New Lunar Photos Give Proof That Our Flags Are Still There

New photographs of the moon by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera reveal that flags planted by Apollo astronauts are still “flying” after more than four decades. Each of the six manned Apollo missions planted flags at their landing sites, and it now appears that all but one — the flag planted by Neil Armstrong was blown over upon their departure — are still standing. The photographs were taken at different times of the day, and show small shadows rotating around the locations where the flags were planted.

What the flags look like, however, is a different question: they’ve probably experienced a good deal of deterioration due to the ultraviolet light and temperatures found on the surface of the moon.

(via NY Daily News)

Image credits: Photographs by NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University

  • benjii

    I wish to dream its true, but if the can fake a landing they can fake(pshop) a photo too . :P…this doesnt confirm its true. Once I have been there Im not 100% sure ;)

  • Matt

    Wow, they are still commited to that hoax… LOL Cool shots.

  • branden rio


  • Jake

    Wow, people are still committed to thinking it’s a hoax… Well done, conspiracy nuts!

  • AT

    you are f*cking fake idiot!

  • Zak Henry

    I haven’t been there, so I’m not convinced China exists.

  • DreDre

    Well, if you think China does not exist, please go back to High School and finish your studies. Lazy American.

  • Zak Henry

    I assume your accusation of me being a “Lazy American” makes you not an American so maybe English isn’t your first language, giving you reasonable excuse for overlooking the satirical nature of my post. Besides, I’m from New Zealand.

  • Adrian S

    Hey, how difficult is to take a picture of that from earth? We have telescopes that can see a lot of stuff, we can see deep space galaxies but we can’t see a flag on the moon.
    I don’t know what it takes for an amateur photographer / astronomer to actually take a photo of this, but it’s strange that nobody did.

  • Chris

    Not just difficult – physically impossible. The resolving power simply isn’t there for an Earth based telescope – not even the Hubble telescope with its seeing-free diffraction limited resolution can resolve details that fine at that distance. The trick is that, while all the lovely galaxies and nebulae we point our telescopes at are a long way away, they’re simply a *lot* larger. It’s an interesting little exercise to calculate the size/distance ratio for some of the more famous astronomical objects and compare it to that of, say, one of the LM descent stages on the Moon.

  • mike

    yeah i went to the muesum in NY that had a bunch of the photos on the was from the 60’s, I wasn’t sure before then, but after then I’m absolutely sure that they want there, you can’t fake THAT many photos at that quality level, just be easier to go there! :P

  • sooty

    Zak. I laughed at your post….didn’t think kiwi’s had a sense of humour ;-)

  • Sam

    Blackened and burnt from the fireball that wouldn’t exist, since there is no atmosphere or oxygen on the moon?

  • James Smith

    You probably think the WWE is real and the moon landings are fake. What a recommendation for your intelligence!

    BTW, it should be “it’s” as in “it is” but your educational level speaks more aobut you than your opinions.

  • rhobere

    The moon’s gravity is one sixth as strong as the Earth’s plus it has no atmosphere which is the hardest thing to overcome in a rocket launch on Earth. I saw a pressure calculation in a physics class which showed that the pressure exerted on the ground by the lunar lander’s rockets would actually be less than the pressure exerted by an astronaut standing on one foot. So it really isn’t as intense of a launch as you may think. It wouldn’t be obliterating anything.

    More importantly, they aren’t in an atmosphere so they couldn’t light anything on fire. futhermore, the lunar modules used hypergolic fuels that contain no carbon. therefore its products don’t char a surface.