It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.
I understand what you mean, but I think that the spacesuit on the photo you posted looks a little yellow all over, not just some areas. For example, the helmet is also more yellow than I think it should be, and even knowing that the dust could reach as high as his head (or his head could reach as low as the dust ), the fact the yellow is so uniform makes me think that this is an effect of the light.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
I think it is just logical that the spacesuit used by astronaut Scott in the Apollo 15 mission looks different than a spacesuit which hasn't been used on the moon. Scott's spacesuit is simply dirty.
But what would they say if someone spoted them and they wanted to hide them? What about scientists, that know what they should and should not expect on a Moon rock, what would NASA say to them if (when) they noticed those things?
Regarding your question about why NASA would tamper with the color in their images, I think it is excactly because of features like the colored "crystals" in the moon rock in image AS15-86-11570! By making the images bleaker and removing color, features like that is much more difficult to spot. And if nobody spots them, NASA dosn't have to tell us about them or explain what they are.
Knowing the conditions in which the photos were taken I don't find it that strange. Also, not having a climate, only local activity could change the common look of the ground, I suppose it is normal for it to look the same if it really is the same.
And another thing, don't you think it is strange that the surface looks the same in every Apollo picture (except from the ones with the orange soil, I have no doubt you already know about them).
I don't find it strange, the view from a distance of a few kilometres is completely different from a closer view. I am sure you can use Google Earth or Flash Earth to see a place close to you where you can see the different colours that you can not see on the ground.
In image after image, the surface and soil have the same light grey color as for instance scarps and rilles, which in images taken from orbit looks much lighter/brighter than their surrounding areas. This doen't make sense to me, but, hey, I may just be an idiot...
I thought that I had seen some more photos with things that looked like those "crystals", but I was wrong, the photos I had seen before had some bright spots, but nothing like the "crystals".
Anyway, I look forward to reading about it if you find any explanation for the small colored "crystals" in the moon rock. I think they are both beautiful and fascinating.
The lunar maria were described as brown at high sun angles and greyish brown near the terminator (the color reproduced in frame 5149 of landing site 2 was described to approximate the real color in the latter case). The crew reiterated their commentary which accompanied the TV transmission following TEI where they noted a color mottling of Mare Serenitatis, light brown and tan brown, as compared to the darker "chocolate brown'' color of Mare Tranquillitatis. The astronauts emphasized the lack of any green tints which are apparent in some of the color film.
The color of the lunar highlands was described as tan (frame 5079 approximates the real color). Deviations from the tan color are caused by mare material (brown), fresh impact craters (chalky white) and a number of "jet black" layers and blocks.
Levin, a physicist now at Lockheed Martin in Phoenix, knew exactly how to tell if something was amiss. Two years earlier he had written a paper titled “Solving the Color-Calibration Problem of Martian Lander Images.” Like earlier Mars landers, each rover carries a color-calibration target—a set of primary-color squares used as a reference for its cameras. If the settings are correct the, squares seen through the rover’s cameras look about the same as matching squares on Earth. Levin tracked down Mars images that included a view of the colored squares, and what he saw confirmed his fears: “When the color-calibration target is in the same scene as the Martian surface and sky, it looks completely different. The blue panel is red. It’s as if NASA color-coded blue to be red, and green as a mustard-brown color.” The results dramatically transform Mars from an ocher planet to a red one.
The myth of a red Mars should have died in 1998, when the Pathfinder imaging team finished analyzing 17,050 images from the mission. The researchers conclusively showed that the predominant colors of Mars are yellowish brown, with only subtle variations. Subsequent “true color” images of Mars from Hubble duly show a yellow-brown planet. More recently, images from the European Space Agency’s Mars Express orbiter in January and February of 2004 present Mars as a world awash in browns, blues, golds, even olives—hence Ron Levin’s surprise and dismay at seeing the garish old red Mars resurface in the cutting-edge pictures from Spirit and Opportunity
The American space agency Nasa has been accused of doctoring its pictures of Mars to make the Martian surface conform to our impression of the famously red planet.
Nasa has been accused of digitally "tweaking" drab brown scenery to make it redder. It has even been suggested that Nasa removed green patches to hide evidence of life.
The theories gained credence after Nasa told New Scientist that "getting the colours right is a surprisingly difficult and subjective job", the magazine reports today.
Most of the pictures have been taken through green, blue and infra-red filters - instead of green, blue and standard red filters, which would have produced more accurate colours.
Dr Jim Bell, who worked with Nasa on the Mars rovers' cameras, said infrared filters were used because they helped geologists to distinguish rock types.
In reality, Mars appears red largely because of the dust in its atmosphere.
He estimates that these cometlike objects have been vaporizing, or changing into water vapor, in Earth's upper atmosphere for 4.5 billion years. They shower the planet with water that eventually becomes lakes, seas, and oceans!
Frank first detected the cosmic snowballs on satellite images taken more than a decade ago. At first, he thought the specks were just "visual static." But recent images from NASA's new Polar satellite orbiting Earth captured similar specks "streaking" toward the planet. The tails of these tiny comets (about 12 meters, or 40 feet, in diameter) seemed to show traces of oxygen and hydrogen--the elements that make water. Frank has calculated that about 43,000 "snowballs" enter Earths atmosphere each day.
Originally posted by ArMaP
On the Moon only ice is expected to be found, in places that never get Sun light, because liquid water can not exist at the conditions that are present on the Moon.
Can you tell me why an astonaut turns to dust if they take their suit off while on the moon?
I believe the answer has to do with equilibrium thermodynamics. There is no water in the Moon's (almost non-existent) atmosphere and so the water would get sucked out of the astronaut's unsuited body in an effort to even out the water vapour pressure over the Moon's surface. Since there is so little water in the astronaut's body compared to Moon surface, the water leaves the body very quickly and very completely, leaving behind dry dust.
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
NASA also says that 100% of the water in your body would be sucked right out, leaving only dust, if you didn't have a nice quality space suit. (attention Gatorade Commercial Marketing team)
HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE
If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.
Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
[mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
you're dying. The limits are not really known.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Zarniwoop
Why do you say "also", it was not NASA that said that the conditions on the Moon do not allow for vapour or liquid water, it was I.
Originally posted by StellarX
So when NASA tells us that it's 'surprisingly difficult' they are lying for one reason or another. I suspect the same is true for the moon and if you can not see a calibration target in view your never going to know how colors were 'interpreted' or for what reason.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by timelike
Hi I would just like to point out ONCE AGAIN that the theory about water on the moon was NOT mine - it was Zorgon's! If you read my comments in this thread you will understand that I have nothing to do with the "liquid" theory, and I really don't want it pinned to me! I also think it is highly unrealistic, you see.
[edit on 9-5-2008 by ziggystar60]
Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hi, I know the subject of the true moon colors is very difficult.