Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001

As for lunar dust simulants:

The severity of the lunar dust problems encountered during the Apollo missions were consistently underestimated by ground tests, illustrating the need to develop significantly better lunar dust simulants and simulation facilities. ORBITEC is proposing to continue developing high-fidelity lunar dust simulants that better match the unique properties of lunar dust than existing regolith simulants (such as JSC-1AF). Current lunar regolith simulants do not have enough of the very fine particles, most lack the agglutinitic glass and complex surface textures that dominate lunar dust, and none of them have nanophase iron (Fe0).

Check it out.

So if the stuff they use to simulate moon dust isn't enough like the samples, what are the samples?

JSC wasn't the only lunar dust simulated that was made.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

On Apollo 11, it was also used to take stop motion photography out the LMP's window of almost the entire EVA at the setting of 1 frame per second (fps).

The Cameras Of Apollo.

It was also shooting at 1 fps during orbital sequences, which is why it looked like they were moving so fast at times. Is this going somewhere?

wait wait. your telling me that the descent sequence and Armstrong walking down the ladder was shot at 1 fps ?

This might go someplace indeed.

reply to post by FoosM

What I cant find, and it seems strange to me, is the magazine number or name for the DAC cameras.
The photo magazines are labelled, so why not for the DAC?

It starts on page 161. Go nuts.

reply to post by FoosM

JSC wasn't the only lunar dust simulated that was made.

Correct. After they had moon dust to examine, they found it necessary to create substances to simulate it's properties so they could test its effect on equipment, Before that, they didn't know what it would be like. In any event, most of the simulants are probably too high in hydroxyls to escape close examination.

we put rovers on mars, 400 million miles away, within 10 meters of their intended landing zone. it seems a little crazy to think we haven't been to the moon.

reply to post by FoosM

wait wait. your telling me that the descent sequence and Armstrong walking down the ladder was shot at 1 fps ?

No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

Originally posted by FoosM
What I cant find, and it seems strange to me, is the magazine number or name for the DAC cameras.
The photo magazines are labelled, so why not for the DAC?

Here you go: Apollo 11 photography index (70mm and 16mm)

Starting on page 102 is the original inventory of 16mm film. There were a total of 13 magazines shot. The ladder footage comes from magazine J. The time-lapse 1fps footages of the EVA comes from magazine K.

Originally posted by FoosM

wait wait. your telling me that the descent sequence and Armstrong walking down the ladder was shot at 1 fps ?

This might go someplace indeed.

No, the ladder was shot at 24 fps. Check it out here. The 1fps EVA footage starts about 15 minutes later, as Buzz heads out of the LM. You can see that footage here.

This page gives you whole timeline and you can see associated video clips there.

Originally posted by DJW001
No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

the footage of Neil on the ladder was shot at 24fps. You can see that by looking at the synchronized footage from the DAC and the TV camera. The TV camera was shooting at 12fps. The DAC shows much smoother motion, meaning it was shooting at 24fps.

reply to post by FoosM

Dude, your losing it. I warned you guys long time ago about your brains getting a meltdown by all this info.
Check the mirror and see if any porridge-like substance is dripping from your ears-
Thats not ear wax!

Wow just short of actually making an insult as usual, good show Jarrah!

BTW it doesn't make you look any smarter by attacking me like you have the past few posts. I know you don't understand the Apollo Missions, its ok, not all of us can have a clue about everything.

Anything else you wish to add to this topic About Apollo?

Amazes me how long this thread has run. The thing i want to share with everyone is the immense pride I feel when I think about how thousands of ordinary people did what many said couldn't be done, using American ingenuity.
The LEM was a thing of absolute beauty when you considered that appearance was of no importance. Only the task at hand had to be considered during design stages. It performed like a champ.
Do the doubters realize that the Ruskies had two rovers on the moon with tv cameras?
Finally, eventhough we went to the moon and returned several times there will always be my belief that something more happened than they tell us. The original three astronauts first press conference after they returned from the moon was bizarre. That's the best word for it. It makes absolutely no sense for them to behave the way they did. What did they have to be so nervous about? They should have been the happiest, most upbeat luckiest guys in the universe! Yet, they acted as though someone was scrutinizing everything they said. How sad it makes me to watch it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

JSC wasn't the only lunar dust simulated that was made.

