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.

 

where's the stars?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Holy crap! Half of the earth is missing from that last picture. It just proves that they photshopped out all of the stars and even photoshopped out half of the earth!

How stupid are NASA think we is be???




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I don't understand how the one poster's response is misleading, when it's the answer.

Just as stated before me, take a look at the stars in a brightly lit area, compared to a completely dark area. The luminosity of the stars are not as great as the objects closer to us (Street Lamps, Moon, Sun, etc) so the stars appear to be gone. The luminosity of the Moon, Earth, and Sun all combined into one are too great for the dimness of the stars to be caught on the camera.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by trace_the_truth
 


:
:


I give ya da star, 'cuz you funny guy!!!




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The lack of stars in the moon landing pics taken by the astronauts could be down to the focal length of the cam and or the film.

What is very strange is that NASA for the first time in Human history had a chance to get as many pics as they liked of the nights sky unfiltered by the Earths atmosphere. But for some unknown reason just didnt bother.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


I'm wondering what possible purpose it would serve to have photos of stars taken from the Moon?

It would have required additional specialized equipment, and detracted from limited mission objective time that was put to better use.

Pictures of stars in the visible spectrum are pretty -- but scientifically worthless.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 




What is very strange is that NASA for the first time in Human history had a chance to get as many pics as they liked of the nights sky unfiltered by the Earths atmosphere.


Actually there were quite a few opportunities to take pictures of the unfiltered sky before the Apollo landings. People and machines had been out of the atmosphere before 1969.

[edit on 7/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok maybe not the first but they did all sorts of experiments on the moon and a quick sky survey would have helped out quite a lot of people back on planet earth. I know its additional equipment but some kind of small radio telescope or optical telescope that sent back pics of the sky would have been of immense value to the astrophysicists of the world at the time. hey they could even have brought a few parts in every mission.

But instead they decided to take things like a 38 million dollar jeep so they could drive about a bit .lol



[edit on 3-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
...But instead they decided to take things like a 38 million dollar jeep so they could drive about a bit .lol


Well, to be accurate, the $38 million was for the development and construction of four rovers. That is an average of $9.5 million per rover -- however, each rover did NOT cost $9.5 million to actually construct (i.e., the materials and labor to build a rover did not cost $9.5 million). Most of that money is in the development.

Gillette (the razor company) spent $750 Million developing a razor (really), but obviously, since they make a lot of razors, the $750 Million cost is spread out among all the razors they sell.

A computer doesn't really cost $1000 to make (in production-line labor and materials). Most $1000 computers only have about $150 worth of materials and labor in it. The other $850 is the cost of developing that computer.

For many of the products we buy, we are paying mostly for the engineers who designed it, not for the actual product itself.

If NASA would have ordered 500 Rovers instead of just four, the cost would NOT have been $9.5 Million x 500. The "average cost per vehicle" would have come down drastically, because the development cost would have been spread out among 500 vehicles instead of just four.

If Gillette spent $750 Million to develop a razor and only decided to make 3 of them, they would need to sell them for $250 Million each.

Now, was $38 Million too much? Yeah -- I think it was. The original development and production budget (before cost overruns) of the four rovers was $19 million, which seems more reasonable. However, that is still $4.25 million per vehicle -- far more than the actual labor and materials cost of building one.


jra

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Ok maybe not the first but they did all sorts of experiments on the moon and a quick sky survey would have helped out quite a lot of people back on planet earth. I know its additional equipment but some kind of small radio telescope or optical telescope that sent back pics of the sky would have been of immense value to the astrophysicists of the world at the time.


The whole point of going to the Moon was to learn more about it, not the stars in the sky. You over exaggerate the importance of such images and underestimate complexities of bringing a radio/optical telescope and setting it up. You'd also need to bring something to power the telescope as well as something to transmit the data back to Earth. What ever they could have brought, would not be nearly as good as what was already on Earth at the time anyway, so it would have been a waste of time and money.


hey they could even have brought a few parts in every mission.


And just how would they bring all those parts together? The landing sites are too far apart from one another.


But instead they decided to take things like a 38 million dollar jeep so they could drive about a bit .lol


The rovers were a very valuable tool in the later Apollo missions. It allowed them to explore a much wider area and collect a wider range of samples to bring back.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
But if all they did was drive about and collect rock samples why even send humans? Its a waste of resources. If the Russians could automatically land a probe on the moon then getting one to grab a few rocks and return home with them wouldn't be to hard.

Having people there is prefect for setting up things that could be done automatically at the time. Setting up something complex like a telescope would have been an ideal task for a human. Dropping a mirror on the moon is the sort of task for an unmanned probe.

People have spent billions sending satellites into space to gather data on our universe since the moon landings so im pretty sure im not overestimating the importance of such data.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by VitalOverdose


But if all they did was drive about and collect rock samples why even send humans?


Vital. just look at the Spirit and Opportunity on Mars, right now. They've WAY exceeded their original mission life expectancy, and that's a good thing. But, what I bring up is something else. They represent technology that did NOT exist, in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There just wasn't any way to accomplish, with robotics, or even with remotely operated machines, what two humans could do with relative impunity. There just is NO substitute for the Human brain, and Human reflexes.


Its a waste of resources.


No.....it was a use of resources (Humans) in a calculated risk, since we didn't want to see people die...but the risk outweighed the benefits.

