Remembering Apollo’s Last Moonwalk

Today marks the thirty-ninth anniversary of the last Apollo mission’s, Apollo 17’s, final moonwalk. On December 13, 1972, Commander (and Apollo 10 veteran) Gene Cernan and Lunar Module Pilot Jack Schmitt made their last of three lunar EVAs. NASA commemorated the anniversary by posted this image of Schmitt on the moon as its “Image of the Day.” I commemorated the anniversary with a look at some mission details and a few interesting facts about the lunar-walking crew members. Read the article at Universe Today.


  • Greg Mauro says:

    Check out David McGowan’s “Center for an informed America”, wagging the moondoggie. We didn’t go to the moon 40 years ago and we couldn’t do it now!

  • Steven says:

    You sir Greg are an Idiot.

  • NotGregThankGod says:

    Indeed. They located the lunar lander site some months ago. If you have a telescope powerful enough, you can see it with your own eyes. I think it’s really time that moon-landing conspiracy crap was laid to rest.

  • Scott says:

    Wow Greg, you are as dumb as they come.

  • Grant tux says:

    yes, after getting away with the most elaborate hoax in history and fooling the world, N.A.S.A thought it would be best to go and attempt the same hoax 5 more times just for giggles. what a bunch of practical jokers!

  • 1111Matt says:

    Really? Why is there no stars in the sky in every picture?
    secondly how the fuck do you launch off the moon without a launching pad ?? and land ? and all the pictures of the apollo looks like tin foil shit.

    • Brad says:

      Can’t tell if you’re a troll or a genuine moron.

    • There are no stars because of how bright it is on the moon. The stars are much dimmer than the light reflecting off of the moon into the camera, so in order to capture the stars in the image you would essentially have to overexpose the image so that everything else is basically whitewashed.

      Launching off the moon without a launch pad? I guess that VTOL aircraft can’t take off or land without a launch pad either. Not to mention that since gravity is much less on the moon the amount of force needed to slow down to the surface and the amount of force needed to break way from the gravitational pull are much less.

      The “tin foil shit” is foil, you have that right. It’s thermal foil. The foil was used to help regulate the interior temperature of the lander module. It reflected heat during the periods of sunlight, and insulated the interior for periods without sunlight.

    • Jim says:

      We got another idiot down here people. Looks like this one’s been living in a hole for some time.

    • you're a dumbass says:

      >Really? Why is there no stars in the sky in every picture?
      Learn about exposure when it comes to photography. If they had the stars in the background the foreground would be too dark.

      >how the fuck do you launch off the moon without a launching pad
      Science dipshit, there were rockets on the lander.

      >all the pictures of the apollo looks like tin foil shit.
      The camera was from the 60s asshat.

    • Fish95 says:

      Firstly, its day on the moon, and you can’t see the stars during the day just like on Earth. If you’re going to question why the sky is black, its because there is so little atmosphere there is no diffraction of light (through nitrogen), so no color. Secondly, you don’t need a launching pad when gravity is so much less powerful. The amount of energy needed to escape the planet’s pull is significantly less. Finally, the reason the Eagle (The lunar lander) looks the way you described it, is because it never has to enter any atmosphere’s requiring side paneling for heat resistance. The Eagle was first lowered to the moon, and then took the astronauts back to the Apollo. After it was used, it was jettisoned. It never returned to earth.

    • Colin says:

      Matt, I doubt you’ll listen but heres the actual reason for those questions you raised.

      There are no stars because it is daytime on the moon. The sun is shining which is why you don’t see stars. Their is no atmosphere on the moon so there is no color to the sky so you just see black. You aren’t seeing stars for the same reason you don’t see stars (with the exception of the sun) because the light blocks them from view.

      The lander doesn’t need a launch pad for the same reason a helicopter can land on flat land. If it goes slow enough it can land on a flat surface with no damage. Also because gravity is 1/6 of earths it has much less force behind it.

      Finally it looks like tin foil shit because it basically was. It used thermal foils which make excellent insulation. Traveling through space there is no atmosphere so no wind resistance so it didn’t need to be a large metal shell since there were no outside forces that would damage it. Yes a meteor could easily destroy it, but meteors are moving at thousands of miles per hour, nothing will keep you safe if it hits you. The lander sets down with such little force and aside from the landing gear it doesn’t touch the moon. The landing gear was strong but the capsule itself was weak.

    • moronhater says:

      You are a moron. if you actually wanted to know the answers to the questions you asked then you should google it.
      But then again your type does not really suit education.

  • Anthony says:

    Unsure if troll, but either way – Enjoy:

  • david says:

    Lets think about the fact that this was during the Cold War. Both the Soviets and Americans wanted to be the first to the moon in case it might have provided some sort of advantage if war ever broke out. It’s extremely telling to note that no Soviet officials ever questioned us landing on the moon first. If there was any suspicion, you can bet they would have been the ones to call us out on it.

  • FredM says:

    1111Matt, your first two questions show that you do not have even a 19th century understanding of the basic principles of photography and physics. I don’t know where you went to school (the U.S., no doubt), but you should definitely ask for your money back.

  • Not Ignorant says:

    The conspiracy comments are all the same. The posters always have this misplaced sense of intelligence, as if they are smarter than everyone. Anyone with a basic understanding of science can debunk the idiotic conspiracy theories. Why are there no stars, this Matt genius says. You know what Matt? If you asked, we could tell you why that is. But do you ask? No. Why? Because you are incapable of being educated. You all think you are smarter than the actual smart people. You idiots have dug in for so long, half of you probably know you’re wrong, but you have to commit to the bit.

  • Dolan says:

    Hey matt, try taking a photo with a camera from 1972, and not having it look like tin foil shit. You launch off the moon with liquid state boosters as acceleration is only about 3600 fucking times easier you goddamn moron, and you don’t see stars for the same goddamn reason you don’t see them in a city you fucking moron, light pollution. there’s a motherfucking billion ton hydrogen burning sun making the moon illuminate a fucking white color you goddamn retard, go back to your fucking hole you goddamn clod

  • Matt's Buddy says:

    Go outside at night and take a picture with your phone camera, which is -worlds- better than the cameras they used 40 years ago, and you still probably won’t see any stars. Read about the moon landing/extraction procedure to understand how they landed and took off (it’s complicated, but actually rather practical). I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “tin foil shit,” I assume there’s a good engineering reason why they used the materials they did though. If they were trying to hoax something, why would they use “tin foil shit” anyway if they had access to much more? (answer is it’s not fake and there’s a solid engineering reason why the materials were used)

    Critical thinking: schools don’t teach enough of it these days.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: