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.

 

Does anybody else think that the NASA GRAIL's video of the Moon's far side is a CGI job?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
What's wrong with this picture, Zorgon?


Can't you just tell us what you think is wrong?

You are going to anyways, right?





posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Can't you just tell us what you think is wrong?

You are going to anyways, right?


Yes, of course I will... but I want the pleasure of Zorgon explaining why the video he posted proves the opposite of his point.

Edit to add:

What's wrong with this photo?


edit on 6-2-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
They send probes millions of miles across the solar system with a surprisingly low failure rate, they have sent probes to nearly all of the major bodies in the solar system, and even 4 separate probes out to the stars.


They blow things up and crash into things calling it 'Science'

Remember Nasa's Deep Impact mission? To smash an impacter into comet Temple 1? They hit it alright, but there was a secondary huge explosion they couldn't account for... so they are sending a second mission to look and see what they did



The washing machine-sized "impactor" collided with Comet Tempel 1 at a relative speed of 37,000km/h, throwing up a huge plume of icy debris...

"We hit it just exactly where we wanted to," said an ecstatic Dr Don Yeomans, a Nasa mission scientist...
"The impact was bigger than I expected, and bigger than most of us expected. We've got all the data we could possibly ask for." ...



Preliminary data indicated two successive flashes. "What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose. We may have been able to detect some structural response to the impact," mission co-investigator Pete Shultz said....


news.bbc.co.uk...


Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD

So what did they do, blow up some Alien spaceship?


And here are the children.... err 'scientists' jumping for glee after the big bang...



Explosion seen from Earth by Hubble



Cosmic Litterbugs blowing things up in the name of science... and we STILL can't get a decent picture of the Moon


So I hear Obama cut their funding to send a man to the Moon... well we told you they would find a reason NOT to go back after there were told to STAY OFF...
and Obama won't let them go to Mars for 25 years... but he will let them go to asteroids


Maybe Obama is not so bad after all


Kick NASA to the curb and let the NAVY do the job

edit on 6-2-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Explosion seen from Earth by Hubble


Do you really believe that an "explosion" can last for 19 hours? In fact, the luminous cloud persisted for four days. The first "explosion" was caused by the kinetic impact of the probe. This kicked up material from inside the comet, which was the point to the whole mission. As the material left the slipstream of the comet's induced magnetic field it was ionized by the solar wind and lit up like a Christmas tree. I must say, you are a never ending font of misinformation.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
:face palm:

My god. The "no stars" thing. Seriously folks, if you are going to start talking about photo's, could you please educate yourselves before you start trying to show you're an expert int he field? Hmmm?

Our moon reflects so much light from the sun, that it's the 2nd brightest object in our skies. On a crystal clear night, with it full, go outside and look down on the ground. You'll see your own shadow.

An object's brightness will affect how long you can expose your camera to it to get a good picture. The fainter the object, the longer the exposure time needed. This is true no mater what type of camera you are using: film, video tape, digital. They all have different ways of limiting the amount of light that get's exposed and for how long.

An SLR camera using film, has a mechanical shutter that you can control. You can set the shutter speed, or even set the shutter to be on manual so that it's held open to expose the film even longer.

Digital media uses electronics to control how long the CCD chip is exposed for, but the idea is exactly the same: the longer the chip is exposed to light, the more it will gather. Bright objects need very short exposure time, where as very faint or dim objects need longer times.

Take a look at this photo below:



Picture taken by me back in 1998. It's a picture of the Orion constellation. I used a Cannon AE SLR camera, using a 50mm lense, and 800 ISO color film. Camera is on a tripod, and I used a shutter cable to hold the shutter open. How long did I hold it open for? 15 seconds. Anything past 17 seconds, and the stars will streak due to the Earth's rotation.
Nice pink on the Orion nebula, which you won't see with your eyes alone. Why? Because this picture took 15 seconds to take. Your eye has a "shutter" that can only expose for 1/5 of a second. Way too short of a time to gather enough light for color (this is why color is hard to see at night, except for bright objects).

