It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 82
29
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
...
anyone of 500,000 people
...


500,000 people?

I think that to fake moon landings 100 persons were enough. All other people (not many however) believed to work for real moon landings.





posted on May, 9 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
ok any of those 100 people.

but would you change your mind if the chinese rover imaged apollo footprints on the moon?



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
ok any of those 100 people.

but would you change your mind if the chinese rover imaged apollo footprints on the moon?





I hate imbeciles that don't understand simple things.

LEM was not able to land on the moon going backwards.
Still today some people attempts to build a rocket able to land going backwards.
Have you seen video and images and website I told you?

Why don't you understand? Are you stupid?







posted on May, 9 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
why are you scared to answer my question?



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
bigbrain, why can't you understand the concept of landing the LEM on its four legs. It isn't landing "backwards." I also don't know why you keep harping on the capsule reentry issue. Here is some information that might answer your questions. You always ask people to "confute" your so-called arguments, but I don't think you like detailed responses.

LANDING
After undocking from the Command/Service Module (CSM, the LEM crew fired its descent engine to put it into an elliptical orbit passing between 70 miles and 50,000 feet of the Moon's surface. At a pre-selected surface range from the landing site, the engine was fired again in a braking maneuver to reduce speed.

The two-man crew conducted position and velocity checks, subsystem checks, landing radar tests, attitude adjustment maneuvers and final landing preparations. Final approach began at about 9,000 feet altitude with a maneuver to bring the landing site into view of the LEM crew. Engine firing was automatically until the craft descended to an altitude of 500 feet above the surface. The ncommander then took over and pitched the LEM at an angle where he could evaluate the landing site. At about 65 feet, he reoriented the LEM to descend vertically to the surface at about three feet per second. The commander shut off the engine as soon as the landing gear touched the surface.

REENTRY
Getting back to the question of Command Module (CM) reentry, the Apollo capsule consisted of two shells: an inner crew compartment (pressure vessel) and an outer heat shield. The outer shell was made of stainless steel honeycomb between stainless steel sheets, covered on the outside with ablative material (heat-dissipating material that chars and falls away during atmospheric reentry). The inner shell was aluminum honeycomb between aluminum alloy sheets. A layer of insulation separated the two shells. This construction made the CM light as possible yet rugged enough to withstand the strain of launch acceleration, shock and heat of reentry, and the force of splashdown.

Reentry began at an altitude of about 400,000 feet, when the CM began to meet atmospheric resistance while traveling at a speed of 24,500 miles per hour. Although the heat reached as much as 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit on the blunt aft heat shield, the crew cabin remained at around 80 degrees. Additionally, the crew experience maximum gravitaional forces of a little more than 5 Gs.

HEAT SHIELDING
The interior of the CM had to be protected against a wide range of extreme temperatures throughout the mission. These included the heat of boost (up to 1,200 deg. F), the cold of space (about 280 deg. below zero) and the direct rays of the sun (about 280 deg. above zero) on the other side, as well as 5,000 degree reentry temperatures.

The heat of launch was absorbed pricipally by the boost protective cover, a fiberglass structure coverd with cork that fit snugly over the CM. The cover was jettisoned with the escape tower at an altitude of 295,000 feet above the Earth.

Crew cabin temperature was controlled by the air-conditioning system and the insualating layer surrounding the pressure vessel.

During reentry, the heat shield protected the spacecraft's structure from temperatures that melt most metals. This was accomplished with an ablative material made of phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic. This material turned white hot, charred and melted away, preventing the heat from penetrating the metal surface of the spacecraft. The charring (known as coking) allowed the heat to dissipate quickly.

The heat shield weighed 3,000 pounds and varied in thickness from two inches at the aft (blunt) end to half an inch on portions of the forward (pointy) end. The shield had several outer coatings: a pore seal, a moisture barrier, and a silver Mylar thermal coating.