Just as a Human first broke the Sound 'barrier', etc, etc.


If the Russians could automatically land a probe on the moon...


The USSR successfully soft-landed un-manned probes, as did the USA. The USSR even had a few successful sample returns, robotically. Totaling a whopping 176 grams, from three successful attempts. BTW, 176 grams = 0.388 pounds. That's 6.21 ounces. Not a lot, huh???

EDIT HERE: Because, for comparison to that 6.21 ounces, the six Apollo landings and returns brought back a total of about 880 POUNDS of samples. These are, of course, Earth weights, not Lunar weights...

Carrying on.....


....then getting one to grab a few rocks and return home with them wouldn't be to hard.


See above.........


Dropping a mirror on the moon is the sort of task for an unmanned probe.


The Soviets tried that, with their unmanned landers. Didn't work so well. They recently just re-discovered one!!! Using four-decades more advanced tech, and better locating techniques. The reflector (not a "mirror") positioned by the Apollo 11 crew has been used flawlessly since 1969.


People have spent billions sending satellites into space to gather data on our universe since the moon landings so im pretty sure im not overestimating the importance of such data.


Huh? Well, NOW you're making sense. And, it's mostly "governments", so far....not "people" spending those billions....however, when the profits begin to outweigh the expenses....you're going to begin to see commercialization of space. When?? Aye, that's the rub......

[edit on 3/7/2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 

The Russians' Luna Missions returned moon rocks by robotic means. A total of 326 grams. The samples were more or less randomly scooped up. The Apollo mission returned 382 kilograms of moon rocks and soils, all of which were carefully selected by human astronauts with training in geology.

The Russians made at least two attempts to robotically position reflectors on the Moon. One succeeded, sort of. The Apollo program made six attempts to manually set reflectors on the Moon. All of them worked perfectly.

There were things that humans can do that robots can't. That still holds true. There is also the little matter of prestige. Say what you will about it, it is a powerful political force. Prestige = funding.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Its great to hear everyone's opinions on the subject.


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
If the Russians could automatically land a probe on the moon then getting one to grab a few rocks and return home with them wouldn't be to hard.


As weedwacker and Phage already stated. The Russian's brought back very little of the Moon with three sample returns. And none of it were rocks, just soil. And it was hard for the Russian's. Out of 11 attempts 3 worked.

The advantage with Apollo and using humans, was that you can bring back a lot more. And not only just soil samples, but rocks of different shapes and sizes as well as 2m deep core samples. The astronauts were also trained in geology and could pick and chose which samples looked the best for study. Apollo 17 had an actual geologist. Nothing beats having an expert on location.


Setting up something complex like a telescope would have been an ideal task for a human.


They were already busy with setting up things like the ALSEP. Besides, a small portable telescope on the Moon isn't going to get results like a larger Earth based telescope anyway, so it's pointless.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by jra]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Its all just to convenient that the conditions just happened to be such that for 40 years the only way we have been able to tell if anything ever happened on the moon at all is by bouncing a laser off a mirror.. I find it incredible that after 6 moon landings NASA didn't leave a single bit of equipment that continued to send back data of any kind that couldn't have been sent there by an unmanned probe (though i admit this wouldn't be a piece of cake .

Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there?
That would have been much safer for the astronauts.




[edit on 4-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Ok, lets put an end to this "no stars" confusion.

The only reason stars don't appear on any of the photo's is for the following simple reason:

"The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. "

and


"Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars."

To show that the stars CAN be photographed with longer exposure times, take a look at this photo taken by Apollo 16:

Source: en.wikipedia.org...






jra

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Its all just to convenient that the conditions just happened to be such that for 40 years the only way we have been able to tell if anything ever happened on the moon at all is by bouncing a laser off a mirror..


What about all the samples that were brought back? Especially the larger rocks that could not have been collected by an unmanned probe. I think the 800lbs of Lunar samples makes for some very solid evidence that we've been there.


I find it incredible that after 6 moon landings NASA didn't leave a single bit of equipment that continued to send back data of any kind that couldn't have been sent there by an unmanned probe


The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages (ALSEP) that I mentioned previously, continued to send back data 5 years after the last Apollo mission. They required assembly once on the Moon and could not be done by an unmanned probe.


Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there? That would have been much safer for the astronauts.


I'm not sure how that makes it safer, but there were several different ideas for Apollo in the early 60's. One of them being a "Lunar Surface Rendezvous", where an automated spacecraft is launched first, carrying extra propellant. Then the manned spacecraft would land and refuel for it's trip back. But then this would require two launches for each mission and that would make costs of the missions much more expensive.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Another important point to consider is that government photoshops the stars out of the sky during the daytime with their spy satellites and chem-trails!



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


that is a brilliant avatat you have there man



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
Now im thinking about it ..why didn't they send all the equipment to the moon by unmanned probe first and then meet up with it when they got there?
That would have been much safer for the astronauts.

Precision landings were not demonstrated until apollo 12. Failure to land close enough to the supplies would have meant mission failure at best, astronaut death at worst. Apollo 11 landed off course, partly due to rocky terrain and partly due to the unaccounted-for prograde thrust given by the undocking of the LEM from the command module; the last of the atmosphere inside the docking tunnel propelled the LEM forward. Later missions accounted for it by precisely relocating the LEM after undocking but before landing.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join