Extremely high-res outtakes from Apollo 11’s 1969 moon landing

originally posted by: johnsequitur1221
Star and Flag for you. We need to go back to the moon. If we're truly the home of the brave we can't be held back by what's up there.

This is the most held back planet in existence.

We can and are held back lol.

Nasa lies because it has too...hopefully for not much longer though...space overlords are signalling a skirmish brewing.

Every step should kick up a nice cloud that takes 5 times at least as long to settle?

And the dust would fly 5 times farther?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Due to myriad meteorite impacts (with velocities in the range of 20 km/s), the lunar surface is covered with a thin layer of dust. The dust is electrically charged and sticks to any surface it comes in contact with.

Have any more idiotic responses ……..

a reply to: ParasuvO


"Space overlords"? Who are they and what makes you think there might be a "skirmish brewing"?

By the way, the Moon is not a planet.

a question for everyone in thread who is raising the " dust " issue :

at what altitude did EAGLE cutt off its descent rocket ?

the answer is in the ALSJ .

the low levels of dust on the EAGLE landing pads is actually expected .

ETA :

rather than simply ask - "at what altitude did EAGLE cutt off its descent rocket ? " - a more interesting line of inquiry = lokk up the thrust profile for the entire descent . [ reading the comms transcripts explains WHY the profile looks " odd " ]

hey - science

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Every step should kick up a nice cloud that takes 5 times at least as long to settle?

With low gravity dust is thrown higher, but without a real atmosphere it will fall at the same velocity as it was kicked up, so I don't see any reason for it to take longer to settle.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: GBP/JPY

How should dust act in a low grav environment?

Every step should kick up a nice cloud that takes 5 times at least as long to settle?

And the dust would fly 5 times farther?

In the Moon's low gravity but airless environment, dust (and everything else) falls at 1.62 m/s². As shown in the "hammer and feather" experiment conducted by the Apollo guys, and as shown in that lunar rover footage I posted earlier.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
And actually Hollywood and Nasa looked EXACTLY the same in those days.

I know, right. The starry space in movies looks exactly the same as star-less Apollo images...

a reply to: ParasuvO

I can tell that actually it did not - Hollywood's representation of space was pretty laughable, and the only ones that were anything like convincing were the ones who used genuine images from space.

originally posted by: ParasuvO


And actually Hollywood and Nasa looked EXACTLY the same in those days.

This may honestly be the most hilariously incorrect statement I've ever read on ATS . . . And I read the entire "young aussie genius" thread

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: neo96
I think the problem is people have come to think real life SPACE doesn't look like they've grown accustomed to in film and television.

Truth is. Hollywood gets it mostly all wrong.

When have we ever seen what space looks like?

And actually Hollywood and Nasa looked EXACTLY the same in those days.

These Hollywood representations of the Moon from the late 1960s don't look very much like NASA's Apollo images:

guys the moon landing was real, the reason people always question the photos is because they're doctored so obviously they'll look a little weird

[snipped]

the guys that are interviewed worked for NASA and the whole video is about them altering the photos to prevent us from seeing anything NASA and the gov. don't want us to see

a reply to: Danaluet

The pictures are on line from the Apollo missions and you see the bad shots as well as the good ones.

originally posted by: Danaluet
guys the moon landing was real, the reason people always question the photos is because they're doctored so obviously they'll look a little weird

Please show us any evidence of the Apollo photos being doctored. I've looked through hundreds of them and haven't seen any signs of doctoring.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: neo96
I think the problem is people have come to think real life SPACE doesn't look like they've grown accustomed to in film and television.

Truth is. Hollywood gets it mostly all wrong.

When have we ever seen what space looks like?

And actually Hollywood and Nasa looked EXACTLY the same in those days.

These Hollywood representations of the Moon from the late 1960s don't look very much like NASA's Apollo images:

Mind you, these scenes show the nightside of the Moon, bathed in earthshine, so obviously they look different from any of the Apollo images. I guess it might be possible to see some of the brighter stars when in that setting.

If I take a photo of you standing in a field on a dark night, will stars show in the sky over/behind you?

a reply to: carewemust

What is the ISO (sensitivity of the film or CCD)?
What is the shutter-speed?
What is the f/stop (aperture setting)?

These things MUST be known before the question can be answered.

originally posted by: carewemust
If I take a photo of you standing in a field on a dark night, will stars show in the sky over/behind you?

As St. Exupery mentioned above, if your camera exposure settings are set to something similar to daylight conditions, as the Apollo cameras usually were due to the brightness of the Moon's surface, and your ISO is not that high, the stars in your dark field picture would not show up (except maybe Venus...maybe).

If the astronauts had used the same exposure settings that you would need to see the stars in your picture taken in a dark field, the sunlit surface of the moon would have been terribly overexposed.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: carewemust
If I take a photo of you standing in a field on a dark night, will stars show in the sky over/behind you?

As St. Exupery mentioned above, if your camera exposure settings are set to something similar to daylight conditions, as the Apollo cameras usually were due to the brightness of the Moon's surface, and your ISO is not that high, the stars in your dark field picture would not show up (except maybe Venus...maybe).

If the astronauts had used the same exposure settings that you would need to see the stars in your picture taken in a dark field, the sunlit surface of the moon would have been terribly overexposed.

And, in fact, we know what settings Apollo astronauts used on the Moon. The film ISO is known, and they used predermined f/ and shutter values.



These are daylight settings, you won't capture stars with them.

Here's a photo I took of the starry night sky using exactly the same settings:



See any stars?

a reply to: Danaluet

I too would like to throw my hat in to request evidence for anything you just said.

a reply to: wildespace

Looks like stills from 2001 some have the Earth in view so not the night side.

Lots of errors in 2001 A Space Odyssey which is ironic since the director Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have faked the Moon landing footage.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: wildespace

Looks like stills from 2001 some have the Earth in view so not the night side.

When the moon is new or a crescent, the side facing us is the night side. And, yes, you have the "full earth" in the sky lighting up the terrain.

Lots of errors in 2001 A Space Odyssey which is ironic since the director Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have faked the Moon landing footage.

What errors are those? (Pertaining to the Moon)