As the CM descended through the atmosphere, the outer portion of the ablative material melted away at 5,000 degrees. This created a blocking gas layer below which formed a char layer. A degredation zone separated the char from the remaining virgin material. beneath this, the brazed steel honeycomb layer experienced temperatures as high as 600 degrees. The insulating layer prevented the inner bonded aluminum honeycomb shell from exceeding 200 degrees, while the CM interior ranged between 70 and 150 degrees F.

That is how the Apollo crew survived reentry. It's not magic. It's science.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Shadowhawk:
The commander then took over and pitched the LEM at an angle where he could evaluate the landing site. At about 65 feet, he reoriented the LEM to descend vertically to the surface at about three feet per second. The commander shut off the engine as soon as the landing gear touched the surface.

bigbrain:
In your stupid opinion it's very simple to reorient the LEM to descend vertically


08/08/2004 Armadillo Aerospace attempts to descend vertically:




This is the conclusion (scroll down to: Click here for video of crash):

www.space.com...

Then people are still testing various aircrafts able to land going backwards.
Then it's very difficult to do it.


Shadowhawk:
why can't you understand the concept of landing the LEM on its four legs. It isn't landing "backwards."

bigbrain:
Only an imbecile doesn't understand that a rocket is made to go forward.
If it goes back to land, it lands GOING BACKWARDS.


Shadowhawk:
HEAT SHIELDING
Crew cabin temperature was controlled by the air-conditioning system.

bigbrain:
DAIKIN, MITSUBISHI, SANYO?



Shadowhawk:
During reentry, the heat shield protected the spacecraft's structure from temperatures that melt most metals. This was accomplished with an ablative material made of phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic.

bigbrain:
A heat plastic shield against 2,800°C?

At 1,000°C phenolic plastic hardens and pulverizes in few seconds.
Aluminum alloy at 520°C - 660°C melts, at 1,500°C boils.


Shadowhawk:
Plastic turned white hot, charred and melted away, preventing the heat from penetrating the metal surface of the spacecraft. The charring (known as coking) allowed the heat to dissipate quickly.

bigbrain:
No, plastic at 2,800°C hardens and pulverizes instantly.


Shadowhawk:
The heat shield weighed 3,000 pounds and varied in thickness from two inches at the aft (blunt) end to half an inch on portions of the forward (pointy) end.

bigbrain:
2 inches, 0.5 inches?

Not even 2 meters of phenolic plastic could survive 2,800°C.


Shadowhawk:
As the CM descended through the atmosphere, the outer portion of the ablative material melted away at 5,000 degrees. This created a blocking gas layer below which formed a char layer.

bigbrain:
You are completely imbecile.
There was no gas, only pulverized plastic swept off by highest friction of air.


Shadowhawk:
A degredation zone separated the char from the remaining virgin material. beneath this, the brazed steel honeycomb layer experienced temperatures as high as 600 degrees.

bigbrain:
What a greatest crap.
The brazed steel honeycomb layer at 900°C (brass fusion temperature) unsolders, at 1,560°C steel melts.


Shadowhawk:
That is how the Apollo crew survived reentry. It's not magic. It's science

bigbrain:
No, it's science fiction made by NASA BSJ (Buffoons Swindlers Jokers)




This is a command module more and more and more and more and more ridiculous than yours






































[edit on 10-5-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
birdbrain, which university did you get your physics phd from?


you dont have a clue. Your in no position to argue technical details on the apollo missions becuase you have zero understanding of them.

Your 2800c is flawed becuase thats the temperature on the heat sheild. Show me your source of 2800C touching the outside of the command module?

are you still too scared to answer my chinese rover question?



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
"bigbrain" is just reverting to his usual response of ignoring the science and insulting anyone who refutes his idotic misunderstanding of spacecraft design principles.

The information is easy to find if you do a little research. I took the time to spell it out in clear, concise, terms that even the woefully misnamed "bigbrain" could understand. I didn't really do it for him, since he just doesn't want to learn. I posted the information for anyone who is willing to check the facts. Anyone who wants can verify my research. I didn't just pull those numbers out of thin air.

There is an old say that "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Maybe it should be altered to read: "There are none so blind as bigbrain."