Correct. After they had moon dust to examine, they found it necessary to create substances to simulate it's properties so they could test its effect on equipment, Before that, they didn't know what it would be like. In any event, most of the simulants are probably too high in hydroxyls to escape close examination.

C'mon DJ we had gone through this before (haven't we?) there was simulated lunar dust/regolith before the Apollo missions!

Present Status of Lunar Simulant Materials:
No coordinated program currently exists in the U.S.A. to define reference materials to be used as analogs of lunar materials. Such coordinated efforts have existed at different times in the past to either provide these materials to specific technology development pro- grams such as the Apollo Landing Module and Lunar Rover or when NASA policies showed a renewed interest in lunar missions as was the case in 1989 and the early 1990’s. While no Apollo lunar simulants remain today, the more recent efforts led to the development and distribution of materials such as MLS-1 [1], a titanium-rich basalt from Minnesota and JSC-1 [2], a glass-rich basaltic ash from the volcanic fields of the San Francisco mountains of Arizona.

And lo... luck for us "no Apollo lunar simulants remain today"
How convenient for us truth seekers!

As a matter of fact:

The design of lunar tools, instruments, space vehicles and landing modules all involve geotechnical engineering considerations. As far back as the Surveyor program, lunar soil simulants were used to assist in the design of the surface scoop and testing equipment.

The LSS (40/60) was one of the earliest simulants used. The 40/60 refers to the ratio of crushed basalt to sand. After the return of lunar samples from Apollo 11 and 12, the mix was revised in order to achieve a better match to the grain size distribution [LSS (11/12)]. The LSS (WES) mix was developed in early lunar roving vehicle studies by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Costes et al., 1971).

Yeah, they could have simply changed the composition to make it different from the simulant.
But as you can see, they were quite busy with it.


adsabs.harvard.edu...
isru.msfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by DJW001
No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

the footage of Neil on the ladder was shot at 24fps. You can see that by looking at the synchronized footage from the DAC and the TV camera. The TV camera was shooting at 12fps. The DAC shows much smoother motion, meaning it was shooting at 24fps.

24 fps?
Fine sir are you certain of this?
Is there anyway to provide (undeniable) proof of your observations?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by DJW001
No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

the footage of Neil on the ladder was shot at 24fps. You can see that by looking at the synchronized footage from the DAC and the TV camera. The TV camera was shooting at 12fps. The DAC shows much smoother motion, meaning it was shooting at 24fps.

24 fps?
Fine sir are you certain of this?
Is there anyway to provide (undeniable) proof of your observations?

In the photography index I linked to, it says (page 130 of the PDF) that Magazine J, which is of Aldrin's trip down the ladder and first steps, is comprised of 5612 frames. At 24fps, that's 233.83 seconds, or 3 minutes and 53.83 seconds. And it just so happens that his trip down the ladder and his first steps are about that long. Since the camera was only capable of 1fps, 6fps, 12fps, and 24fps, we can eliminate any of the frame rates besides 24fps because they would have produced far fewer frames for that event than the 5612 recorded.

And the film magazines contained about 140 feet of film. 16mm film contains frames that are 7.62mm high. Which means there would have been about 5600 frames per magazine (which is exactly what was cataloged).

And just subjectively, you can see in the synchronized video I posted that the motion is much smoother than in the 10fps TV camera footage, so the frame rate of the sequence camera has to be significantly higher.

reply to post by FoosM

After the return of lunar samples from Apollo 11 and 12, the mix was revised in order to achieve a better match to the grain size distribution [LSS (11/12)].

Why revise the formula?After all, who would know? Oh yes, geologists: lunar dust does not look like sand, which is shaped by atmospheric and aqueous weathering processes.

reply to post by FoosM


You said a few pages ago that we would be talking geology. Why are we talking 16mm cinematography all of a sudden. Here, let's test your geological eye for a moment. Where do these samples come from, and why?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7c7f102dcc8.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97cf2161f2cd.jpg[/atsimg]

Even an amateur geologist should be able to take one look at these photos and make some immediate conclusions. They are roughly to scale.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by DJW001
No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

the footage of Neil on the ladder was shot at 24fps. You can see that by looking at the synchronized footage from the DAC and the TV camera. The TV camera was shooting at 12fps. The DAC shows much smoother motion, meaning it was shooting at 24fps.

