Slideshow: NASA says “Hands off our stuff on the moon!”

11/30/2012 3:30 PM EST

Objects were left behind because of their mass and the cost, in terms of energy, that would have been required to return them to Earth.

Quoting from the referenced NASA document: "...this document does not represent mandatory USG or international requirements; rather, it is offered to inform lunar spacecraft mission planners interested in helping preserve and protect lunar historic artifacts..."

"The 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty (OST), which provides, in part:... ...That outer space is not subject to national appropriation" (sucks for the people who are selling moon real estate- they don't own it and probably never will) "...That parties to the treaty retain jurisdiction and control over objects launched into outer space that are listed on their registries, while they are in outer space and that ownership of objects launched into outer space is not affected by their presence in outer space or by their return to Earth..."

US laws apply as well (to US government property).

In other words, no, anyone cannot just salvage the stuff.

Are you a member of the Luna Park Historical Nitpicker Society?

12/7/2012 4:34 PM EST

MaleEngineer wrote: "The 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty (OST), which provides, in part:... ...That outer space is not subject to national appropriation" (sucks for the people who are selling moon real estate- they don't own it and probably never will) "...

No, it sucks for the people who are buying it. The people who are selling it make out just fine.

1/3/2013 9:34 AM EST

Buying it isn't a crime. The people who are selling it could go to jail when people (eventually) figure out that they are selling something they will probably never own! The last time I checked, it was illegal to sell property you don't own.

Still, I also sympathize with the buyers, but caveat emptor.

12/8/2012 3:33 AM EST

Well just to nitpick a little........
Surely you meant "Lunar Park Historical Nitpicker Society?" , the real Luna Park is here in Sydney, Australia . They have lots of roller coasters and fun stuff, not really the habitat of nitpickers .

12/7/2012 11:19 PM EST

Although this is in uncharted legal territory, I would largely agree. These items have not been left in U.S. jurisdiction and a defendant could make a credible argument that they have been abandoned. To which court could such arguments be made? The international court in the Hague? A court in Zeta Reticuli or the Pleiades?

What if (as H-P used to say in their ads) extraterrestrials are on the moon? (UFOs were sighted by astronauts in most or all of the Gemini and Apollo missions, according to the testimonies of several of those astronauts.) Would ETs who are advanced a thousand to a million years over us consider themselves under U.S. jurisdiction? When going boldly where no man has gone before, not only are engineers venturing into new territory; so are lawyers.

12/1/2012 10:26 PM EST

Naw - these folks will claim China re-created it on a set, too. Anything we might say about a China mission would be suspect because (dum-dum-dahhhh) it comes from ... NASA!

Biggest proof we landed on the moon? Russia did not say a word that we faked it. (Aside from the reaction you would get from folks like Buzz who *strongly* objected to being called a liar and fraud. Snicker :^)

12/3/2012 6:23 PM EST

Well, one of my colleagues is a conspiracy theorist, and he makes a good point: why are there no stars in all the pictures? I'm not convinced myself one way or the other, so I'm open to hearing anyone's explanation.

12/4/2012 1:48 PM EST

when you look up at the sky in the day, do you see stars? same thing on the moon!

12/7/2012 4:45 PM EST

The reason you don't see stars during the day here on Earth is the the Sun's light is diffused in our atmosphere, making the sky appear well lit. The starts are not bright enough to shine through. The exception is the planet Venus which is often positioned above the horizon during dawn or dusk and is bright enough to be seen through the atmosphere's diffusion of the sunlight.
The moon has no atmosphere, thus no diffusion. The stars are visible even during the Lunar daytime but might very well not show up in a stopped down photograph. You'd see them if you were standing there, though.

12/4/2012 2:05 PM EST

The moon surface is very bright--hardly any atmosphere. When taking a picture: to get the right exposure for the bright areas ( just about everything on the surface), the exposure is adjusted accordingly.

If the exposure was adjusted to capture the stars, everything on the surface of the moon will be way over exposed to the point that everything is white...but then the stars may show up clearly.

