Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
They did ask them ... and this is what they had to say ... also can anyone answer what these 'optics' are he talks about.

www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
But....if you had the opportunity (and the Shuttle Discovery just landed, today, after a mission to the Space Station...the ISS.
YOU could ask someone who has ACTUALLY been there?




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The optics were primarily cameras, using specialized filters. They were also two optical telescopes in the Lunar Module for navigational aids. The filters could slightly diffract the light, similarly to our atmosphere, to allow the tiny pinpoints of light, as stars appear in space, to be "enlarged" enough to allow the retinal rods to response to white light.

As for the human eye, remember also that the iris narrows in bright sunlight, to limit light exposure to the retina. This significantly causes the light of any star to appear greatly diminished in light-exposed environments. Sunlight, in space, is very much brighter to direct vision than anything we can experience on Earth. That is why the gloves have to be so temperature resistent. When in direct sunlight, metal tools become extremely hot. When in shade, the severe cold of space makes them extremely cold. When working in direct sunlight, one metal surface can be hot, while the rear portion of the object, hidden from the light, is very cold. The gloves have to work with both extremes at the same time. In fact, the gloves are so difficult to use, those astronauts going on EVAs have to practice forearm-strengthening exercises for months prior to their mission.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
(1) Bright full moon in sky? Check!
(2) Standing on very bright reflective surface. (snow) Check!
(3) Plenty of street lamps to spoil clarity with flare? Check!

Hmmmmm......guess I must be hallucinating when I looked at the stars on moonlit winters night?

(1) Earth clearly visible in sky? Check!
(2) Standing on grey moondust surface? Check!
(3) No atmosphere or thermal disruption? Check!

Hmmmm...Swamp gas!, thats whats making the stars on the moon so hard to see. Mission accomplished!

When in direct sunlight, metal tools become extremely hot. When in shade, the severe cold of space makes them extremely cold.

I could see how that could get hot or cold enough to be a problem, even mor so in the LEM that has ZERO thermal shielding or shielding of any kind, some thin aliminium and pretty gold foil!

Those pesky gloves huh?
They have to be pressurised making them hard to bend much at all, yet flexible enough to allow some dexterity. Enough to work cameras, scientific experiments....shovelling BS?





[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
TNB,

You are still looking at stars after their light rays have been scattered by our atmosphere. Stars look bright, but very small, in space. That is why most cameras don't have the resolution to show stars on their photographs.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Wow...so many replies and theories for what is a basic physics problem.

As mentioned above, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of manual photography (i.e. aperture, lenses, exposure, etc.) will understand this phenomenon.

First the moon is a huge reflection board. That's why we can see it here on earth. Now imagine standing on that reflector board as it's reflecting. The intensity is immense and constant( I think that's what the other posters meant by "light pollution") and your eyes will NOT adjust like walking into a dark room from a bright one. Again, the very intense / constant light is all around you, being reflected by the surface.

Your eyes are like an automatic camera and adjust to the highest light level to protect itself. If you took a picture on the bright side of the moon and adjusted the settings to ignore the brightness, used the proper ASA film, you would have a pic with stars. And yes, on the dark side of the moon you would see stars.

It's really quite simple. Hope that explained it for some people.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Connector]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
"Billy Idol gets it!"

Good explanation, Connector. This really isn't that hard, but can be confusing for the uninitiated.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
C'mon guys you cant have it all ways!

If it was so super bright, surely it would wash out all the small detail to be seen?
But its the same wierd light conditions that can select which 'shaded areas to selectively' illuminate.

For crying out loud....even the camera maker is baffled as to how they got the pics they did, as is the manufacturer of the suits who when asked to construct suits for use in a radiation environment, said they couldnt do it.

Just once I would like someone to admit that they are baffled by an aspect of the project, rather than blindly trotting out some mantra to head off some 'truther' or other.

If someone clearly explains away a query to my satisfaction, great, thats education, but the moon landing thing has way too many questions to be squeeky clean.

Roswell....now theres a fairy story.

99 % of UFO 'spaceships' are baloney for me, the apparent evolution from biscuit tins, through Ed Walters polaroid lampshades, to the CGI creations of today take some explaining.
But it still leaves 1% of 'something' to look at objectively, thats all, 'V' isnt real....yet! But we can at least discuss these things without just getting into a 'Oh no its not Vs Oh yes it is' contest.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I guess one would also have to consider how much light/radiation the visor of the helmets filtered. Just like a good pair of polarized fishing glasses blocks much of the glare off of water's surface, you'd have to imagine that a million-dollar helmet visor designed to protect one from the sun would be blocking some minor light sources.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I am sorry, but....


Oxygen reflects a blue wavelength yes.

And I did mean the reason you cannot see the light during the day on Earth is because of all the Light Reflecting off the Ground (and objects).



This (the above) sounds like something I heard, once, about a child who asked a parent "What makes the sky blue?"

And, the answer was, "Well, it is reflected from the oceans."


Nope.

Oh, and BTW....the MAJOR gas, in our atmosphere, is NOT oxygen. It is Nitrogen.

Seems this misconception prevails, to no end....sad.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Personally I dont think they were there....Im sorry, but there it is.

I think that for various reasons it had to appear that they were there, hence the work put into projects like filming the guys in orbit while claiming they were much further out. The huge moon surface ostensibly for training, came in handy for actual 'footage'.

Look at the post flight press conference....happy bunnies?
Buzz still wont swear on a bible that he did or did not go.
The wild flying of the lander prototype a mere two weeks before launch?
All in all it just doesnt pass the smell test to me, it may have been the right for the USA to do at that time in the world, but time moved on and in hindsight the gaps are showing thats all.

Or are we to expect that the US would never do such a thing as lie to its people or the world?, given the company your in on this particular website thats a pretty arrogant view.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tie No Bows!
 


