Extremely high-res outtakes from Apollo 11’s 1969 moon landing

Should this www.blogbaster.org... be considered a fake?

a reply to: seattlerat

Ha! Ah the moon landing. Did not watch it, but I heard it was something cool. Anyways, I think we should go back, you know just to shut up all those moon landing was fake people once and for all.

Also you quote in your avatar is hilarious, what are you one of those fortnians? I don't believe in those either, there probably a hoax by the MIB or the NASA or some other alphabetical. I thought that particular group went extinct back in 2005. Hmm, seems I was wrong, maybe they all just got jobs at NASA or something. That's the epitome of the phrase "get a job you hippy"

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: EternalShadow

I'm not buying the light or the horizon.

The LEM (Lunar Module) was made of thin highly reflective aluminum. The bottom half was covered in aluminumized
mylar insulation

These surfaces acted like a mirror reflecting the sunlight and lighting up the scene

That, and people seem to forget that this took place in an airless environment with direct and harsh sunlight and no atmospheric haze to soften it.

Which actually caused some confusion for the Apollo astronauts, as they weren't able to judge distances and sizes that well.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Realtruth

How did they ship that huge buggy with such a small lander?

Also why are there no stars visible?

(I don't think its fake, just asking.. )

a reply to: nOraKat

The rover was attached to the side of the lunar module.

There are no stars because the moon is too bright to get them in the photographs.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Realtruth

How did they ship that huge buggy with such a small lander?

Also why are there no stars visible?

The camera is set for the bright lunar surface, so the stars are too dim to register.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Realtruth

How did they ship that huge buggy with such a small lander?

Also why are there no stars visible?

(I don't think its fake, just asking.. )

First the answer to the "no stars" question:

As people mentioned above, the exposure settings on the camera were set for the brightness of the Moon, which would be something similar to a camera on Earth being set for daytime conditions.

Do this experiment:
Take a camera for which you can set the exposure manually (shutter speed, aperture size, etc). Set the exposure for sunny daylight conditions, then try to take a picture of the stars in the night sky, even on the starriest night. You will find that the pictures you take will almost certainly have no stars, even though you could clearly see them in the sky with your own eyes when you took the picture (maybe a bright Venus might possibly show up).

By the way, just like the camera, the astronaut's eyes adjusted to the bright surface of the moon, so they also could see no stars when walking on the Moon. Think of it like if you were looking up at a bright street light at night. After your eyes adjusted to the brightness of the lamp, you likely would not see any stars in the sky beyond the lamp.


How did the Rover fit?:

The Lunar Rover folded up into a package that could fit into one of the equipment bays on the side of the Lunar Module's descent stage. The equipment bay was a wedge-shaped area about 5 feet wide x 5 feet tall (pink shaded area below):




The Rover's chairs folded down, its chassis folded in half, and the wheels folded inward so it could fit in that 5' x 5' wedge:




Here's a picture of workers on the ground releasing it from its compartment and beginning to unfold it:




An excerpt from the NASA technical manual for the Lunar Rover showing how it unstows and unfolds. This is a page from the actual manual; NASA has some good engineers, but not the best cartoonists! ;-)




If you have about 45 minutes, I suggest you watch the excellent documentary about the Lunar Rover that I linked below. It's from the "Moon Machines" series, which was an outstanding 6-part series that concentrated, one episode at a time, on specific pieces of Apollo hardware. The highlight of the series,in my opinion, is that they included interviews with the engineers and technicians who were on the front lines of the design, construction, and testing of the Apollo hardware. I think it's among the best series of its kind.

Here's that link to the Moon Machines episode on the Rover. FYI, the parts about the size of the bay and the folding of the Rover starts at about the 11:08 mark, and the part about the method of deployment and unfolding starts at about the 23:44 mark:

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The thin layer of dust on the surface was blown away by the lander. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no puffy cloud of dust to settle on the landing pads.

Star and Flag for you. We need to go back to the moon. If we're truly the home of the brave we can't be held back by what's up there.

For an idea on how dust behaves on the Moon, here's a stabilised 16mm film footage of the Lunar Rover being driven around:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: DJW001

Its such bullcr*p that we can accomplish something like this in 1971, yet we have not been there since or have an operational base there already. We were prob warned off by the ET's that have a base there.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Wow thanks for the cool pics.

Look at those cool wheels/tires!


people were so creative and smart back then; I think we're devolving.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: DJW001

Its such bullcr*p that we can accomplish something like this in 1971, yet we have not been there since or have an operational base there already. We were prob warned off by the ET's that have a base there.

In 1944 we landed 24,000 men on a beach in Normandy and have not done it again since. Why?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Given we have high quality resolution available for monitors... you know what? Just forget it. Happy birthday or whatever, you damn liars!

If people like YOU spent a bit more time LOOKING before spouting your opinion you wouldn't have to say anything.

Here you will see the good the bad and the ugly

Apollo Image Atlas 70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog

So if you bother to look at the link above you will see NOT ALL of the pictures taken are perfect unlike the claim made by hoax believers.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: DJW001

Its such bullcr*p that we can accomplish something like this in 1971, yet we have not been there since or have an operational base there already. We were prob warned off by the ET's that have a base there.

No that's BS, 6 missions to the Moon budgets cuts and a been there done that atitude from the public etc that's the reason we haven't been back.

Moonbase look how long it took to build the ISS only 250 miles above the surface.

a reply to: mangust69

It looks like a genuine DISCOVR image to me.

originally posted by: mangust69
Should this www.blogbaster.org... be considered a fake?

Why ?

originally posted by: mangust69
Should this www.blogbaster.org... be considered a fake?

The final images were reprocessed, but they are real: epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Reprocessed images and movie of the transit of the moon in front of the full sunlit disk of Earth captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) on board NOAA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) on July 16, 2015. The transit lasted from 16:30 EDT to 20:10 EDT.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: GBP/JPY

How should dust act in a low grav environment?

Every step should kick up a nice cloud that takes 5 times at least as long to settle?

And the dust would fly 5 times farther?

originally posted by: neo96
I think the problem is people have come to think real life SPACE doesn't look like they've grown accustomed to in film and television.

Truth is. Hollywood gets it mostly all wrong.

When have we ever seen what space looks like?

And actually Hollywood and Nasa looked EXACTLY the same in those days.