You can actually try this with your camera with adjustable exposure settings. BTW, it won't work for stars during the day time on Earth, because of the atmosphere--it lights up the sky, so the sky itself is bright. You need to do this in a bright outdoor area looking into a dark room for example.

12/7/2012 4:45 PM EST

Ahh, but the stars might also be proportionately brighter and thus one might think that at least some would show up on the photograph. That said, your point is still likely valid.

12/10/2012 1:07 PM EST

Asd mentioned, film photography just doesn't have the dynamic range that even our eye has. The issue is similar to how the eye can discern shadow detail among brightly lit objects better than film. Or how the eye can view an interior and also see a brightly sunlit exterior and have it balanced where a camera will have the inside underexposed or the exterior overexposed. (Sometimes photographers take multiple shots at different exposures and Photoshop them the different areas to make it look like the eye sees it.) Want to test for yourself? Take a photo outdoors at night and of a bright incident light with the star filled sky in the background and let the camera adjust for the bright light as a subject. See if you get any stars.

12/11/2012 8:07 AM EST

I would chalange that our eye has better dynamic range than film. Our eyes have an Iris which will close down or open up based on the brightness of the object being viewed. If you see a bright object, the Iris will close etc.... This does indeed improve dynamic range but it is active across the scene. When a photo is taken, this is not possible. The photographer must select the Iris setting for the area of interest in the photo at the time the photo is taken.
Good film however does have tremendous dynamic range. This allows for over or under exposure in the finish print to bring out detail in dark or bright areas of the scene. The finished print dynamic range is more limited. A process called "dodging" can be performed to reduce the final print exposure for bright areas, preserving detail, and brightening dark areas also bringing out detail for the finished print.

12/7/2012 4:39 PM EST

The moon's surface is highly reflective of the sun's rays. Everything is so bright that, if the aperture/f/gain settings on the cameras are adjusted to get proper exposure of surface images, then the much fainter stellar background appears black. It's all due to the limited optical dynamic range of camera systems. It's like when you take a picture at the beach on a sunny day. You can adjust the exposure to photograph stuff in the shade or stuff in the light, but not both at the same time. One or the another is always under or over exposed.

12/10/2012 11:01 AM EST

I agree. We've abandoned that junk and the U.S. is never going to lead in space or econonic development again. If someone wants to steal it, paint grafitti on it or simply blow it up, I'm ok with that. Sandra's contraceptives is more important than junk.

1/9/2013 9:16 AM EST

Consider this: everything goes full circle. If we abandon the Space program to pay for Sandra Fluke's et al's contraceptives, then Sandra Fluke and her left-wing cohorts don't propagate, die out, and common sense returns to center stage.

12/10/2012 1:01 PM EST

The different shadow angles are the result of different ground slope. Mythbusters made an accurate model showing exactly how this works (as well as debunking other conspiracy myths). Also, if there were multiple lights, we would expect to see some hint of multiple shadows. There is obviously a single light source.

12/10/2012 8:09 PM EST

Just focus on the single shadow of the pole atop the gnomon. Is the shaft a single shaft or multiple/broken and angled shaft? The shadow says three pieces and angled 3 different ways, but it's the terrain that caused the three different angles in the shadow produced by the single, straight shaft.

The lower section is angled vertically, slightly to the left. Midsection angles to the right and the top section is further to the right with even a break in the shadow!

2/8/2013 1:18 PM EST

Combination of lens distortion, terrain, and a point source light. We went there. Several times. We can see many of the landing sites from Earth.

12/14/2012 6:06 PM EST

If we run out of places to dump our garbage, I guess Mars in next! We already have a head start at that---then there's Voyager---it's going to pollute another galaxy:) Just kidding---Space exploration rules!! There are worse ways that we spend money in our government.

Last year Fox news reported on government waste and inefficiencies released by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The report identifies billions of dollars in potential savings if Congress just had the will to streamline initiatives that target politically popular causes.