24 fps?
Fine sir are you certain of this?
Is there anyway to provide (undeniable) proof of your observations?

In the photography index I linked to, it says (page 130 of the PDF) that Magazine J, which is of Aldrin's trip down the ladder and first steps, is comprised of 5612 frames. At 24fps, that's 233.83 seconds, or 3 minutes and 53.83 seconds. And it just so happens that his trip down the ladder and his first steps are about that long. Since the camera was only capable of 1fps, 6fps, 12fps, and 24fps, we can eliminate any of the frame rates besides 24fps because they would have produced far fewer frames for that event than the 5612 recorded.

And the film magazines contained about 140 feet of film. 16mm film contains frames that are 7.62mm high. Which means there would have been about 5600 frames per magazine (which is exactly what was cataloged).

And just subjectively, you can see in the synchronized video I posted that the motion is much smoother than in the 10fps TV camera footage, so the frame rate of the sequence camera has to be significantly higher.

edit on 8-10-2010 by nataylor because: Added point about frames per magazine.

Incredible.
But lets be clear...
Based on your observations are you saying the descent footage of the LM is also filmed at 24fps?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by DJW001
No, but most of the EVA was shot at that speed. Armstrong's descent was probably shot at 6 fps, like the actual landing.

the footage of Neil on the ladder was shot at 24fps. You can see that by looking at the synchronized footage from the DAC and the TV camera. The TV camera was shooting at 12fps. The DAC shows much smoother motion, meaning it was shooting at 24fps.

24 fps?
Fine sir are you certain of this?
Is there anyway to provide (undeniable) proof of your observations?

In the photography index I linked to, it says (page 130 of the PDF) that Magazine J, which is of Aldrin's trip down the ladder and first steps, is comprised of 5612 frames. At 24fps, that's 233.83 seconds, or 3 minutes and 53.83 seconds. And it just so happens that his trip down the ladder and his first steps are about that long. Since the camera was only capable of 1fps, 6fps, 12fps, and 24fps, we can eliminate any of the frame rates besides 24fps because they would have produced far fewer frames for that event than the 5612 recorded.

And the film magazines contained about 140 feet of film. 16mm film contains frames that are 7.62mm high. Which means there would have been about 5600 frames per magazine (which is exactly what was cataloged).

And just subjectively, you can see in the synchronized video I posted that the motion is much smoother than in the 10fps TV camera footage, so the frame rate of the sequence camera has to be significantly higher.

edit on 8-10-2010 by nataylor because: Added point about frames per magazine.

Incredible.
But lets be clear...
Based on your observations are you saying the descent footage of the LM is also filmed at 24fps?

No, the sequence camera was set at 6fps during the powered descent. The film from magazine I runs from 50,000 feet of altitude to about 1 minute after landing. That covers 15 minutes and 31 seconds of the mission. And amazingly 15 minutes and 31 seconds at 6fps covers 5586 frames. Again, that's about the limit of the magazine. So we know it couldn't have been recording at any other frame rate to cover that time period.

Originally posted by nataylor

No, the sequence camera was set at 6fps during the powered descent. The film from magazine I runs from 50,000 feet of altitude to about 1 minute after landing. That covers 15 minutes and 31 seconds of the mission. And amazingly 15 minutes and 31 seconds at 6fps covers 5586 frames. Again, that's about the limit of the magazine. So we know it couldn't have been recording at any other frame rate to cover that time period.

Thats right. You are completely making sense.
And NASA backs you up on that as well:

At one fps, a 140-foot 16mm magazine would have a maximum run duration of about 93 minutes. During the descent of Apollo 11, the camera was activated at 102:31:04 MET and the landing occurred at 102:45:47 MET, for a total duration of 14m 43s. From page 3-68 of the Apollo 11 Flight Plan, the camera was set to 6 fps (max. run duration 16 minutes), infinity focus. So the amount of film was just barely sufficient to record the descent. I assume that the magazine was changed prior to the EVA."]