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Yes the astronauts did see stars during ideal conditions. When they aren't looking towards the Sun or objects reflecting Sunlight. When they were on the Moon it was day time, the Lunar surface reflected lots of light. I do believe some astronauts could make out a few when in the LM shadow, but it depends on how much reflected light you can block out from your eyes.

When and where does Aldrin say this? I'm not saying he didn't, I'd just like to see it myself. Also the rendezvous between the LM and the CSM isn't really that complicated. They know the orbital path and speed of the CSM, they know when it will pass over the landing site, they know how long the LM should take to reach the same orbit, because they know how much it weighs and how powerful the thrust from the rocket is etc. So it's not too difficult to figure out when they should launch. They had lots of practice doing this during Gemini.


First, thanks for the detailed reply and the links.

On the seeing stars, I noticed you said 'reflected light'. As you know what causes light pollution on Earth is the light that is reflected off the atmosphere. The light bounces off the surface and then off the air and then -that- light is reflected back into your eyes.

On the Moon with no atmosphere it will NOT bounce back into your eyes.

In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think when they go back to the Moon, if they do, everyone will remark on the incredible star field that's visible. In fact I think they'll be tempted to just lie down on the surface and just spend an hour gazing at the stars, which I think would be 10x as impressive as your best planetarium on Earth.

IMO, it will not be a matter of Armstrong's 'we couldn't see any stars on the Moon unless we used the optics'. I think it will be breathtaking.

In fact I'm kind of wondering when some current physicist who is working on the 2018 flight is going to start wondering how they went with 1960s technology and start asking questions. Did you see the 'Starship Orion' special on Discovery:Science this past week? They're having a very tough time, even with modern materials, engineering the re-entry capsule.

On the comment about 30% chance of success, sorry I've watched so many vids of this stuff I can't recall but he definitely said this.

It's clear to me that you have not gone and watched the Moon Hoax vids on Google, particularly the one I linked 'What Happened on the Moon'. If you had you'd know what I meant about the curator allowing the researcher to measure the dimenstions of the LEM. (His contention that the passage way might have been too small for a suited Astronaut to make it through).

On the Clementine pics, Kreslavsky can not say for sure if those dark smudges are Apollo landing sites, so I think a conclusion is premature.

Thanks again for your comments and -please- consider watching those Google vids. It will save me the trouble of rehashing several things.

It's actually very entertaining whether you believe it or not.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
LANDING
After undocking from the Command/Service Module (CSM, the LEM crew fired its descent engine to put it into an elliptical orbit passing between 70 miles and 50,000 feet of the Moon's surface. At a pre-selected surface range from the landing site, the engine was fired again in a braking maneuver to reduce speed.


Nice post but it does not look like you typed this. Is it not considered proper to put quotes and attribute your source?

I've already put a couple posters here (actually, hoax believers). I think it's a good idea if others' do the same so we can get rid of the trolling.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
If you don't think I wrote my text, Badge01, you haven't been reading my posts. Don't make accusations against me because I write well. This is not the first time I have been accused of posting an article. If you are going to penalize me or attempting to raise the quality of posts on this forum, then I just won't bother anymore.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
If you don't think I wrote my text, Badge01, you haven't been reading my posts. Don't make accusations against me because I write well. This is not the first time I have been accused of posting an article. If you are going to penalize me or attempting to raise the quality of posts on this forum, then I just won't bother anymore.


Well humble apologies then. But take a step back. I did not accuse you of not having written this, I merely asked.

Not to take anything away from my apology, but if, as you say this has happened before, then you must realize that if someone posts something of such superior quality as you did people are going to wonder. Maybe it would be helpful if you put your name and date at the end of such mini-articles like this [SH-5/9/07].

Again, please forgive. We need posters like you here.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Moving right along...

I think one aspect of the Apollo missions that has been not been well investigated, at least by us has been the state of the subculture of contractors and NASA employees present at the time of the Apollo missions.

I was just reading again the testimony of Thomas Baron, the QC tech who was mysteriously killed along with his family at a railroad crossing. (I say mysterious because there was little investigation and the bodies were immediately cremated without an autopsy, among other things).