Now here's another shot, this one is of the constellations Taurus and the Pleiades. It is also a 15 second exposure, but the moon was out that night. The moon is so bright, it's giving the sky a blue hue to it. The trees are quite visible do to the street light about 200 feet away. To my eyes, the trees looked black at the time:



Same camera, same lens, same speed film.

Now off to the moon! As you can see, the previous 2 pictures showed lots and lots of stars! Now let's take a look at a very bright object!



Same camera, but this time it's connected to a 4.5 inch reflector telescope I own. Same speed film, but if you look, you'll see that the moon is over exposed on one side. Normally when I take pics of the moon my best ones are using this shutter speed:

1/250

That means the film was exposed for only 250th of a second! In the picture above, I took the shot at 1/50 of a second, way too long because of how bright the moon is.
Where are the stars? You won't see them. Why? Because the exposure was for only a 50th of a second and the stars are way too faint to show up on the film (or a CCD camera).

Ah ha! You say. But those moon pictures the astronauts took were ON the moon! Not AT it!
Yep, and apparently none of you have ever heard of "Bounce" and "Scatter". the landscape is still reflecting sun light. BRIGHT sun light, So the exposures have to short (for stills or video).

Take a look at zorgon's photos that do show stars. They are seriously over exposed, to the point that the film is becoming saturated. Sure you can see the stars now.

In a very horrible photograph.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


I do agree that it looks a little ILM, question is, why release any video at all. If there are structures on the far side, and I for one certainly hope there are, they would certainly not show any true close up images, which of course they have not. It amazes me to this day that we can zoom in on joe blogs on google earth, yet we cannot get crisp pictures from the moon. With all the telescopes and satelites, I am sure it's possible.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinoxe5
 



With all the telescopes and satelites, I am sure it's possible.


Have you bothered to look?

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Now what makes this film also useful is that it is filmed with the low resolution black and white camera and even when the camera points at the bright moon, you can still clearly see the stars.

Yes, that's Orion. But are you sure it's the Moon the camera is pointing at?

Of course, Stubbs doesn't provide any information about the date and time but we do know that STS-61 launched on December 2, 1993. The Moon did not pass over Orion's head during that mission. But there were three other missions with the designations STS-61 (A-C). On both A and B (in October and November of 1985) the Moon passed over Orion's head during the mission. So assuming that Stubbs got something sort of right, so far so good. But there's a problem. Here is the setup for STS-61-B (61-A was quite similar) with some lines drawn between prominent stars for reference.

Here is a shot from the video using the same reference lines:


At the time the video was taken the Moon was outside of the field of view of the camera, quite a lot outside it.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Do you really believe that an "explosion" can last for 19 hours? In fact, the luminous cloud persisted for four days.


Well that just shows they have no idea of what they are doing... and the NASA clowns even said they have no idea what happened and the second mission to find out is already on it's way... You really should read up on all the facts...

And in todays news looks like NASA is leaving the ESA hanging dry, forcing them to go to RUSSIA for help, just like Bigelow had to do

:shk:

ExoMars cooperation between Nasa and Esa near collapse


The American space agency looks set to pull the plug on its joint missions to Mars with the European Space Agency. Nasa has told Esa it is now highly unlikely it will be able to contribute to the endeavours, which envision an orbiting satellite and a big roving robot being sent to the Red Planet. The US has yet to make a formal statement on the matter but budget woes are thought to lie behind its decision.



Europe is now banking on a Russian partnership to keep the missions alive. A public announcement by Nasa of its withdrawal from the ExoMars programme, as it is known in Europe, will probably come once President Obama's 2013 Federal Budget Request is submitted.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obama's Legacy... "I killed the Space Program!




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Obama's Legacy... "I killed the Space Program!


What does any of this rant have to do with with the OP?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001

About as much as the No stars issues that you seem to have no problem including


I guess NASA failing gets your hackles up, eh?

