Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

Chandrayaan-1 starts observations of the Moon
Picture of the lunar polar region taken by Chandrayaan-1's Terrain Mapping Camera (TMC) on 15 November 2008. Taken over the polar region of the moon, the picture shows many large and small craters. To the lower left, is the brightly-lit rim of 117 km-wide Moretus crater. Credit: ISRO

India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

"The images captured by a hyper-spectral camera fitted as a part of Chandrayaan-I... has reconfirmed the veracity of the Apollo 15 mission," said Prakash Chauhan, from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

NASA's 12-day Apollo 15 mission in 1971 was the first designed to explore the surface of the in great detail and over a long period.

But it and others in the Apollo project, including the in 1969, when astronauts first stepped on the moon, have been the subject of a catalogue of conspiracy theories ever since.

Chauhan said Chandrayaan-I, which launched late last year, located the Apollo 15 by identifying disturbances on the moon's dark surface.

"The disturbed surface is bright," he said, in a presentation in the western state of Goa, where a conference on space missions is being held.

"Our images also show tracks left behind by the lunar rovers which were used by the astronauts."

US, Japanese and Russian scientists have previously found evidence of Apollo 15's landing site by studying photographs.

Chauhan said Chandrayaan-I's findings were further, "independent corroboration" of the landing, adding to other evidence of the Apollo missions, including photographs and analysis of rock samples.

The images were among 70,000 taken by the Chandrayaan-I craft before the mission was aborted last weekend. Scientists blamed a computer malfunction for cutting communications with the orbiter.

(c) 2009 AFP


Explore further

LROC's first look at the Apollo landing sites

Citation: Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist (2009, September 2) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 02, 2009
i'd like to believe this is all true....

...just the faking of "half-way" to the moon shots a a day before they "stepped" on it, being 3 days away... lets see.

Sep 02, 2009
Although I do not disbelieve that we reached the moon, it's not clear exactly what the photo attached to this story is evidence for.

Is there a link to a higher-resolution shot? This one doesn't show anything unusual.

Sep 02, 2009
@dave999: Moretus crater is about 1200 miles south of the Apollo 15 landing site. No one has posted a link to images AFAIK.

Sep 02, 2009
WOW! I'm totally amazed that people would willingly admit that they believe all the moon landings were faked. Unbelievable! Do these people not realize how incredibly uneducated and unintelligent they sound to the world?

Unbelievable!

Sep 02, 2009
"All the moon landings"? How "educated" and "intelligent" do you think that sounds?
---
There was more than one, you know.

As for it being easy to fake, that's an attitude I see mostly among people who don't have much understanding of what was actually involved or all of the material and documentation that went into and came out of the program. Maybe the general public could have been fooled, but no credentialed scientist or engineer of any significance anywhere in the world has expressed the least skepticism about the Moon landings in the last 40 years.

Sep 02, 2009
What are you folks doing on a science web site? People have landed and walked on the moon. They left a mirror. You can check for yourself.
There are people in orbit right now. You do believe that don't you?

Sep 02, 2009
I avoid ad hominem attacks at all costs - but this is the exception. If you think that we didn't land on the moon, you're an idiot. If you're even "skeptical" in the common use of the term, you're either an idiot or you've done your best to avoid seeing any of the evidence.

Even if you don't trust any of the photos taken, there are two nails in this coffin. The first is the "mirror" as gattigar pointed out (it's actually not just a flat mirror, but a series of cells that each have three orthogonal mirrors so that any light coming in is reflected directly back at the sender). It allows us to use lasers to determine the distance to the surface of the moon.

The other nail is the video footage of movement on the moon. It cannot be faked in a 1g environment. Not with harnesses, not with slow motion - the movement is just never right. It cannot possibly be a sound stage.

More ad hominem: this, like virtually all conspiracy theories, is just a way for morons to feel like they have a leg up on the intelligent and educated.

Sep 02, 2009
Of course, we're getting all worked up when these moon-landing-deniers are probably just trolls trying to stir up some anger...

Sep 02, 2009
Thank you all for your comment. This issue, which has been pestering the nation for decades, is now resolved completely. Your arguments are so solid that nobody can deny that there both was and wasn't a moon landing and that this is and isn't a giant hoax. I recommend that you look back on your years of bickering fondly, you clearly enjoy it so.

Sep 03, 2009
The point of the "not landing on the moon" argument is that APOLLO 11 DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON. The subsequent flights undoubtably achieved their objective and several sites have been photographed.