Read over this testimony on the site I linked in a previous message:
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

In one outrageous passage he recounts:

Mr. BARON: I discussed it with another individual at his home, and he witnessed one evening when he was working, three technicians who were supposed to flush out, this is by purging the environmental control unit with an alcohol solution to apparently clean it and get it ready for proper use. He disclosed to me that a 55-gallon drum had been delivered to the site. I guess it was right here at MSOB. I don't know for sure. I guess it was -- a 55-gallon drum of 190-proof alcohol that was delivered to them. The three men who were assigned to flushing this unit out were -- well, one of them took a five-gallon jug of this stuff home and one other, or perhaps all three of them, I don't really recall right now, had mixed this stuff and cut it with water and were drinking it right here at the site, and they were carrying it around in plastic bags.

This is not the kind of tight organization that you see in stellar organizations like Lockheed's Skunkworks where they accomplished amazing things due in great part to their methods and organization and smaller size.

The situation here consisted of a lot of subcontractors getting substandard pay and working many hours. They were not as dedicated as the NASA employees. There was quite a bit of goldbricking, drinking and sleeping on the job.

In addition the chain of command did not promote the filtering up of reports. As Richard Feynman related during the Challenger disaster:

From Wiki:

Feynman was so critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture" that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle, which appeared as Appendix F.[26] In the appendix, he argued that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."[27]


The 'hoaxing' is not something that occurred at the very end; it had deep roots. I think if anyone could get a deeper understand or an overview of the job situation on the Apollo mission at the time, they might even be more prone to doubting the landing. This comes across quite clearly in the report:

(bolded text is mine)

Mr. TEAGUE: Mr. Baron, if things were really as bad as you pictured them by the things that, you have said to this committee in your report, do you believe we would ever have gotten a shot off to the moon? Do you think we ever would have had one successful shot?

Mr. BARON: Certainly, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE: With the conditions you pictured here, do you think we could be successful in any of our shots?

Mr. BARON: No, sir. No, sir. I don't think so.


Mr. TEAGUE: We have had a lot of successes?

Mr. BARON: Yes, sir, you have. But not on the Apollo program.


Actually let me rephrase that. I think the 'possibility' of using a fake mission was probably a parallel 'solution' or consideration right from the very start, however I think they attempted to get as far as they could before switching over to this 'strategy'. Remember this was the cold war and the Moon landing was to be a political thing, not really a military or scientific goal.

EDIT: In fact even if we eventually are able to prove that the Moon landing was accomplished, I'd be extremely surprised if the idea of faking part of it was not discussed at some point. One thing about committees is that they are very good at covering certain bases and I think it was almost certainly discussed as a fall back position. I wouldn't doubt that at some point they considered having 'stunt doubles' for the Astronauts. In addition the g-ment is usually very protective of their methods and sources. This project appeared to be very open, but if you really showed everything and shared too much it would give the 'opponent' (USSR) information. Anyone familiar with the cold war will agree that we would not give them -anything-. Heck we keep more information from our own citizens, declaring things 'top secret' that really have no reason to be classified.- Badge

In fact if you think about it, why did they not have the objectives that you'd expect of such a mission - obtaining the military high ground?

That was such a paramount issue back then it's always puzzled me even before there were thoughts of it being faked.

But obviously, if they didn't land, then they could not have achieved or even contemplated a military advantage.

Oh, one other thing that I think is important and that's the whole issue of communications. It appears that there were not only poor lines of communication up and down the chain of command there were also a lot of technical problems with communication. As you know this is the life blood of such a complex program.

Continued in part 2


[edit on 10-5-2007 by Badge01]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Part 2

More on the communication issues


Mr. BARON: I would have to go back and read my manuscript again, it is quite long. I would say probably that the -- I don't know if I am answering your question again, I don't even entirely understand it. Probably the lack of communication between almost everyone concerned with this project and the sectionalism that exists in this particular project is probably our main problem. By this I mean if I were to write a letter about a particular instance or a fire or something like this or something that we have had and try to get it up through channels, it would be stopped along the way. This has occurred. Not only to me, it has occurred to other individuals in quality control, also. The communication going up is very, very poor and the communication coming down is very, very poor.



