Apollo Hardware Spotted!

reply to post by Exuberant1


Yes, it's just a question of light.

On the photo were there is not tape what we see is the reflection of the Moon. On the other photo the Sun is shining directly on the aluminium, making it more visible.

In the whole photo that is clearly visible, even if we cannot see the tape.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Please enlighten us which spaceship "ascent engine's" blast away was deflected by the descent stage of Apollo.

If you don't already know you're certainly not qualified to make accusations.

Also, please let identify the "dust sweep" halo on A-14 site. As you pointed out, it depends on sun angles, comparable images from Apollo and LROC presented

Non-parallel shadows nonsense again? That assumes flat terrain, which the moon is obviously not.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This is the landing sight of Apollo 15 - how can you Argue with an image so conclusive as this one?

Looking that the amount you enlarged the apollo 15 image by, what you're demanding is a resolution of about 8 cms/pixel. Do you have any idea how absurd that expectation is, or do you just not care? I'm guessing the latter. KH-13 class spy satellites have that resolution, sure, at a cost of 20 tons (versus about 2 for LRO). That's almost as much as an apollo command/service module, so you might as well be launching a manned mission to the moon at that point.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This is the landing sight of Apollo 15 - how can you Argue with an image so conclusive as this one?

I'm guessing the latter. KH-13 class spy satellites have that resolution, sure, at a cost of 20 tons (versus about 2 for LRO). That's almost as much as an apollo command/service module, so you might as well be launching a manned mission to the moon at that point.

This is priceless logic hunter.
You are entirely correct that for all the time and waste of money over the last FORTY years yes count them f-o-r-t-y.
NASA should have put a man on the moon instead of messing around with this kind of usless crap.
I can't agree more.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

It looks like you keep on ignoring my questions about your first post.

From your other posts made since my previous post, now it looks to me that your issue with the images is that they were published in a format that is not one of formats used by the scientific community, including NASA itself, like the PDS compliant IMG format?

Is that it?

Yes, it is. Though it is not only the single question that have been raised.
Please scan my posts for all questions, repeating them again and again is not helpful for the thread readability.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Please enlighten us which spaceship "ascent engine's" blast away was deflected by the descent stage of Apollo.

If you don't already know you're certainly not qualified to make accusations.

Also, please let identify the "dust sweep" halo on A-14 site. As you pointed out, it depends on sun angles, comparable images from Apollo and LROC presented

Non-parallel shadows nonsense again? That assumes flat terrain, which .the moon is obviously not.

No accusations. You wrote that descent stage (of LM?) deflected the bast away [dust sweep effect] from ascent engine, so please let us know which spacecraft you referring to.

Shadows are looking parallel to me. Where do you see non parallel shadows, so we can pinpoint the curvature there, and all other shadows will imply the flat moon surface.

[edit on 6.8.2009 by bokonon2010]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

But whoever decides to go better remember to coast their spacecraft in lots of reflective metallic tape to ensure a successful mission:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0f25589dcd1.jpg[/atsimg]

As usual you did not provide a link to the source, so I have no idea where you found the image with the strange text about the scotch tape... I would like to know, so I sent you an U2U about it. I would appreciate an answer.

And if you are at all interested in facts, the CM was covered with a layer of Kapton polyimide tape:

To accommodate the heat-shield deformations that occur because of the thermal extremes in space and entry heating, the conical section of the heat shield is attached to the aluminum cabin structure by means of a system of fiber-glass slip stringers. This attachment system provides strain isolation between the inner and outer structures and reduces heat conduction from the heat shield to the cabin. The thermal control requirements for the spacecraft in outer space necessitates a relatively low thermal absorptance-to-emittance ratio of 0.4 for the surface of the CM. This low ratio is achieved with a pressure-sensitive Kapton polyimide tape that is coated with aluminum and oxidized silicon monoxide and that is applied over the entire external surface of the ablator.

You can find this information on page 5 of this PDF document:
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Some people even collect pieces of this tape, I am sure you can buy one if you want to, just so you can make sure that it really isn't scotch tape...

Most of this Kapton tape burned away during reentry, but what survived was often peeled off and kept by members of NASA's recovery crews as a souvenir of the historic Apollo mission they helped rescue. In the years since, collectors have sought fragments of the gold-colored foil, with small pieces from the individual missions attached to certificates of authenticity selling for hundreds of dollars.

Now, in what might be a first-ever offering of its type, UK-based space memorabilia dealer, Historic Space has debuted an acrylic presentation of Kapton tape segments from all 11 flown Apollo spacecraft.

collectspace.com...







[edit on 6/8/09 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by bokonon2010


OK. I finally know what you were talking about.

I think we will only get the original (as far as we can consider them originals, probably the most correct name would be first or second generation images, derived from the original data from LRO) IMG files on February 18, 2010, like it says on one of the links you posted, this link, right on the top of the page.

They usually publish the photos to the PDS only some six months or more after they were take, so until then we have only the TIFFs.


Now, as I said that I would answer your question about the dust on the Apollo 15 photos from the various sources, this is my answer.

