It’s easy to forget that our view of the Moon with all of the maria is special.

It’s easy to forget that our view of the Moon with all of the maria is special. The far side of the moon is much plainer looking.

More info:

46 replies on “It’s easy to forget that our view of the Moon with all of the maria is special.”

  1. Who do you think will land next on the Moon ?

    Will it be Israel, India, Japan, USA or an international team ?

    They all have to safely land on the moon in the next few months.

    Is anyone aware of the launch dates ?

    Google get to keep their millions if no country is successful.

  2. MyCatFooed No. The farside has been thoroughly photographed and has had the same scrutiny as the nearside. We have LIDAR maps to a few hundred metres of resolution from Clementine and photogrammetry from Lunar Orbiter (50 years ago) through to the current LRO.

    More recently we’ve had Selene and SMART-1 map virtually the whole moon.

    We could always use better spectral imaging at tighter resolutions, and of course, ground truth and core samples from wider spread locations would be nice.

    But we know what farside looks like.

  3. MyCatFooed Well, if you look at the data sets that we have, you’ll see that the farside is somewhat plainer than nearside.

    The absence of maria, for one, is curious.

    May I ask what you think is of particular interest about the farside?

    (aside from its absence of maria, etc.)

  4. James Garry Well, I don’t believe that anywhere near a majority of even Americans have ever even viewed one image of the far side. That fact alone makes it almost by definition, interesting.

  5. Jaymi Davern​​ No, the Hebrew word for deceive/beguile is “nasha”. Not the acronym N.A.S.A for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    The full “dark” side of the Moon can easily be seen on a clearish night, when it’s a new Moon.

    The “far” side of the Moon can’t be seen by us standing on Earth, but was photographed first by the Soviets in 1959 by the “real spacecraft-probe” Luna 3.

    If you didn’t only have a two digit IQ, you could clearly discern the difference between the spellings and meanings, not just mindlessly parrot ridiculously​ unsubstantiated FE ideologies as fact, because you are a programmed FE cult subscriber.

    Yes the stars, and the “planet” Earth move.

    This is, and can be scientifically measured by doppler shift of stars, abberation of starlight, parallax, proper “heliocentric” motion, etc.

    There are stars that have noticeably moved just in mere decades. Barnard’s star for one, and others are easily looked up by “reputable and credible sources”. Or you could take some time and actually do “real research”, and track the motions yourself.

    But you’re not about to do any real science.

    Like other flat Earthers, you think “research and science” is done online, watching bogus pseudoscience FE YouTube videos, then copy and pasting the idiotic fallacies like you did in here. Whereas, I’ve actually worked in an Observatory, doing tracking, long exposure photography, etc.

    So please quit being a tool for stupidity, with your repeating of falsehoods.

  6. Mr. Botha: No, your conspiracy information is taken vastly out of context. Nothing new…

    The Orion Scientist you’re referring to, is named Kelly Smith. Try and remember some names and facts when you start your misinformed slandering of organisations and humankind’s monumental feats.

    Kelly Smith’s concerns is whether or not “his” spacecraft; The Orion, can successfully pass through the perilous Van Allen Radiation Belts. Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dumbie craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment, for prolonged periods of time, as much as two years.

    Remember it was being designed to possibly travel to Mars.

    As for the Apollo Lunar missions; mainly Apollo XI, there is sufficient data on radiation doses measured, and their path of least harm through the VARB, to the Moon, and back.

    A small sample..

    Also, the 1988 NASA Reference Publication 1207, Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, page 30, is a simplified linear model. Which used simplified calculations because it would be much more difficult to account for atmospheric conditions, curvature or rotation of the Earth when modeling aircraft stability, so those factors were deemed unnecessary and left out.

    The top of the line computer back in 87/88 was a Cray. Capable of just 333 megaflops per second at the time. Tons of time and inefficient computing power would have been needed using real world intangibles, and factors.

    Today’s home gaming PCs can do 4, 5, 6, teraflops per second.

    Models like this were; and still to an extent today, used by Avionic companies all the time then.

    Taken out of context, again, and again.

  7. Andrew Botha​ Andrew, a long time ago I worked as a trajectory engineer for a national aerospace entity. I studied launch vehicles, proposed and actual, running Fortran 77 codes to optimize payloads to orbit. For four years I worked alongside engineers from Antonov, MBB-Erno, and Aeroapatiale.

    It was commonplace to assume, for first-cut figures, a plane earth. More refined studies which addressed vehicles that spent a significant amount of time loitering at a given altitude (in near level flight) used a spherical earth. I recall one scramjet/rocket configuration that took 120degrees of longitude to reach orbit – so poor was its acceleration.