Aw well then back to the CGI issue...

Ya know those Japanese Hi Def videos sure looked like CGI or a plaster of Paris model to me too... we should compare them
, especially the never changing shadows



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



About as much as the No stars issues that you seem to have no problem including


The OP specifically mentioned the "no stars" issue. You have avoided owning up to the fact that in the video you posted,the bright object appears to be two or three times larger than the width of Orion's belt. Since Orion's belt is three degrees wide and the Moon is 1/2 degree wide, it means that it was massively overexposed to the point of blooming! You know perfectly well that if the Moon, Earth or any other planetary body is properly exposed, the stars will be too dim to be visible.
edit on 6-2-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the diagrams. They make things so much simpler for those of us that don't fully understand sometimes. Right now I'm stuck on whether I actually see stars or not in the beginning of the GRAIL vid. Before the exposure is reduced I see what I thought were stars but they do not move on my screen as the GRAIL is in motion ( orbital velocity unknown to me) and the cam appears to [pan?] the surface. What are they and why don't they move with the changing field of view? Any help would be appreciated.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



What are they and why don't they move with the changing field of view?


It's not that sophisticated a system. Mapping cameras are designed to "pan" to compensate for the spacecraft's motion. MoonKAM is a unit originally designed to be affixed to a rocket booster to monitor its status visually. They have a limited capacity to aim the five cameras, but it is not a priority. On the plus side, the cameras are what most people would call "color cameras." They use the same sort of imaging that DSLRs and camera phones use, so what you see is what the Moon "really" looks like.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


But what am I seeing? And I'm not arguing against your answer, but when the cam pans, everything in view moves except for the objects I thought were stars.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



But what am I seeing? And I'm not arguing against your answer, but when the cam pans, everything in view moves except for the objects I thought were stars.


To be honest, I'm not sure if those points of light that appear briefly in the video are stars or damaged pixels. Since they are white, they wouldn't be as noticeable against the bright background.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

Good eye. I think those may be stars which are visible until the exposure is adjusted.

I don't think the camera is panning. The mounts for the MoonKAM cameras are fixed in relation to the probe. In order to pan the entire probe must be rotated. What we are seeing in the video is a timelapse of the probe traversing the Moon with the camera holding a fixed POV. This would explain why the stars remained fixed in the frame, it is the Moon which moves into the frame (so to speak).
edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I do get depressed with these threads.

Firstly, NO amateur astronomer can film the far side of the moon.

the moon is tidal locked, and we only can see one side.

and that video?

one small "tower" on repeat....

sorry I'd like to believe that, but NO.

and finally the no stars..

here is a simple fact - if you have a bright source in front of you (i.e. the moon) then this will outshine ANY star (apart from the sun) that you could see.

it really is that simple.

do yourself a favour.

go into your garden and switch on your security light and look at the stars.

then switch the light off and see how many more you can see.

try it with a camera too.

simple.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
To be honest, I'm not sure if those points of light that appear briefly in the video are stars or damaged pixels.


So now you say you cannot tell the difference between stars and pixels?

Just


You should go work for NASA :shk:

Well that wraps that up. I am outta here.. got some new fish to fry

ExoMars cooperation between Nasa and Esa near collapse
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how NASA is so short on cash but can spend millions funding a Religious organization


Bubye now



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


They definitely look like stars even more in a clearer vid I've been watching over and over on the Fox site from where this youtube vid is linked. Still trying to get the perspective in my head where they would remain fixed. I don't see a fixed pov however, as in the beginning space is above the moon and at the end space is below the moon. No guess on my part as to how that is done but doesn't the vid show a changing pov? It also zooms? The diameter of the moon increases from beginning to end. compare :37 to :48. I'm assuming the orbital altitude remains relatively constant for the duration of the vid. Do you know how much time is shown in this? I haven't seen that indicated anywhere yet. I know you've probably already seen better quality than this little youtube, but for anyone else who wants to see the stars are so much clearer on the Fox site.


LINK



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join