I don't think that the brighter area is the result of the dust being blown away by the landing of the Lunar Module, I think that the brighter area is the topmost crater of that group of three craters, but people were looking for a brighter spot, thinking that the dust blown by the LM would create such a spot, and when they found that they thought it was what they were looking for without think of anything more.

Judging from what we can see in Moon photos taken on the surface and from the LRO photo, I even think that if the dust was blown away by the LM what we would get would be a darker area, not a brighter one.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Please enlighten us which spaceship "ascent engine's" blast away was deflected by the descent stage of Apollo.

If you don't already know you're certainly not qualified to make accusations.

No accusations. You wrote that descent stage (of LM?) deflected the bast away [dust sweep effect] from ascent engine, so please let us know which spacecraft you referring to.

I believe what ngchunter originally said was clear. The descent stage (the "legs" and descent engine of the LM) deflected the force of the acsent engine outwards rather than toward the moon's surface directly below the LM.

In other words...during the ignition of the ascent engine, the bottom part of the LM shielded the Moon's surface from much of the engine's blast.

Here's a video of the Apollo 17 LEM lifting off from the Moon. As you can see, much of the ascent engine blast was shielded by the bottom half (the descent stage) of the LEM:

Originally posted by bokonon2010
No accusations. You wrote that descent stage (of LM?) deflected the bast away [dust sweep effect] from ascent engine, so please let us know which spacecraft you referring to.

Again, if you don't know what I'm talking about you're not qualified to hurl accusations about what you should see or not see when comparing photos from different orbiters. There's no reasonable room for confusion about my original statement.

Shadows are looking parallel to me. Where do you see non parallel shadows, so we can pinpoint the curvature there, and all other shadows will imply the flat moon surface.

Are those lines drawn through certain shadows parallel? Doesn't looks so to me. Looks to me like you cherry picked what shadows you wanted to draw lines through anyway while other unlabeled shadows fall in different directions.
i319.photobucket.com...
By the way, shadows falling into craters are by definition falling into a slope and are unrepresentative of shadows falling on surfaces above the craters.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
This is priceless logic hunter.
You are entirely correct that for all the time and waste of money over the last FORTY years yes count them f-o-r-t-y.
NASA should have put a man on the moon instead of messing around with this kind of usless crap.
I can't agree more.

Do you realize how much more difficult it would be to put something the size of a KH-13 class spy satellite into lunar orbit than it is to put it into earth orbit? NASA hasn't had the budget to continue apollo for the last 40 years.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
This is priceless logic hunter.
You are entirely correct that for all the time and waste of money over the last FORTY years yes count them f-o-r-t-y.
NASA should have put a man on the moon instead of messing around with this kind of usless crap.
I can't agree more.

Do you realize how much more difficult it would be to put something the size of a KH-13 class spy satellite into lunar orbit than it is to put it into earth orbit? NASA hasn't had the budget to continue apollo for the last 40 years.

Yes I do. I have looked at the budgets.
NASA has been babbling that one for thirty some years.
It didn't babel it for the years they claim to have landed men on the moon six and a half times while simultaneously conducting a ten year war half a world away.
How could NASA, not have the money the last thirty some years.
The government prints it any time it wants to.

How was it possible then?
I'll bet you would not like to calculate just how many tons of junk has been sent into space and match it to the budget and make sense of what you and NASA are trying pawn off on the the taxpayer, would you?
I am a taxpayer.
Sort of a list, of what the taxpayer got for the dollar by the ton for the last forty years.
I think we were bilked as taxpayers and I have seen no evidence that we weren't.
Even if we did manage to land some human on the moon FORTY years ago!
This dollar deal is a horrid excuse for this contention.

Do you think that FCC should have the same kind of rules, in case somebody spotted this:

and with the thread contributor member's visual abilities, taking into account sunlight and lunar surface, is actually this:

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Yes I do. I have looked at the budgets.
NASA has been babbling that one for thirty some years.
It didn't babel it for the years they claim to have landed men on the moon six and a half times while simultaneously conducting a ten year war half a world away.
How could NASA, not have the money the last thirty some years.
The government prints it any time it wants to.

How was it possible then?
I'll bet you would not like to calculate just how many tons of junk has been sent into space and match it to the budget and make sense of what you and NASA are trying pawn off on the the taxpayer, would you?
I am a taxpayer.
Sort of a list, of what the taxpayer got for the dollar by the ton for the last forty years.
I think we were bilked as taxpayers and I have seen no evidence that we weren't.
Even if we did manage to land some human on the moon FORTY years ago!
This dollar deal is a horrid excuse for this contention.

NASA's budget in the mid-1960s (when most of the Apollo equipment was being designed and tested) was over double NASA's annual budget from the 1970's until the beginning of the Constellation program in the mid-2000's.

NASA's budget during the height of spending for the Apollo program (1963 to 1968) was a far larger part of the nation's budget than it is today. And back then, almost all of NASA's funding went towards the Apollo program. That's not true today; NASA is spreading their money around much more thinly today. NASA spends a probe to Mars every 2 years -- it needs to fund those programs. NASA needs to fund the space station until the year 2016. NASA needs to fund the Space shuttle until next year. It needs to fund ongoing programs such as the Mars Rovers, the Cassini Saturn probe, the New Horizons Pluto probe, and the STEREO Sun probes . It is funding early conceptual phases of a manned mission to Mars. It is providing ongoing funding for the Hubble space telescope and funding for the new James Webb space telescope. Plus there are many other programs that the average person is unaware of...and on top of all of that NASA is funding the Constellation Program (the new manned Moon program).