I would hope so too, otherwise we got problems.

[Armstrong - "My guess is that we only had one film cartridge and that we intended to run that all we could during the descent, at as close to regular speed as we could. I don't remember what the time limitation on those cartridges were."

Thats what I thought Neil, except the math and flight plan doesn't support that assumption
But for the life of me the descent footage does not look like it was shot on 6fps.
If anything, Its looks more like 12fps I would even say 24fps when considering how fast the LM was descending to the moon. What was it, it started from like 5000 feet a second to 70 or 24 feet a second?

6fps should be extremely choppy at moderate to fast movements.
Its time lapse photography.
Here are some 5-6 FPS videos:

vimeo.com...

or

www.flickr.com...

or

www.flickr.com...


I just dont see it here:


Now I gave benefit for the doubt when the moon was a good distance away, but when it got closer??
Does anybody else think this looks like time-lapse photography?

Now I dont expect any Apollo defenders to say the footage looks like it was
shot at a higher frame rate. So Im hoping some neutral parties to give their opinions.
Maybe somebody can analyze the speed of the LM with the movement of objects on the screen
to determine the actual frame rate.

Because, if its shot at anything higher than 6fps.
Houston gots a problem.

compare it to:

Using the 16mm data acquisition camera, Lunar Module pilot Jack Schmitt recorded this spectacular movie of the flyover past the beautiful valley of Taurus-Littrow during Rev 12, the 12th lunar orbit after LOI (Lunar Orbit Insertion), one orbit (about 2 hours) prior landing, from an altitude of about 26 kilometers or 14 nautical miles or 85,000 ft and a horizontal velocity of 1.6 km/s or 5,350 ft/s. The video is playing about 2 times faster than the normal/real speed, it was recorded at 12 fps.

And that looks already choppy

Im not convinced. If the only proof it was filmed at 6fps is because of the length of the sequence, that is not enough evidence for an Apollo sceptic.

The Maurer 16mm Data Acquisition Camera was a 16mm movie camera that NASA loaded with the highest quality, finest grained, film stock of its day. The camera was capable of running at 24 fps for full motion recording, 12 fps for near full motion recording as well as 6 and 1 fps for time laps recording. (The slowed recording speeds used to conserve film).

On Apollo-11 the DAC was mounted near the window of the lunar module and was initially operated at full speed to record the historic first portion of the EVA by Neil Armstrong.

Yeah Neil has pretty smooth movements there.
Sorry DJ, Im going to have to agree with Nataylor and say this portion was filmed at 24fps.
A far cry from 6fps

Though I agree, it should have been filmed at 6fps if they followed the flight plan.

However Nataylor


This is the last of the "full motion" 16MM footage of the Apollo-11 moon landing. It shows Neil Armstrong collecting the contingency lunar samples shortly after he first set foot on the moon. Buzz Aldrin remains in the lunar module and is filming out the window. The motion looks slightly choppy because the camera was set to 12FPS, enough to record descent motion, but not perfectly smooth.

hmmm...


What about some of the other 16mm footage?
recall that on July 16, 1969 lApollo 11 launched with with astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin

Magazine M:
www.mefeedia.com...

Magazine K (03:12:


So why do we have on 11 July 1969, a photographer called Guynes ?
So who is Guynes (Demi Moore Kutcher's relative? Demi from Roswell N.M.? LOL) ?
Or is it this guy?

The promise of discovery from the STS-107 mission has made Buddy Guynes delay his retirement "several times," as he awaits results from the flight of the Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) experiment. Guynes is a researcher at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he also serves as MGM project manager. "The possibility of retirement is appealing to me, but I want to work for a good while yet," Guynes says. "I'm expecting exciting results from the mission and would like to have a hand in getting the good news out to the public."

Hey Buddy! How ya doin'?

Can someone close to NASA ask him whats the deal with his name being on those 16mm films as photographer? I mean this kind of stuff should and can be cleared up. whether its a test card or slate, its use doesn't make sense.



www.spaceref.com...

reply to post by WWu777


Another envious foreigner. Same old crap. An aquaintance worked in a lab where they measure the distance from the moon by bouncing a laser off a reflector placed on the surface of the moon. Here's a clue. We didn't teleport it there.