Until the Apollo 11 landing site been imaged I will keep an open mind. Dig into it and there were some odd things about that mission.



Anyone who wants to know how big the government's lies can get should read "Gold Warriors" by Peggy and Sterling Seagrave. Then a lie as trivial as a faked moon landing won't seem quite so ridiculous.



Note to "Sonhouse":

I seriously doubt that you are what you claim.



Apollo 11 "brought back" 21.7 kg. of rocks, not 800 pounds.



Apollo 11 21.7 kilograms
Apollo 12 34.4
Apollo 14 42.9
Apollo 15 76.8
Apollo 16 94.7
Apollo 17 110.5

As for your claim of no water, see Alberto Saal of Brown University.



As for the reflector - they used corner cube reflectors. Whatever direction the light enters, it goes back in that same direction. No biggie there.



If you worked at Goddard you wouldn't mind telling us your name would you?

Sep 03, 2009
Anyone with any experience of conspiracy-theorists will know that you will not convince them. Every piece of evidence you present is 'faked', and if you persist, you become part of the conspiracy, which allows them to shut their ears.

If they want to believe it, let them. Don't give them column inches by debating with them on what is presumably a scientific article forum.

Sep 03, 2009
WOW! I would never had thought I'd read such ignorant comments like this on this site. Did ELVIS feed you this stuff? ...or maybe we're really in the matrix?

Note to "Sonhouse":



I seriously doubt that you are what you claim.







Apollo 11 "brought back" 21.7 kg. of rocks, not 800 pounds.







Apollo 11 21.7 kilograms

Apollo 12 34.4

Apollo 14 42.9

Apollo 15 76.8

Apollo 16 94.7

Apollo 17 110.5


He never said that Apollo 11 brought back 800 lbs of rocks. He OBVIOUSLY meant the Apollo missions to the moon brought that much back. And if you add up YOUR numbers they equal 838.2 lbs of moon rock. Leave it to a NASA employee to add in a margin of error...just in case :)

Sep 03, 2009
if they've been to the moon once, why didn't they go twice or perhaps dozens of times? if that was true then US should have a military base on the moon by now!

Sep 03, 2009
The whole moon hoax thing is not helped by the fact that Nasa almost certainly went in for some 'creative photoshopping' on some of the images. That sows a seed of doubt that gets expounded by those who enjoy the idea of huge conspiracies and secrets being kept from them.

The facts are clear:

1. Thousands of people worked on the moon landings, many of them on crapola salaries. In the 40 years since, do you not think one of them would go for the money by exposiing this? It would be a LOT of money.

2. US were hated by several powerful foreign powers at the time, Russia and China notably. Both had the technology to track the mission by radar. Both had the ability to get directional and distance information from the radio transmission from the surface.

3. The scientific equipment left by the missions has been used over and over again by numerous international academic organisations, including Russia, notably the visibly light mirrors as previousy mentioned. It is fairly trivial for anyone on earth with a laser and some precision alignment equipment to test this out.

4. Most damning of all, the people who believe in a moon hoax usually also believe in alien abduction, lizard people, the loch ness monster and angels. Not a rigorous scientific proof, I rgrant you, but it does reflect on how thoroughly they research their subjects.

Sep 03, 2009
When I was a kid attending the Joint Embassy School in Jakarta, Indonesia, which included embassy kids from behind the Iron Curtain, we had show and tell each Monday morning. In 1972 I was in 6 th grade at JES. One day during show and tell Sasha, a kid from Poland brought in a Pravada newspaper with a big Cyrillic headline that "proved" Americans had faked the moon landing in hollywood-style stage set in Florida.

Needless to say, we American kids were outraged and utterly shocked that our classmates, Frenchies, Brits, Aussies, Dutch, Sur Americanos and German friends were smugly delighted by Sasha's revelation. I remembered this when 9/11 occurred and among our so-called friends was the same sense of smug "chicken coming home to roost" delight I had experienced as a child.

The lesson: We may well have allies and friends in the world, but the bottom line is that they stand with us because we are strong but they will abandon us the moment we weaken. President Obama attended the same school in Jakarta, although he was younger. One wonders what lessons he learned?


Sep 03, 2009
You couldn't convince a conspiracy theorist if you flew them to the moon, let them walk around and gather their own rocks...they'd come back and say that they were drugged and made to "remember" the experience, and that the moon rocks they were holding were plain old Earth rocks.