NASA had basically one mission in the 1960s -- the Apollo program. Today, NASA has dozens of programs to fund, and they need to do it with about half as much money.

HOWEVER --
The real reason why NASA hasn't sent a spy satellite to the Moon is simple: There is NO REASON to send a spy satellite to the Moon. It would be a huge waste of taxpayer's dollars. What reason would NASA have for spending all that money to send a satellite to take ultra hi-res close-up views of the Moon (basically "pretty pictures"). I'm sure there is would be "some" science value to doing this, but the LRO can do the science that is required for the Constellation Program (finding safe and interesting landing sites for the Constellation Astronauts) -- and LRO can do it much more cheaply than a satellite with spy-camera technology.

...and your contention that the government just "prints money any time it wants to" is ridiculous. The government is trying to increase the value of the dollar, not decrease it. If they simply printed additional money whenever they wanted, the dollar would become more and more worthless and prices for goods would increase through hyper-inflation. The government does put additional money into the country's monetary base from time-to-time, but they do so in a very controlled fashion -- i.e. the government won't just print money whenever they want pay for a new program.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Yes I do. I have looked at the budgets.
NASA has been babbling that one for thirty some years.
It didn't babel it for the years they claim to have landed men on the moon six and a half times while simultaneously conducting a ten year war half a world away.

NASA wasn't responsible for fighting any war.

How could NASA, not have the money the last thirty some years.
The government prints it any time it wants to.

NASA doesn't control how much money it gets, congress does.

How was it possible then?
I'll bet you would not like to calculate just how many tons of junk has been sent into space and match it to the budget and make sense of what you and NASA are trying pawn off on the the taxpayer, would you?

NASA isn't responsible for all launches, many and perhaps most are military or commercial. If you look at the mass of material NASA puts into orbit you also have to consider where it's going; the vast majority put into orbit each year by NASA stays in low earth orbit. Very little goes to other worlds the way it did with the Apollo spacecraft.

I think we were bilked as taxpayers and I have seen no evidence that we weren't.

I don't care what you think, I only care about what you can prove. I see no evidence that we were intentionally "bilked."

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


hunter Please read---- Bilked is bilked intension or not!

Solye you said this---

"NASA's budget in the mid-1960s (when most of the Apollo equipment was being designed and tested) was over double NASA's annual budget from the 1970's until the beginning of the Constellation program in the mid-2000's. "

donny says this---
Assuming this is correct, since all the experimental work was already complete .Except the Apollo 11 (experiment broadcast on live TV tee hee)
.That would be six supposed moon walks one failed mission and the entire Gemini missions, Von Braun's kidnapping and the concept of NASA from the get go.

Then any subsequent mission should have cost way LESS.
Say seven missions plus other huge programs and all the rest we will call Cost X.
One additional mission with way less weight and way better technology and ugh! more understanding of space, we will call Cost Y.

If you divide X by Y you will get a number so absurdly small it is not worth calculating in real numbers.
Be my guest if you want to.
Any disinfo you can offer on this subject is nonsense.
And again NO REASON for such a lousy camera in this day and age on any mission.
Or another manned landing in the last FORTY years.
Or a rebate to every taxpayer.
Proof positive
Let's talk about congress another time.
PS What spy satellite? Did I say anything about that?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

And again NO REASON for such a lousy camera in this day and age on any mission.

Excuse me? Nasa has always had really good cameras. Really good ones. You're just lying here.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

hunter Please read---- Bilked is bilked intension or not!

Ok, then prove to me that we were "bilked" unintentionally. Go ahead, I see no evidence of it, just unreasonable expectations.

Then any subsequent mission should have cost way LESS.
Say seven missions plus other huge programs and all the rest we will call Cost X.
One additional mission with way less weight and way better technology and ugh! more understanding of space, we will call Cost Y.

Way less weight? What the heck? Later missions weighed more, not less. They brought more with them on J missions. What makes you think we would have been able to make everything weigh much less in later missions despite bringing more payload, and how would that affect the number of people, support, and supplies needed to operate the full apollo infrastructure, including building more rockets?

If you divide X by Y you will get a number so absurdly small it is not worth calculating in real numbers.

Since none of this uses real numbers or justifiable expectations, you can't determine any kind of "ratio."

And again NO REASON for such a lousy camera in this day and age on any mission.

LRO's camera is the best, the BEST, any unmanned probe to the moon has ever had.

PS What spy satellite? Did I say anything about that?

That was to exuberant and his unreasonable expectations for LRO's resolution when the specifications were known well ahead of time.

reply to post by PsykoOps

YOU are not excused.
I hope the mods bust you!
second line bad bad NASA cameras IMO

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by ngchunter


total disinfo ploy
Try taking my X Y math altogether and deny it.
don't split it into two folish arguements.
PPPPoooo