The Russians Are Going To Verify That The Moon Landing Was Real

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'd hoped Elon Musk would be like Zef Cochrane.

We're not doing so bad considering we went from this in 1918...



...to the ISS in under a 100 years.

Imagine the space advances that will happen when companies start making big profits from space. Greed is still on the sideline.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'd hoped Elon Musk would be like Zef Cochrane.

We're not doing so bad considering we went from this in 1918...

...to the ISS in under a 100 years.

But my point is, we were there (2nd picture) 50 years ago. What major breakthroughs have happened since then?

originally posted by: TheMasterOne
In the very good Sci fi movie Interstellar a girl got a line that goes " we don't teach that anymore to kids, the .U.S invented the race to the moon to bankrupt the soviet union". I thought it was a clever look at things perhaps not far from the truth.
If anyone is seriously interested on the topic, have a look at the Howard/ Nixon thread here

I can think of a better one.

The "cold" war was a FAKE "war" to distract the rest of the world from how incredibly #ed over they were being by the two most powerful nation-states on the planet.

Here's a point nobody ever thinks of: if there was even a shred of credible evidence that the US didn't land on the moon in 1969, do you think the Soviets wouldn't have been on it like stink on a pig? Until Apollo 11, they were unquestionably winning the Space Race (first satellite, first man in space, first probe on the moon, first landing of a probe on another planet...) and it's widely suspected that if not for the death of Sergei Korolev they could very well have put a man on the moon first, and potentially gone even further. If they could have undermined the American claim to the moon landing in any way, they would have.

And don't forget it wasn't just one landing, the Apollo program consisted of (on paper) 17 missions, with six landing on the moon (11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) and the Apollo 13 accident.

a reply to: Kandinsky

That's very true.

A friend of my grandmother once showed a picture of the Wright Flyer flying over Dayton, Ohio back in the day--somewhere around 1906-1910, I think--and both commented that they'd lived to see not only manned flight, which other than hot air balloons, were decidedly rare when they were growing up...I think my Grandma was 10 when the Wright brothers flew at Kittyhawk, but supersonic flight, man leaving, if only for a short time, the bounds of Earth, but visited another world, and got there in less time than it took to cross the Atlantic by boat.

All within their lifetimes.

I was starting school the year of the first manned Moon Landing, school started two months almost to the day after the Landing...it was still the talk of the kids of all ages. Man, I soooo wanted to be an astronaut--but, alas, that was not to happen...(sigh).

I'm in my mid-50's, and there are projects on going that could, if successful, open up the Solar System, in my lifetime. Yes, it's disappointing that we've, as in humanity, not gone back to the moon in a manned fashion, but I can't help but think, or maybe it's hope, that we're on the cusp of a special time for space travel.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Breakthroughs don't work on a set timetable. They happen when they happen.

There are on-going research projects into propulsion, habitat building, and other things that are, according to observers, showing remarkable possibilities, and progress.

It's only a matter of time. I'd rather they take the time to do it right, rather than rush it, screw it up, and decide it's not worth it.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: FlyingFox

Done a bit of time in a dark room myself mate, never could afford to keep up with my old hobby though so let's just say that point is up for debate, it depend's on a number of factor's and yes the high intensity of optical wavelength solar radiation reflected from the lunar surface would have made imaging them harder but you know they may still be there in the negatives but making them visible would then make the lunar scenery a white out - with modern techniques though if we could get our hand's on the Original negative's it may just be possible to perform a clean up of that image and balance out the brightness revealing any stars they did capture.

We probably couldnt since we are limited to the dynamic or exposure range of the negatives. Now these were special order stock made by Kodak, but even then, they most likely couldnt capture more than an 10-11 stop exposure range. The 16.000 iso stock would probably be a little less.
Hopefully when the russians take off they will be equipped with better more recent tech that will take it to atleast 14 stops (which is what we can perceive with our human eyes).

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
Here's a point nobody ever thinks of: if there was even a shred of credible evidence that the US didn't land on the moon in 1969, do you think the Soviets wouldn't have been on it like stink on a pig? Until Apollo 11, they were unquestionably winning the Space Race (first satellite, first man in space, first probe on the moon, first landing of a probe on another planet...) and it's widely suspected that if not for the death of Sergei Korolev they could very well have put a man on the moon first, and potentially gone even further. If they could have undermined the American claim to the moon landing in any way, they would have.

And don't forget it wasn't just one landing, the Apollo program consisted of (on paper) 17 missions, with six landing on the moon (11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) and the Apollo 13 accident.

This.

I've said that for years.

The Soviets would have not hesitated to call us out for it being fake. And you can bet they checked.

The missions were easily verifiable with their tech from the day.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I would posit that authoritarians thrive because they seem (whether deceptively so or otherwise) a breath of fresh air: solid no-nonsense, straight-talking deal with it guys, in the wake of a bunch of hand-wringing ninnies who believe we should sell our house & give the money to Taliban sympathisers so they can continue to spread the religion of peace to those who were once our allies.