Try proving to someone that the earth is round. When you go outside and look it looks pretty flat no amount of convincing would prove it to them. Remember the old argument: the Earth can't be round--and SPINNING nontheless!! if it were, we would all be flung off.

Sep 03, 2009
btw, yawningdog,

the Apollo 11 site HAS been imaged:

http://lroc.sese....Site.pdf

Sep 03, 2009
What I do think is that some folks have a peculiar double standard in how they generally think that politicians, and bankers, and whatever, are liars and corrupt, and acknowledge governments today are inherently manipulative and deceptive, but then think something like 9/11 and moon landing conspiracies are so far-fetched. I just see them as easily accomplished with the available resources. But hey, if your worldviews are more pleasing than mine, that's great.


At least a Moon Landing conspiracy theory would have a motive. I'm surprised people still think 9/11 was a conspiracy... if it was, talk about "Conspiracy FAIL"

The moon landing was pretty well publicized, leading me to believe that there must have been a plethora... a veritable cornucopia... of people out there with large telescopes watching the landing. These in addition to all the others that would've called a foul...

Sep 03, 2009
if they've been to the moon once, why didn't they go twice or perhaps dozens of times? if that was true then US should have a military base on the moon by now!


They did go more than once, they went 6 times between 1969 and 1972. It would have been 7 if Apollo 13 hadn't malfunctioned. Apollo 17 was the last Apollo mission to successfully land on the moon.

Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were canned due to budgetary cuts, although 18 was used to dock with Soyuz as a test. This is the real reason we haven't gone back. The entire Apollo program is estimated to have cost $25 billion. That's the equivalent of $140 billion in today's money.

We paid that then because Kennedy wanted to, and there was a 'space race' going on at the time where nobody wanted Russia to get there first. Now we have other priorities.

No conspiracy, just plain old govt budgets.

Sep 03, 2009
At least a Moon Landing conspiracy theory would have a motive. I'm surprised people still think 9/11 was a conspiracy... if it was, talk about "Conspiracy FAIL"

I do not believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy (if there was, I have seriously underestimated the evil of man), but the motive would be the same as just about any other. Power. Look at how much power and control it allowed the federal government to exert. Policies were enacted that would have been unthinkable in any other circumstance (and should have been in this circumstance). It was ultimately used to justify a war (maybe you heard of that?) and the violation of human rights at home and abroad. No motive. Sheesh! Where have you been for the past 8 years?

Sep 03, 2009
My high-school chemistry teacher asked, "if someone kicked a lead football on the moon, would it hurt as much as on Earth?" Only 1 of 30 students understood the answer. It is a miracle that a small percentage of Americans believe the moon landings were faked. It is difficult to legitimately question it and conclude they are are real because so much is contrary to Earth experience and the question crosses many fields: physics/politics/chemistry/astronomy/electronics/video/metallurgy/geology/etc. It seems there are new hoax arguments everyday and some are pretty good but they *all* fall apart with research. Stupidity is much easier.

Sep 03, 2009
@People making up motives for things
It's not a motive if the costs greatly outweight the benefits. Saying 9/11 was used to invade privacy, invade foreign countries, etc. is like saying you're going to smash yourself in the face with a hammer to pop a zit. Not only would it clearly cause more damage than benefit, there are also MANY other more effective ways to accomplish the task. It's not worth going in to detail in a "moon landing" article to discuss what those things are, though.

Sep 03, 2009
@ NotAsleep

That was a pretty naive statement. It's not a cost if you don't have to pay. As in, if 9/11 was a conspiracy then "they" (the conspirators) successfully dished the cost off to terrorism. So the cost was zero, the benefit was crazy amounts of power and control. Again, playing the devil's advocate here.

Sep 03, 2009
One conspiracy at a time folks. Take the 9/11 discussion elsewhere.

Sep 03, 2009
N_O_M Kiss my ass. Who made you king here? You want to make a suggestion, ok, but dont go thru like a jackass 1/5ing everybody you dont like
Yeah, I suppose you're right. There hasn't been enough discussion about the 9/11 conspiracy. Go right ahead.

Sep 03, 2009
OK. Rocks. What can't be faked is the He3 content in the Apollo moon rocks.

Sep 04, 2009
Heres a good one:

http://www.theoni...ces_neil

-Better send Neil those pics fast!


Yeah...here's another little diddy from that "highly respectable site" http://www.theoni..._willing
You must be kidding

Sep 04, 2009
You must be kidding
Another poor Pudel born without a sense of humor. Smoker no doubt.