Mr. BARON: Okay, I am going to give one instance which goes into the communications problem literally during the escape operation, this is the self-contained apparatus that we have for working with the toxic fuels, the nitrogen tetroxide and nitrogen hydrazines [sic] during the filling of our tanks, this is not in relation to spacecraft 012 -- it is spacecraft 9. It was a general problem at that time. We did not have a good communication link with the people that were actually in control of us and our air packs during the entire operation. We had too many communications breaks, we couldn't talk to them in case somebody got hurt. If a man got out of air we had to get him down ourselves and in most cases we would be walking back to the escape trailer, which is operated by another contractor, Bendix, before the truck would even get out to assist us in any way. This is primarily because we didn't have any good headset communication bettween them or they were not on the net and talking to somebody else.


My feeling is that in order to accomplish a feat like a successful Moon landing you really need to have very tight organization, and not just normal communication but well above average methods. This is how
Kelly Johnson did it at Lockheed. Indeed Wiki defines 'Skunkworks' as:


Skunk works is a term used in engineering and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on
advanced or secret projects.


OK, that's it for now. I apologize for all the quoting of sources, but I know that some people would rather have excerpted material over clicking a bunch of links.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...




[edit on 10-5-2007 by bigbrain]


jra

posted on May, 10 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
On the seeing stars, I noticed you said 'reflected light'. As you know what causes light pollution on Earth is the light that is reflected off the atmosphere. The light bounces off the surface and then off the air and then -that- light is reflected back into your eyes.

On the Moon with no atmosphere it will NOT bounce back into your eyes.


No but the light reflecting off the grey surface itself is enough to make it harder to see the stars. It was day time on the Moon after all.


In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think when they go back to the Moon, if they do, everyone will remark on the incredible star field that's visible. In fact I think they'll be tempted to just lie down on the surface and just spend an hour gazing at the stars, which I think would be 10x as impressive as your best planetarium on Earth.


Well when they do go back, they will be staying for longer periods at a time. So chances are that they will be on the Moon during a Lunar night. Also the atmosphere doesn't block out that much light. Stars viewed from the Moon or in space would only be about 15% brighter than on Earth (when in an area with little to no light pollution). The main problem the atmosphere creates for astronomers is the distortion and how it affects the clarity and not so much about the amount of light that gets through.


In fact I'm kind of wondering when some current physicist who is working on the 2018 flight is going to start wondering how they went with 1960s technology and start asking questions. Did you see the 'Starship Orion' special on Discovery:Science this past week? They're having a very tough time, even with modern materials, engineering the re-entry capsule.


No I haven't seen that, but I've heard about them having problems. And from what I've heard, the problem seems to be the Ares I and that it might not have enough thrust to get the Orion, as it's currently designed, into a high enough orbit. So they might have try and make it lighter or smaller.

The problem here isn't that they can't design something to go back to the Moon in. It's that they are trying to reuse as much as they can from the Shuttle program in the Constellation program. In theory, this is to make it cheaper to build and to take less time to develop, as they won't have to retrain workers to build entirely new stuff and things like that. On paper it seems like a good idea, but personally I think they'd be better off designing something completely from scratch. I do like the concepts of the Ares I and V, but I have a feeling that they may have to make a number of compromises along the way due to the limitations they are working with.


It's clear to me that you have not gone and watched the Moon Hoax vids on Google, particularly the one I linked 'What Happened on the Moon'. If you had you'd know what I meant about the curator allowing the researcher to measure the dimenstions of the LEM. (His contention that the passage way might have been too small for a suited Astronaut to make it through).


Ok, I have heard about measuring the LM hatch. But you said in your other post, "measuring the capsule", which is something else entirely. As for it being too small. It doesn't look like it is here.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And yes, I've watched many Moon Hoax vids.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by jra]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

No but the light reflecting off the grey surface itself is enough to make it harder to see the stars. It was day time on the Moon after all.
[edit on 10-5-2007 by jra]


Well Albedo on earth is 10-40%, avg 30% and only 7-12% on the moon.

