Posted on 04/06/2025 1:45:59 PM PDT by MtnClimber
Explanation: Why are there so many moonquakes? Analyses of seismometers left on the moon during the Apollo moon landings reveal a surprising number of moonquakes occurring within 100 kilometers of the surface. In fact, 62 moonquakes were detected in data recorded between 1972 and 1977. Many of these moonquakes are not only strong enough to move furniture in a lunar apartment, but the stiff rock of the moon continues to vibrate for many minutes, significantly longer than the softer rock earthquakes on Earth. The cause of the moonquakes remains unknown, but a leading hypothesis include tidal gravity from -- and relative heating by -- our Earth. Regardless of the source, future moon dwellings need to be built to withstand the frequent shakings. Pictured here, Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin stands beside a recently deployed lunar seismometer, looking back toward the lunar landing module.
For more detail go to the link and click on the image for a high definition image. You can then move the magnifying glass cursor then click to zoom in and click again to zoom out. When zoomed in you can scan by moving the side bars on the bottom and right side of the image.
🪐 🌟 🌌 🍔
After about six beers, the Moon does begin to wobble a little bit.
When you start shooting arrows at it, then it does seem to dodge and weave.
Whatever you do, don’t tell Buzz that’s fake.
After careful observation of the shadows and other stuff I’ve concluded that video of Buzz punching that moron is a fake!
Cool photo.
:)
You round eyes are behind because you eat hot dogs while our starving masses motivated workers eat real dogs so protein not wasted. Message done now maybe me not get shot.
I knew it was hollow! I just knew it!
Is it made of American Cheese? Should we call it the American Moon?
"significantly longer than the softer rock earthquakes on Earth"
After Canada and Greenland we should take the moon as out 53rd state
It’s Swiss, until we land on it. THEN we can call it American…
Given the absence of an atmosphere and any sources of light pollution, how come the sky in that picture doesn’t show a whole bunch of stars? (not saying it’s faked, just curious as hell).
The scene is in very bright sunlight and the camera’s exposure settings are dialed down to avoid total blowout of the brighter surfaces. Compared to those surfaces, the stars are very dim and therefore essentially don’t show up. The film of those days did not have a huge dynamic range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.