    In the same way that a sailor, when navigating over short distances, uses ‘plane sailing’ as their guide.

    I can provide contacts and references for these statements. What are your credentials?

  8. Andrew Botha My dear brother Andrew, please understand that I can certainly understand that you have many doubts as to believing a good many facts put out there by our government. I really do. I hardly believe a word myself these days, but man, I’m here to tell you, we’ve been in space so many times that it’s difficult to keep track of the exact number!

    If you just do the math of some very basic fundamental physics — using more basic algebra & geometry, you’ll quickly understand that space travel is quite easily achievable with our technologies!

    You don’t strike me as an unintelligent man, so please, just use your own observations to come to a conclusion.

    I’m quite certain that if you just objectively study all of the different space programs that have been in existence, you’ll easily conclude that almost everything that you’ve been told regarding space, a round earth, travelling to our moon — it has all happened. It’s not a lie. Just try to remain objective when studying our achievements in space.

  9. Chris Dolan

    I’m speaking to the greater crowd of those who are easily swayed.

    If the airwaves are filled only with falsehoods and trickery, can we be surprised if those ideas then start to have real-world influence?

  10. Красивая картина! Более миллиона трехсот тысяч посмотрели в Ютубе!

    Учёные считают – темные пятна залежи льда! Будет куда человечеству переселиться!

  11. Vasilj Milosevic есть выражение – обратная сторона Луны, невидимая нам, землянам. Луна не вращается и мы видим только один ее бок! Из за чего тут такие дебаты и споры!?

  12. Ket Farns вращение Луны вокруг своей оси и вращение вокруг Земли – это разные вещи!

    Миллионы лет человечество не видели обратную сторону Луны! А увидело на фото первых советских спутников в 1959-1960.

    Всех приглашаю в планетарий!

  13. Виктор Зажигин​ We don’t see both sides because its tidally locked to the Earth; always showing the near side facing the Earth.

    If you have a soccer ball, and set it on the floor, representing the Earth. And for the Moon, a baseball. Now if you held the baseball, and circled the soccer ball so the the same side of the baseball is always pointing at the the soccer ball. You will observe from above, that the baseball does rotate once for every full circle around the soccer ball.

    If you now keep the baseball in one position, and circle it around the soccer ball, you will observe from above, that from the soccer ball’s perspective, it would show all sides of the baseball.

    Yes I remember the Soviet Luna 3 being the first to photograph the far side of the Moon. Yet they weren’t the first to publish the pictures.

  14. Виктор Зажигин jeste, Mesec se ne rotira u odnosu na planetu Zemlju, ali se zajedno sa planetom zemljom rotira oko Sunca i samim tim su mu svi delovi u nekom momentu osvetljeni. Što od Sunca, što od Jupitera. To što mi ne vidimo drugu stranu meseca, ne znači da tamo nema ništa ili da nema “nikad” svetlosti.

  15. Ket Farns clarify what you’re saying. Yes it rotates, around the central axis of the earth! Every living thing on this planet sees the exact same lunar face every time it appears, no? Thankyou.

  16. Joseph Zwarycz Clarify?

    So the video I submitted, wasn’t a simple enough explanation for you?


    We see the same Lunar side of the Moon, because the Moon rotates around Earth’s axis once, the same amount of time it takes to orbit the Earth once. “Synchronized rotation”.

    Think about it.

    If the Moon was stationary, and did not rotate; aside from it orbiting the Earth, we could see it ‘appear’ to slowly spin every night when it was in veiw.

    We would also see both hemispheres (sides) per one orbital period.

    I can’t explain it any simpler than that to an adult. So if you didn’t view the video, I suggest you do.

    And if these explanations still don’t make sense, well have fun denying it rotates, there’s suitable company aplenty.

  17. You funny guy Ket the moon spinner. Try this little mind experiment. Your frame of reference is sitting on the side of the moon that constantly faces the Earth, now, you tell me Ket, does your view ever deviate from your seemingly permanent, constant view of our beautiful blue home? Well? Right. Clarify it, the reason out appears not to spin/rotate whatever, is because the thing orbits around the Earths central axis! 😛 Spare me Cheeses matey, you’re doing my head in with obviously common sencical but honestly, bloody meaningless Huge New Discovery. Study entities a little further afield for truley mind blowing phenomena! 😛 O:-)

  18. Joseph Zwarycz If it was just my opinion, or something I came up with, you’d have more than a valid argument. However, a bunch of psychobabble doesn’t change the established scientific facts.

Comments are closed.