Add to that no atmosphere to reflect back and I think there'd be literally no light pollution preventing a very dense starfield from being viewed in the moon's daytime As long as the Sun was behind you, or shielded by the LEM or a boulder I think it would be no problem.

I will agree that taking a standard photograph with regular film and no time exposure is unlikely to show many stars, except for the brightest ones, maybe Venus.

In fact IMO the lunar surface is depicted as a lot brighter than I think it should be. I think in actuality it's more like a light velvet cloth and not at all like standing in a parking lot on Earth with mercury vapor lights all around.

I'm glad to hear you've taken time to look at the vids. Suggest you add the ones I linked and see if there's anything there that makes any difference to you. I agree a lot of it is circumstantial and maybe even grasping at straws since NASA was not being that cooperative, or at least some people think that.

You said in the last post that they did see some stars. Can you give me a cite on that? Not to put you on the spot; I'd just really like to see it, because that contrasts sharply with Armstrong's quote.

Best,


[edit on 10-5-2007 by Badge01]


jra

posted on May, 11 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Well Albedo on earth is 10-40%, avg 30% and only 7-12% on the moon.

Add to that no atmosphere to reflect back and I think there'd be literally no light pollution preventing a very dense starfield from being viewed in the moon's daytime As long as the Sun was behind you, or shielded by the LEM or a boulder I think it would be no problem.


Even though the albedo is about 7%, it's not good to try and do star gazing or any astrophotography during a full moon, because it's still rather bright. Bright enough to illuminate and cast shadows on the ground noticeably and block out the fainter star light.

When they did see stars on the Moon with the unaided eye, they were generally in the shadow of the LM and with the gold visor raised as well I believe. But I would think that sunlight reflecting off the surface would be a lot brighter than city lights reflecting off the haze in the atmosphere. So you wouldn't see a ton of stars even while in the shadow of the LM.


In fact IMO the lunar surface is depicted as a lot brighter than I think it should be. I think in actuality it's more like a light velvet cloth and not at all like standing in a parking lot on Earth with mercury vapor lights all around.


I believe the lunar surface is similar to asphalt (in terms of the shade of grey).


You said in the last post that they did see some stars. Can you give me a cite on that? Not to put you on the spot; I'd just really like to see it, because that contrasts sharply with Armstrong's quote


I've seen it stated that Gene Cernan from Apollo 17 saw some stars while in the LM shadow. I looked through the Apollo Surface Journal, but I didn't see it in the transcripts. On the various Apollo missions they used this thing called the AOT which was basically a telescope with no magnification that they used to spot and align stars with, while in the LM on the Lunar surface. The CSM also had one.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
JRA,

OK, well I can't really split hairs with you over the brightness, but I'm puzzled that Armstrong says no stars and Cernan says some. Fact remains neither took any star field photos.

I will say that this photo, allegedly taken by Lovell on Apollo 8 has a 'real' look that the other moon photos lack:



In the original large photo you can see about a dozen stars or dots.

This look of 'velvet', much darker than the Apollo photos seem to depict the lunar surface is what I'm talking about.

So given the earthlight, it's a bit odd you can see stars with a normal exposure here and not on the Apollo photos. Of course this is taken from space.


jra

posted on May, 11 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
OK, well I can't really split hairs with you over the brightness, but I'm puzzled that Armstrong says no stars and Cernan says some. Fact remains neither took any star field photos.


Again, it depends on the conditions. It's not that Armstrong didn't see any stars period, its just when on the Moon when in the sunlight that he didn't see any. I'm sure during periods on the trip there and back that they saw some when the sun was blocked out and the cabin lights were off. They also saw stars when using the AOT.


So given the earthlight, it's a bit odd you can see stars with a normal exposure here and not on the Apollo photos. Of course this is taken from space.


Are you sure those are stars and not dust that could have been on the scanner? I looked at the hires version from where you got your copy (as well as another source) and I didn't see any stars/dust spots on it at all. But when you do find a photo that has something in the black sky, check the other photos before and after it to see if there is something in the exact same spot.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join