No. An Ex-smoker! lol

Sep 05, 2009
btw, yawningdog,
the Apollo 11 site HAS been imaged:
http://lroc.sese....Site.pdf


I wonder: has LROC imaged the 'missing' Lunokhod yet? To my thinking, those missions have great historic value as well - after all; they were the first rovers ever.

And speaking of astounding Soviet achievements, would there ever be any chance of learning how well the Venera landers have stood up over the decades? They are of great historic value as well, of course - the very first landings on another planet, ever... and the most difficult planet to even think of landing anything on, at that! The fact that they continued functioning for entire hours under those hellish conditions is still utterly mind-boggling... I wonder what's left of them now?

Sep 05, 2009
Picture of the lunar polar region taken by Chandrayaan-1's Terrain Mapping Camera (TMC) on 15 November 2008. Taken over the polar region of the moon, the picture shows many large and small craters. To the lower left, is the brightly-lit rim of 117 km-wide Moretus crater. Credit: ISRO


nothing said about it showing the apollo 15 landingside. just a hook for the moonnerds.

me myself haven't been to the moon, nor have measured any he3 content in any rocks. so i still think someone painted it up the sky or i just dont care.

Sep 06, 2009
Screenshot or it didn't happen!

Seriously, why do these stories never contain the images they talk about?
I guess if they did I would be screaming "Photoshopped"!

Sep 06, 2009
OBVIOUSLY, the Indians are in on the conspiracy.

Heh heh..

Sep 06, 2009

I guess if they did I would be screaming "Photoshopped"!

OBVIOUSLY, the Indians are in on the conspiracy.





Heh heh..


great! :D




Sep 07, 2009
In defense of the conspiracy people (inside and outside the country) - they don't hate the gov or NASA for faking the landing, its just they don't like lies. Anyone saying its too big to be faked and theres no way everyone would keep their mouth shut about their involvement don't realize how small a team it would really take.

Lets say for the sake of argument:

They launched the Apollo 11 rocket but it never actually went to the moon, just orbited the planet. Now everyone who worked on the rocket and capsule within the agency could have done everything they were supposed to do on the assumption that the mission really was the moon. That right there is the majority of the people involved. Who's left? The controllers in the command center (people competing directly with the Russian space agency). how many would need to be in on the conspiracy? Only the ones who needed to be sure of the actual rockets path - something that could be done in a closed room away from the rest of the NASA staff (very probably not even at the NASA location).

As for the footage? Couple guys in spacesuits some sand some wires and a cameraman.

And on the 'return' mission any artifacts necessary could be placed by the astronauts (footprints and flag) without any knowledge from the NASA staff at all (just needed a flag).

I can't say thats too many people to keep quiet (especially if those participating came up with the idea which is possible).

Side note - 2 out of the 3 Apollo 11 astronauts committed suicide (not proof but people who kill themselves typically have something large bothering them and lying about an achievement like that to entire world could wear an honest man down).

Second side note - recently tested rocks given to the Dutch from the Apollo 11 mission (given directly form the astronauts) were revealed to be fakes (either they intended to play a prank or they didn't actually have any moon rocks).

And everything I said (except that last bit about the rocks) could be wrong but can't completely be dismissed as an impossibility.

Sep 07, 2009
Side note - 2 out of the 3 Apollo 11 astronauts committed suicide (not proof but people who kill themselves typically have something large bothering them and lying about an achievement like that to entire world could wear an honest man down).


Erm, all 3 Apollo 11 astronauts are still alive and well. This sort of easy-to-verify statement does nothing for the varacity of the rest of your post.

Sep 07, 2009
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but this man actually behaves has he has something BIG to hide. His reaction is excessive:

http://www.youtub...rWvEHPK8

Armstrong's behavoiur has always been strange, too.
I don't know what to think about the whole story.

Sep 07, 2009
If they had been faked, the Soviets would have told the entire world at the time. They and the US were competitors, and they had the ability to track the Apollo flights by radar. They wouldn't have kept quiet just to make the US look good!


Conspiracy theorists don't think things through. Paranoia is their business. They're more slimy and despicable than the enemies in their fiction.

My favorite conspiracy debunking Youtube video.
http://www.youtub...3iQqTdns

Meanwhile, Myria, if you were invited to an interview under false pretenses you'd probably be pretty pissed too. Aldrin went to the interview for his book and got jumped by a conspiracy nut. I'm surprised he didn't punch him during that meeting and thankful he did later on.

Because that's what these people need. A strong knock to the head.

