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.

 

The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 


Hmmmmm they sure had to see the Earth or they wouldn't have come back...
So why can't they see the Stars...

And what about the Hubble telescope in orbit????

They found an odd $$$ or two, to look at stars using Hubble...

I too, wonder why No stars seen on the moon???

Hell I have often looked at the Sun and the Sky doesn't go black...
and I can still see the Environment, Clouds etc., while looking at the sun...

I still have very good vision last checked by my optician....
Only use glasses for reading....

Getting Old I guess.


[edit on 25-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



Here is a thread about Apollo Guidance Computer Technology.

Since the technology discussion is alittle OT here...



jra

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So tell me why exactly why have we not gone back??? and please don't state political will.... There is more than USA involved in space....


Again, it all comes down to money. No other space agencies have a budget the size of NASA's. If NASA can't afford it, then it should be obvious why no other countries have gone to the Moon.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
reply to post by ppk55
 


how am i trying to take it off topic. really the best people to ask is an astronomy forum.

that's what ive been told before when asked.

that light only becomes visable light when it hits something.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by MR BOB]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by MR BOB]


Like retinas?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Hmmm so you now concur that it would only take a few seconds for the astronauts eyes to adjust if they decided to look up and shield thier visor then??
Seems like you are back peddling [sic] here....
Korg.


Me, I don't post on topics where I haven't a clue - that way I avoid embarrassment. But, if you must..

The subject of eye adaptation is actually quite complex - it would be ill-informed to think that full dark adaptation takes place immediately, particularly after you have had all this explained to you earlier..

Frankly, I am ASTONISHED that some folks haven't noticed how their eyes work. Never been to a movie theatre in daylight and been dazzled for several seconds as you came out? Never noticed that it takes from 15-30 minutes (largely depending on how much bright daylight your eyes were exposed to in the previous few hours) to fully adapt to darkness at night?

For anyone with a functioning brain, they would realise that it is.. a gradual process. You don't just flick a switch.

1. The initial opening up of your pupils will happen over several seconds. After about 5-10 seconds (and we'll come back to that number shortly), the eyes will have adapted sufficiently to see, say, Venus, Sirius and similar very bright stars/planets.

2. The dark adaptation process (rhodopsin production in the retina), which would allow you see the dimmer stars, begins next but takes at least a few minutes to be noticeable, and gradually improves over the next 30 minutes until you are fully night adapted.

Now of course if anything bright manages to enter the eye's field of view (including peripheral vision) - even a tiny stray light beam - the night adaptation will stop immediately. The pupils will rapidly shrink and the rhodopsin is destroyed by even moderate light levels, so it all has to restart.

So lets think about that for a moment (- yes, the thing Korg is having trouble doing). These are astronauts on the Moon, with a large number of tasks to do, all in bright sunlight. They need to concentrate (and they also need NOT to fall over, preferably..)

Now Korg is suggesting they should:

1. Look upwards (even this alone is dangerous in low gravity, as you can get 'vertigo' and there is NOT a normal sense of balance in a bulky suit).

2. Somehow, shield their eyes. From the Sun, the horizon, ground, mountains, spacecraft and anything else that is a direct source of bright sunlight, as well as the edge of the visor/helmet and any visor reflections/refractions off the curved glass. To do that, they only really have large bulky gloves, with gaps between the fingers and bright white cuffs. (I invite anyone to take a loong hard look at images like AS11-40-5903 (the famous one of Aldrin, and try to imaging how difficult (I say "impossible") it would be to use those gloves to effectively stop light getting into that huge curved visor.)

3. Wait for at least 5-10 seconds to have any chance whatsoever of seeing ONLY the very brightest stars/planets, eg Venus or Sirius. And of course they would have known exactly where to look in advance)

4. Wait for at least another several minutes (and remember, not a bit of stray light must enter that visor), before their view began to even approach that of a night sky on Earth.

(Let's assume of course that they didn't begin to overbalance, and that Mission Control hadn't started yelling at them by this time...)

And as it was broad daylight, they could not possibly have got a better view of the stars than on earth UNLESS they took up some sort of dedicated device to completely shield their visors from stray light.

What a complete and utterly ridiculous waste of time.

And all this was raised simply because some folks were desperate to get a bit more publicity for the dying Apollo hoax conspiracy. Those same folks clearly don't understand the first thing abut how eyes work, nor have any grasp whatsoever of the relative light levels.


I'm sure all this stuff is boring you again, Korg. I suggest you dismiss it and run away to another thread where you can try again... But as I've pointed out before, other folk are learning the facts, even if you can't/won't.

