I say, I may well have just misunderstood you though.
Tenants: lol - thanks. I don't think I've ever actually written it down. I did wonder at the time if that was right. I suppose as long as they don't get evicted we'll probably be OK ;)
If the universe is not of an inifinite age, then the energy was created at some point, hence the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect.
If the energy was not created, then it has always been present, and hence total entropy shave have already occured, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect.
It is possible that the big bang created the energy, which is what you loosely suggest; if that is the case, the 1st law of thermodynamics needs revising, as the big bang contains the mechanism to create energy, which should be absolutely impossible. The only other option is that the big bang itself is supernatural, which in itself raises all kinds of interesting questions.
Or, as I suggested, the energy has always been there, and the universe is not a closed system, hence is not destined to suffer from eventual total entropy. Heat death would only occur if the universe was a closed system, and we really don't KNOW that this is the case.
But, who really knows? A significant amount of this stuff is basically guess work.
Well, by stating that 3 is outside the universe yet affecting it, then you are by very definition of terms stating 4 - that it is not a closed system.
Therefore, by accepting 4 as true and as necessary but not sufficient for 3 ( ie for an external entity to afffect the universe, the universe must by definition not be a closed system, but that it not being a closed system does not prove the external entity ), then it is simple to construct a truth table where 1,2,4 are true, yet 3 is not, but you cannot construct one where 3 is true and 4 is false.
Surving the heat death of the universe
The way to survive the heat death of the universe is to learn how to create a new universe that creates itself in the image of this one. The humans that then evolve are us. And they get to call us god.
Well, I'd say that 3 doesn't have to be outside the universe necessarily. It simply has to comprise a force or beast which for whatever reason does not have to conform to the same physical laws everything else does.
For example, here we have an Islamic site proclaiming that 3 is basically Allah, using this exact same entropy paradox:
I think if 3 was to prove to be the reason, chances are it would not be something which could be represented within what we know as the physical dimensions. 3 is really the wildcard - it can't be rationalised in the same way as 1, 2 or 4.
If we are to assume that 3 is God, in whatever form, I don't think that presumes that he would be an outside force - could well be inside, in a closed system, he's just got op, and hence does not have to conform to 1 or 2.
.. Now that you've mentioned it though, the notion of a God could actually vaguely fit in with the first 2 laws, if he was just considered to be an outside force, and as few regard a God as a physical manifestation, I suppose he sort of would be. What does "within" really mean, when you remove the concept of 3 dimensional space?
(Purely for the record, I don't personally believe in the existance of 3... :P)
Long term tenants, or do they rent by the hour?
Heat death isn't the only possible end
I personally favour the "Big Rip" theory over the Big Freeze. As universal expansion accelerates over time, the Hubble radius (the distance at which the expansion reaches the speed of light) gets correspondingly smaller. Follow that to its logical conclusion - eventually all other galaxies are receding from us at light speed and thus no longer exist in our frame of reference, then other stars, then planets. In the last fraction of a second your feet are accelerating away from your head at light speed, shredding you into your component subatomic particles, which are themselves subsequently ripped apart, until the Hubble radius equals the Planck length, at which point nothing resembling a universe can exist. This final spaghettification is expected to come about 22 billion years from now, according to the authors of the theory.
I rather hope it all ends this way. At least it's nice, quick, clean and final, unlike the slow multi-billion-billon year running down of entropy, with the last surviving civilisations cadging the last few ergs of heat from fading white dwarfs. And what an experience it would be to watch, in the last few hours as the planets, then the sun, then the moon, then other countries, and finally your friends in the pub around you disappear at near light speed!
"Despite not being a total success in the matter of moon mapping"?
There was nothing wrong with the maps derived from Lunar Orbiter 2's images ... Armstrong had to steer the LM away from a boulder field because the LM's flight computer had been given an incorrect initial value for the LM's velocity.
Photographers take note:
So, this stunningly beautiful, perfectly framed and balanced still image -- the 'photograph of the century' no less, and presumably thus the very pinnacle of the form, was taken by a robot...
Photography: the only 'art' where humans aspire to be as good as computers?
Photography can only ever be considered "art" if it is in black and white and contains a slightly soft-focussed naked lady.
In the eye of the boholder
Or a slightly soft naked lady....