Sep 07, 2009
To answer about the radio signal (I didn't know personally myself but I just looked it up) you can bounce radio signals off of the moon. And it doesn't even sound difficult from what I've read.

(ugh checked the suicide thing though - I repeated what I heard from someone who was misinformed and I'm sorry for wasting your time - I'll check everything first before I stick my beak in next time)

Sep 07, 2009
I do not believe moon-landing skeptics exist. They are just pretending, out of fear of seeming normal. ...or out of fear of being swallowed up by Purple People Eaters from Mars.

Sep 07, 2009
As for the radio signals, ask a Ham Radio operator. Hundreds or thousands of radio enthusiasts were tracking and monitoring things like sputnik and Apollo.
From the doppler shift it is an easy excercise to determine the velocity of a spacecraft. Hams monitored the radio transmissions.

And Gideon, as for bouncing radio off the moon, yes this is "easy" hams do it. What would be more difficult is to have that radio signal mirror the doppler and time lags through its WHOLE flight along with amateur telescopes that could track the launch...the far more plausible occurance is that we landed on the moon.

Sep 07, 2009
They launched the Apollo 11 rocket but it never actually went to the moon, just orbited the planet. Now everyone who worked on the rocket and capsule within the agency could have done everything they were supposed to do on the assumption that the mission really was the moon. That right there is the majority of the people involved. Who's left? The controllers in the command center (people competing directly with the Russian space agency). how many would need to be in on the conspiracy? Only the ones who needed to be sure of the actual rockets path - something that could be done in a closed room away from the rest of the NASA staff (very probably not even at the NASA location).

The people who were designing and building the rockets, the capsules and the landers would have known the physics. They would have known whether what they were building would make it to the Moon or not.
So if they built something that could go to the Moon, why fake it?

... and if Apollo 11, and all the others, just orbited the Earth, the Russians, the Chinese, even the Australians, would have noticed.

Sep 08, 2009
You couldn't convince a conspiracy theorist if you flew them to the moon, let them walk around and gather their own rocks...they'd come back and say that they were drugged and made to "remember" the experience, and that the moon rocks they were holding were plain old Earth rocks.

I bet that if you gave them the chance of going for a walk outside without a suit, they'd soon change their mind.

Sep 10, 2009
-There is Order at the top, not Chaos.


For anyone with any sort of experience at the 'top', the opposite is, in fact, true.

Sep 10, 2009
Lets say for the sake of argument:

They launched the Apollo 11 rocket but it never actually went to the moon, just orbited the planet. Now everyone who worked on the rocket and capsule within the agency could have done everything they were supposed to do on the assumption that the mission really was the moon. That right there is the majority of the people involved. Who's left? The controllers in the command center (people competing directly with the Russian space agency). how many would need to be in on the conspiracy? Only the ones who needed to be sure of the actual rockets path - something that could be done in a closed room away from the rest of the NASA staff (very probably not even at the NASA location).


You're leaving out most of the personnel at the various tracking stations around the world, who have to point their antennas in the right direction and track the spacecraft as it moves, not to mention the virtual impossibility of maintaining constant communication under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, to fake the footage - and we're talking dozens of hours' worth - you don't just need cameramen, you need props guys, special effects people, people to deal with the wires, basically most of the people you need to make a movie, possibly even more people than you need to make a movie. Rent "Apollo 13" sometime and sit through the 7-minute credit roll to see how many it would really take.



Sep 10, 2009
Lets say for the sake of argument:

They launched the Apollo 11 rocket but it never actually went to the moon, just orbited the planet. Now everyone who worked on the rocket and capsule within the agency could have done everything they were supposed to do on the assumption that the mission really was the moon. That right there is the majority of the people involved. Who's left? The controllers in the command center (people competing directly with the Russian space agency). how many would need to be in on the conspiracy? Only the ones who needed to be sure of the actual rockets path - something that could be done in a closed room away from the rest of the NASA staff (very probably not even at the NASA location).


You're leaving out most of the personnel at the various tracking stations around the world, who have to point their antennas in the right direction and track the spacecraft as it moves, not to mention the virtual impossibility of maintaining constant communication under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, to fake the footage - and we're talking dozens of hours' worth - you don't just need cameramen, you need props guys, special effects people, people to deal with the wires, basically most of the people you need to make a movie, possibly even more people than you need to make a movie. Rent "Apollo 13" sometime and sit through the 7-minute credit roll to see how many it would really take.



Sep 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more