So it's all good.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The reason being that there are no stars present is the simle fact that Stanley Kubric forgot to include them when he filmed that footage from the remote soundstage where he shot it. Very interesting story involving this guy in 1969. He was the only one with the film making skills at that time who could have pulled this off.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Pupillary reflex

www.statemaster.com...

Encyclopedia > Pupillary reflex

In medicine, pupil constriction (also known as the pupillary reflex) is reduction of pupil size. It is the normal response of the pupil of the eye to light and dependent on the function of the optic nerves and oculomotor nerves. It is also important in accommodation (when the eyes focus on something close).


Emergency room physicians often assess the pupillary reflex because it is useful for gauging brain stem function. Normally, pupils react (constrict) equally (or consenually). Lack of the pupillary reflex or an abnormal pupillary reflex can be caused by optic nerve damage, oculomotor nerve damage, brain death and things that mimic brain death, such as barbiturates. The optic nerve is responsible for the afferent limb of the pupillary reflex, or in other words, senses the incoming light. The oculomotor nerve is responsible for the efferent limb of the pupillary reflex; in other words, it drives the muscles that constrict the pupil. Dependent on how the pupils constrict or do not constrict one can determine which of the cranial nerves is damaged.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Have you never turned a light off in a room at night and it takes a few second or longer for your eyes to adjust thats the same idea.



Hmmm so you now concur that it would only take a few seconds for the astronauts eyes to adjust if they decided to look up and shield thier visor then??

Seems like you are back peddling here....

Korg.


Again you have some trouble reading a few seconds or LONGER, WE DONT KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT because for us here on earth its difficult to go from a VERY BRIGHT SUMMERS DAY to TOTAL DARKNESS in a fraction off a second anyway how his your static charge



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Here is a challenge to all the guys here re the relative brightness of objects find out or calculate if you know how to the brightness of the sun compared to the moon and then the moon compared to the brightest star seen from earth Sirius lets see all the smart asses. I mean you all say we should be able to see stars there so lets so the difference in brightness of the Moon and stars.
Also explain why we can SEE the moon in a daylight summer sky and no stars not even sirius none of you have answered that YET.
MAYBE WHEN YOU WORK OUT ANSWER ABOVE YOU WILL KNOW WHY!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Regarding Latency of Pupillary Reflex to Light.

Although this is a thesis referring to aging, the Data in this is still relevant to changes in light intensity.

libraryonline.erau.edu...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Regarding Latency of Pupillary Reflex to Light.

Although this is a thesis referring to aging, the Data in this is still relevant to changes in light intensity.

libraryonline.erau.edu...



Can you explain what you are trying to show with this becuase if you try this for yourself which has been repeated many times on here.

Go into a very well lit room stay there for a while turn of the light see how long it takes your eyes to adjust before you can make out shapes etc in the darkness.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So tell me why exactly why have we not gone back??? and please don't state political will.... There is more than USA involved in space....


Again, it all comes down to money. No other space agencies have a budget the size of NASA's. If NASA can't afford it, then it should be obvious why no other countries have gone to the Moon.


That's a weak argument. With the proven amount of natural resources and commercial support available it would be profitable to go to the moon, not negative in cost. Unless you think there would be loss of life... then the cost is immeasurable.

Korg.


jra

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
With the proven amount of natural resources and commercial support available it would be profitable to go to the moon, not negative in cost.


The natural resources on the Moon? If that's what you're referring to, then how can one go about acquiring them? What equipment is there that could be used on the Moon? How will you get that equipment there? How can one bring back those resources in sufficient quantities to be profitable? What resources could one mine on the Moon that aren't already available on Earth? If it's available on Earth, there's no way one could make a profit getting it from the Moon.

Also what commercial support are you referring to? I don't know of any that are available to go to the Moon.

Taking advantage of the Moons resources would NOT be profitable at all. Not until space travel becomes incredibly inexpensive.

Face it, going to the Moon is expensive.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


A little off topic but then again, may be on topic, to answer some questions on this thread...

In the late 1960's & 1970's there were plans to start mining on the moon...

There were also Plans to use the moon as a base for deep space exploration, so what happened to these bases on the moon?

Its been more than 30 years now....

Are there no precious materials on the moon ?

Or can't they get to the Moon ???

I remember the Americans laying claim to the Moon and Mining rights back then....

Can't give any links right now, but I am sure there will be something regarding this in history.... I will spend a little time and see what I can find....

Oops found a little mentioning the 70's....

lunar.arc.nasa.gov...

And regarding the Treaties...

indomitus.net...

Questionable....


[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Hey Matrix Traveller,

Does this image look like a potential Moon mine site to you?

(I have included a terrestrial mine below it for comparison's sake.)




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

The natural resources on the Moon? If that's what you're referring to, then how can one go about acquiring them? What equipment is there that could be used on the Moon? How will you get that equipment there? How can one bring back those resources in sufficient quantities to be profitable?