By the way, aren't all religions pretty much peaceful? Why the need to define one in particular as especially peaceful, unless, maybe it's one of those cases where if you repeat the lie often enough - even in the face of OVERWHELMING & ABOMINABLE evidence to the contrary - then it becomes, well, 'true'...?

Strange world.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't drink and you are DUMB.

The SHUTTER controls the amount of time a sensor or film is exposed to the light.

In photography, a shutter is a device that allows light to pass for a determined period, exposing photographic film or a photosensitive digital sensor to light in order to capture a permanent image of a scene

The Aperture is created by the aperture blades, and apertures are expressed in f numbers f1.2, f1.4 .....f5.6.....f16
the f number is the relationship of the dia of the opening created by the blades and the FOCAL length of the lens.

The aperture stop of a photographic lens can be adjusted to control the amount of light reaching the film or image sensor. In combination with variation of shutter speed,

So a 50mm lens set at 1.8 has an opening to let the light in of 50/1.8= 27.7 mm now if set at 2.8 it is 50/2.8= 17.6 so LESS light gets in. So a SMALLER f number more light.



You are getting confused with lenses with the shutter built in a LEAF shutter used mainly on point and shot cameras the blade acts as the shutter and aperture which is very crude and can't match shutter speeds of a dedicated shutter.

Here is a film back used on Apollo with exposure details.



Some images to prove a point

1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, Sony SLT A37 with a 300mm lens (heavy crop)



Stars 10 SECS ISO 1600 F3.5 HIGHER ISO, LONGER SHUTTER SPEED AND FASTER APERTURE to show stars



The Star Capella on a nice clear night 50mm f2.5 iso 800 5 seconds exposure



Stars on that image 50-100 time fainter than your eye can see and that was taken from the back of my house in the middle of 150 other house and street lights.

Many members do that on Here

I have been taking pictures for nearly 40 years now I think I have the hang of it

A powerful enough telescope can capture the American flag placed by astronauts.

Did we go numerous times?
Doubtful.

Is the public being misled about the findings?
Likely.

Hence the massive conspiracy/misdirection.

Why could they build Saturn 5 rockets then but Not now?
Saturn 5 rockets Never failed to get men into space!
they kept one in a museum or have they erased it?
Its still here for now.
so they can reverse engineer it?

How can they use FILM in space?
the radiation would mess the film up a LOT.
Look that up...
they even took the film out of the camera and put new film in.
they did Not have lead shielding on the ship!

I think only one man who went to the moon died of cancer.
at a very old age!!!
so it there radiation in space or Not???

I think some one went up in the rocket.
then came back later.
I bet he died of radiation.

originally posted by: JAY1980
A powerful enough telescope can capture the American flag placed by astronauts.

Did we go numerous times?
Doubtful.

Is the public being misled about the findings?
Likely.

Hence the massive conspiracy/misdirection.

I suggest YOU learn about angular resolution

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's very kind of them but I don't need their confirmation , the evidence is on the Moon.

LoL, the evidence is over 380,000 kms away... how convenient.

The evidence is still being used today , the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment was left on the Moon by the Apollo missions to give an accurate reading of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

www.famousdaily.com... 1962 bouncing lasers of the moon

a reply to: LABTECH767

I do not for one second accept that the SKY is black in space with no stars that is a lie, in fact the visors ARE tinted but you should still be able to see stars.

Apollo 16 deployed a special camera designed to take pictures of stars in the Ultra violet spectrum

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The camera was setup in the shadow of the LEM to shield it from solar flare

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Reason cant see stars is the glare from the sun washed out the faint light from the stars

Same reason cant see stars during daytime on earth

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

WRONG !!!!!

Soviets (Russians) launched series of probes called ZOND

They carried biologic specimens on circumlunar trajectory around moon and back

Biologics were mealworms, win flies, fungi and turtles and other specimens

Zond 5

Launched 15 September 1968
Circumlunar 18 September 1968
Returned to Earth 21 September 1968

A biological payload of two Russian tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter was included in the flight, and were the first Earth lifeforms to travel around the Moon and return safely.
The first spacecraft to circle the Moon and return to land on Earth

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: KansasGirl

Have you heard of shadows ?

I have, and that was my first thought, but they don't look like shadows, they look like image manipulation or artifacts or something. Zoom in- looks like inky blots.

So, if they are shadows and they look off because of the pixels or whatever the hell, fine.

But there was no need to be sarcastic to me. Do you feel so awesome about yourself?

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: KansasGirl

Maybe shadow, you think? Duuu!

Thank you. Your kindness is breathtaking.

Why could they build Saturn 5 rockets then but Not now?
Saturn 5 rockets Never failed to get men into space!
they kept one in a museum or have they erased it?
Its still here for now.
so they can reverse engineer it?

a reply to: buddha

Saturn V was built for one purpose - to get men to moon and back

Once accomplished and program wound down in early 1970's was no future use for Saturn V

The F1 engines in first stage were all custom built by hand only like 56 were ever made

In last few years interest has been revived about redesigned F1 called F1B - it is a simplified, 90% of parts been eliminated and using updated manufacturing techniques

Rocketdyne has teste fired F1B - actually has 15 % more thrust than original F1