Too bad....you've been fooled by the wannabes,of the current age.

So, so sad. That normally intelligent people, those who think they are af reasonalble intelligence, can be fooled by the snake-oil salesmen, and Internet shysters of today.

Tragic, really.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tie No Bows!
(1) Bright full moon in sky? Check!
(2) Standing on very bright reflective surface. (snow) Check!
(3) Plenty of street lamps to spoil clarity with flare? Check!

Hmmmmm......guess I must be hallucinating when I looked at the stars on moonlit winters night?

(1) Earth clearly visible in sky? Check!
(2) Standing on grey moondust surface? Check!
(3) No atmosphere or thermal disruption? Check!

Hmmmm...Swamp gas!, thats whats making the stars on the moon so hard to see. Mission accomplished!

When in direct sunlight, metal tools become extremely hot. When in shade, the severe cold of space makes them extremely cold.

I could see how that could get hot or cold enough to be a problem, even mor so in the LEM that has ZERO thermal shielding or shielding of any kind, some thin aliminium and pretty gold foil!

Those pesky gloves huh?
They have to be pressurised making them hard to bend much at all, yet flexible enough to allow some dexterity. Enough to work cameras, scientific experiments....shovelling BS?





[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]


There is a big difference between the brightness of a moonlit night with street lamps and sunlit day. I think that sunlight reflected of moon surface is bright enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars.

Aluminium and gold foil is excellent thermal shielding, reflective enough.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Ahhh just got back.. kids in bed and time to read up the thread...

I must say I’m shocked at how many people don't understand how light reflects and refracts.

It's a total travesty and a lot of you need to go back to school.

First let me say 100% definitely that the atmosphere we have here on earth is the reason we cannot see the stars throughout the day, sunlight scattered at a brightness level that is equal or greater than the light of the stars....

Though those who know the skies may point out that Sirius the brightest star is often seen during day time and for that matter so is the planet Venus....

The moon does actually have an atmosphere though it is so slight that it would make zero difference to light refraction.

Yes it's true from a photographers point of view taking images where there is very bright areas right next to very dark areas is a complete nightmare.

And yes the iris will react to light to reduce the total amount of light entering the eye..

However.... I reiterate....

It would be possible to create the correct circumstances whereby the astronaughts could have quite clearly seen the stars. Just as going into the dark room from a bright room... your eyes to begin with can’t see a thing but after some time your eyes slowly begin to adjust and hey presto you can see and wondered why you thought it was so dark earlier....

It would have only taken 10 minutes of their time to place themselves in a position where no light was reflecting on their visor and under these conditions their eyes would adjust to the new light levels and the star field would have grown in intensity to show what surely would have been a spectacular sight.

The fact that they didn't even attempt this is very very telling...

Then we have the astronaughts reaction when asked about the stars....

For anyone who debates about light through an atmosphere please refer to here...

Why can't you see stars during the day?


Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue colour in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue colour. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.


Hope this helps,

Korg.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tie No Bows!
 


This, from someone who apparently has NO idea of the technology involved....


Those pesky gloves huh?
They have to be pressurised making them hard to bend much at all, yet flexible enough to allow some dexterity. Enough to work cameras, scientific experiments....shovelling BS?


Let me guess...you saw the stupid video by that moron who claimed spacesuits were "impossible", because of "air pressure"??

YES....the gloves WERE hard to bend....but not because they were pressurized to normal Earth atmospheric pressure, in a vacuum!

The suits on Apollo (oh, and BTW, even TODAY, on EVAs) are only pressurized to about 3.5 PSI.

THIS works because the Astronauts are breathing 100% oxygen.

Really....a bit of research, and you would appear a LOT less ignorant....




[edit on 20 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

THIS works because the Astronauts are breathing 100% oxygen.


I've always wondered how this works, since too much oxygen normally causes humans to go light headed..

Does this mean that thier breath is short since they don't have to take other gases onboard such as our air??

If that's the case it must feel really wierd...

All the best,

Korg.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Hey buddy....Im more than capable of foolling myself thanks!
Post amended in the name of world peace!

Peace!


[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tie No Bows!
Hey buddy....Im more than capable of foolling myself thanks!

Try this on:


Are you even posting in the right thread??

Or is this an example of those OFF TOPIC banners the Mods seem to stamp on people such as your example of off topic post??

This is about stars you know those bright twinkly things in the sky at night and the moon... you know that big round thing in the night sky....



Korg.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Had you actually read anything other than your own posts, you would have understood how I arrived at my last post, but hey if you feel that stomping on those who dont fit into your box...carry on.

If explaining a position in a lighthearted tone is offensive to you, I apologize.

If you wish to pick over others comments, but seem rather less picky with those who agree with yours, thats your perogative...enjoy.

Youve far exceeded my expectations in the characters I expected to come across on sites like these, Im sorry I dont live up to your lofty standards, but theres little I can do about that.


Poch Mahone!

Peace!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tie No Bows!
Had you actually read anything other than your own posts, you would have understood


Errr... I read the entire thread, some earlier and the rest just now... Your post has no bearing to the subject at hand.

I'd hate to see this excellent thread derailed...

now let's stop bickering and get back on topic!!

Korg.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by weedwhacker

THIS works because the Astronauts are breathing 100% oxygen.


I've always wondered how this works, since too much oxygen normally causes humans to go light headed..

Does this mean that thier breath is short since they don't have to take other gases onboard such as our air??

If that's the case it must feel really wierd...

All the best,

Korg.


It works because partial pressure of oxygen is the same in space suits and on Earth. Earths atmosphere has a pressure of about 100 kPa, with partial pressure of oxygen of about 20 kPa. The rest (80 kPa) is mostly inert nitrogen, which you dont need to breathe.






top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join