Well chiefly Helium-3 But there are likely to be lots of other resources and that requires prospecting...

You could easily under right the cost of prospecting by the collection of helium-3.

Equipment you say?? That depends on what you are mining, it should be easy to get a ship to carry storage containers. Then when filled, launch them back to earth orbit for collection.




Also what commercial support are you referring to? I don't know of any that are available to go to the Moon.


Commercial support as in hard earn readies... Money... The commercialisation of space doesn't just mean space tourists....

Nuclear companies as not short on a bob or two and with access to mass quantities of Helium-3 they would I’m sure stump up some cash.


Taking advantage of the Moons resources would NOT be profitable at all. Not until space travel becomes incredibly inexpensive.


As I have pointed out, the Helium-3 is enough reason to go alone, yet there maybe other resources that are minable, and can be prospected on the helium-3 mining run.

Yes there will have to be capital outlay.... But that my friend is how business works... You have to speculate to accumulate.

Korg.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I have been intrigued by a lot of this sort of material on the net and seen many examples...

My thoughts are..... there is a hell of a lot which is going on around us (In Space) and the Public is not being told...

But I have no way of knowing if our moon landings were authentic or not.

All is based on what we are told and can only be accepted in Faith or we just keep an open mind and see what happens in the future...

I was a young man during the moon landings and I have a lot of questions that need answers..

For example I had a friend back then that brought a ZC1 in to work to listen to what was being transmitted from NASA and back to NASA from the Command module...

I have one big problem with believing the landings to be authentic as there was NO delay between Broadcasts from NASA and the command module and contact with them on the moon.

Considering the distances involved I would expect to hear time period/s separating both ends of communications but there were very few delays.

I would like an explanation for this....

Many different Frequencies (channels) were also used more than we recorded….

Often they would change to another frequency when things of great interest were found along the way???

Often we could Not find the Frequency they would go to next ???

Could something have frightened them off, from returning to the Moon ???

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 



I have one big problem with believing the landings to be authentic as there was NO delay between Broadcasts from NASA and the command module and contact with them on the moon.




?? Incorrect. Have you listened to the recordings, properly?

Are you able to interpret what you're hearing?

There WAS a time delay, as is expected, because of light speed.

Ask yourself this: When you watch modern news reports, where a reporter is in a remote place, and communicating by satellite with the studio, do you ever hear the time delay?

"Yes", is what you should answer. Geo-synchronous telecommunications satellites are orbiting at about 25,000 miles above the Earth's equator. Round-trip light speed time for the ~50,000 miles (plus delays within the earth-based network) adds up to just under one second. People, in comversations, will sometimes speak over each other, in that short delay of time.

You hear the SAME THING HAPPEN in the Apollo recordings, and the time delay grows longer, the farther away the Astronauts are from Earth.

What is likely confusing you is WHICH recording you hear. IF it is one from the Astronaut's point of view, then HE hears the Mission Control transmission, and responds right away, of course. THEN it takes about 1.3 seconds for his words to reach MC. THEN, if MC responds back immediately upon hearing the Astronaut, it takes another 1.25 seconds. SO, at the least time period, an Astronaut on the Moon can say something, and then must wait a minimum of ~2.6 seconds for any response back from Earth.

Of course, any converstaions between the three Astronauts (two on the surface, one in orbit in the CSM) wil have no significant delay.

Perhaps THAT confuses some people, two. Just who is speaking, at any given time.

Sometimes, when you listen to enough of the recordings, you will hear an Astronaut speaking, in response to a question, or just syaing something to MC, when MC is saying something AT THE SAME TIME, and it is coming in on the Astronaut's receiver, and is picked up by his mic, as he transmits...so he pauses, to listen to what Earth is saying.

THIS is all because of the time delay.

I would have thought that this sort of thing is obvious, to most people, in this day and age. Guess not....

Don't understand why it's so hard for people to comprehend!


scitation.aip.org...




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just found this interesting website (Hey! Don't shoot the messenger!):

www.thekeyboard.org.uk...

[edit on 26 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Helium-3 is not currently usable as an energy source, it is intended for fusion reactors, which are still quite far in the future.

Launch to low earth orbit alone is costly - a few thousand dollars per kg. Costs of a launch to the Moon, and back, pretty much rules out any cost effective mining. Only suitable moon mining would be just for local consumption only, water and metals for a lunar base, or some rocket fuel etc. However, I think mining asteroids qould be much better idea.

There is really not much you can do to earn money on the Moon and in space, except tourism and maybe some advanced zero-G manufacturing.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I posted a thread where you can be Off Topic about the whole Apollo issue Here:

If Apollo was fake, then why you using the computer today?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join