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.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nataylor
And the amount of movement between shots and motion blur in the night-time photos should give you a good idea they're pretty long exposures.
Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?
Were the Moon surface exposures long DOH!!!
No they were typical sunlit exposure times for the speed of film used.
Obviously when a process uses three factors it's to much for YOU and ppk55 to grasp how it works.
Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by FoosM
The reason they could not see the stars from the surface is because the moon acts as a giant reflector.
Why do you think the moon is lit up? IT'S CALLED GLARE. Or also known on earth as light pollution.
Why do you think observatories are placed as far away as possible from cities?
Where are those Apollo pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?
Potential answers.
1. The Apollo 8 was performing the barbeque roll manouvre during trans-lunar phase (slowly rotating the spacecraft to help balance out thermal radiation absorbed by the surface of the vehicle facing the sun )and it was not technically feasible to do long exposure, dim-light photography for this reason.
2. NASA has pictures of Apollo 8 starfields taken from LEO or MEO which could potentially reveal a hoax.
3. The surface of the moon is too shiny, outshining all other objects in space (save Venus, which was mentioned to be in a few photographs), therefore, attempting dim-light, long term exposure photography from the surface of the moon would be an exercise in futility.
4. Same argument as 3 but using radiation as the excuse
5. Listed as an item of interest by NASA in the December 15 news release (see above) dim-light, long-exposure photography was not undertaken by the Apollo 8 crew nor any subsequent Apollo mission because it did not serve the propaganda need at the time and which television served to specifically do: brainwash the population into believing that some blurry tv show was "a witnessing of history in the making".
6. They didn't carry enough cameras or film.
7. Frank Borman and Houston were aware of this item of interest (see above) but were forgetful or neglectful in pursuing it.
8. Windown contaminations aboard Apollo 8 significantly impacted the photographic capabilities of the mission.
DJ you have some apologizing and retractions to do before I answer any of your questions.
Starting with " You've already mistaken a CGI animation with actual telemetry"
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Where are those Apollo pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?
074:41:50 Anders: Roger. Since the qual[ity] isn't so good, let me give you a quick rundown of the status of photo targets. You ready to copy?
074:41:59 Collins: Ready to copy.
074:42:05 Okay. At rev 1, we got photo target 90 and terminator photography south for near-side terminator. Starting on rev 2, we've got target 12 and targets 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 23. Unfortunately, we got into a high - I got into the high-speed film there somewhere, and I think those 250-mm targets were on high speed. We did change film, and starting out in Tex - Crater Texas, with target 28, 31, 40, 36, plus several targets of opportunity that were recorded on the DSE, but apparently lost. Have you been able to copy?
Sigh...
Maybe the problem for is that my posts are too long and the details just get jumbled up there in your head. I dont know. All I can tell you is to pay closer attention to what I have posted in the future.
Based upon your thinking.
Apollo astronauts could not take photos of the stars with the Hasselblads because their settings were made for daylight photography.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
The Astronauts had limited time on the surface so why photograph the sky.
to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein.
Now thats what Im talking about! We need photos of soup and liquids!
Originally posted by FoosM
to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein.
English please... nevermind.
Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31dc20600f5b.gif[/atsimg]
Originally posted by FoosM
Can we say OVERKILL!?
Can we also say FILLER photos!?
Originally posted by nataylor
Using a diagram from Wikipedia showing the proton flux, we can make a very rough approximation of the areas they passed through:
Distances are all to scale. Times indicate the difference in time from the previous mark.
The inner belt, extending out to a maximum of 9500 km, would have been no problem. They'd be through that in under 25 minutes.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31dc20600f5b.gif[/atsimg]
Those are calibration photos.
.
Originally posted by DJW001
no-one is saying that the Hasselblads couldn't be used for astrophotography.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31dc20600f5b.gif[/atsimg]
Those are calibration photos.
.
Nat, what could they possibly be calibrating?
They are not shooting polaroids.
And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?
edit on 20-1-2011 by FoosM because: typo
Originally posted by FoosM
And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?
The calibration shots were made on one roll of film before the mission started. Then that roll of film was sent along with the mission so it would be exposed to all the same environmental conditions as the film shot on the mission. When they returned, additional calibration shots were added to the last roll of film. This allowed them to compare the condition of the film pre- and post-flight.edit on 20-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FoosM
Source?
And why would they be worried about the condition of the film?
Why didnt they do the same for the Hassies?
Originally posted by FoosM
Nat, here is an example that is more fitting, not perfect, but more fitting:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ffa8d574fd5.gif[/atsimg]
When you look at the trajectory in this way, you can see how
the path of the spacecraft basically goes through all areas of the outer belt.
Right through the hottest zone.
And I suspect, it would also for the inner belt.