why can there be no rover on the moon?

Originally posted by Gazrok
If you're curious as to why we can't see the Apollo debris on the moon....

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

thats awesome,, so nasa spots some black spots that could be anomolies or just photoshoped showing nothing but black spots on some land and we are supposed to take that as being "proof" but then we have people including a president that has seen ufo's in person, we have odd shapes and faces and "naturally" occuring right angled objects on mars that are "nothing" and even photos that show cut and paste jobs from nasa of mars,, but oh look we have black spots on the moon,, theres proof!! lol give me a break

Originally posted by Gazrok
Pictures from space AREN'T film, they are digital, just raw streams of data then reassembled to form an image. They aren't "photoshopped", but simply put together to form a "true" interpretation of the data.

A trip to badastronomy.com should suffice...as you'll then see the counterpoints to such questions, and there is no need to retype it here...

are u trying to say that we did not use any film when we went to the moon? it was all digital feed back in the 60's?

are u trying to say that we did not use any film when we went to the moon? it was all digital feed back in the 60's?

No. When we went and came back, film was used. But when talking of pics by orbiters, then no, the pics came as data streams, no film was sent back to Earth in those cases.

As for the black spots...my point was to show that even the BEST resolution available is incapable of seeing the vehicles left on the moon well.

As for the face on Mars, etc., well, some crackpots thought that the image of Mary was on a local insurance building, even though it was simple discoloration caused by a chemical reaction of the city water (from sprinklers) and the tinted glass. An effect on several other windows of the building as well, I might add, but since this one looked "kind of" like a Mary image, it was eventually made into a church (even making national news). Light and shadow...simple as that...

Originally posted by AkulA
Kind of off topic but... if we can see via the huble telescope, galaxies far far away, why can't we take some pictures of some of the old equipment on the moon. I think number one they would make awsome photos and two, end the debate on the "no moon landing" conspiracy.

This isn't a debate. The idea that the moon landing was a hoax is a complete fraud and anyone who doesn't think so hasn't done their homework and is very gullible.

www.badastronomy.com...

Zip

Originally posted by Murcielago
Those cameras they had (in today terms) sucked, So thats why you dont see the stars there to tiny to even make a a single pixel, hence the reason it looks starless.

Well, actually, no. The cameras used on the Apollo flights were specially made Hasselblads.

There are quite a lot of photographers out there that will tell you that even though the camera, and lenses and film designs are 35 years old, they are probably superior to 98% of the commercially available equipment currently on the market. The most advanced digital equipment out there today has only approached this level of quality in the past few years or so.

BTW, these were film cameras, so your use of the term �pixel� is incorrect.

The reason that stars do not show up on the photographs has to do with the dynamic range of the film emulsion.

Originally posted by genesiss
in notice in every debate where someone swears we went there they avoid the question of heat on the surface (to hot to film anything) or the no stars issue or the pictures taken and yes they are very funny with the sites on the one shot being behind an object and one more time why is buzz so mad at nasa and most astronauts are not pillars and hero's of society upon their return? why does everyone that says we went to the moon avoid questions like the film\heat, no stars, van allen belt, and photoshoped pics, even now on mars we are discovering nasa is photoshoping pics cutting and pasting skies and removing them

genesiss, is English your second language?

If you read the above Hasselblad link, you will see that the camera and film magazines were silver coated to minimize the amount of thermal variation from the incoming solar radiation.

Are you familiar with vacuum bottles (or Thermoses)? Do you know how they keep coffee hot or ice tea cold for so long? There are two main mechanism at work there. One is that the inner flask is surrounded by a vacuum. This eliminates the effect of air in the transfer of heat via convection. The other is that the inside of the bottle is silver. This reduces the loss of heat through radiation.

Since, as I am sure you are already aware of, there is no air on the moon, the transfer of heat to the camera film via convection is not an issue. The reflective exterior coating takes care of the thermal radiation issue. That leaves conduction as the primary source of heat. Since the cameras were obviously carefully handled and stored throughout the mission, it would have been relatively easy to avoid putting the camera down on top of a hot surface.

Oh, and perhaps you can explain just how NASA �photoshopped� the moon pictures in 1969?

Oh, snap!



Moon landing hoax supporters totally refuse and ignore the evidence that supports the FACT that we landed on the moon. Why? Why do they want to so badly believe that we didn't land on the moon? Is it so horrible that we said we would land on the moon and then we did?

Hoax supporters think things are SO SIMPLE when in reality there is a thick layer of science beneath everything about space travel from beginning to end. Hoax supporters think themselves to be juniour scientists just because they can say the phrase "Van Allen Belt."

Hoax supporters: read the Bad Astronomy page and LET IT GO.

Zip

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Murcielago
Those cameras they had (in today terms) sucked, So thats why you dont see the stars there to tiny to even make a a single pixel, hence the reason it looks starless.

Well, actually, no. The cameras used on the Apollo flights were specially made Hasselblads.

There are quite a lot of photographers out there that will tell you that even though the camera, and lenses and film designs are 35 years old, they are probably superior to 98% of the commercially available equipment currently on the market. The most advanced digital equipment out there today has only approached this level of quality in the past few years or so.

BTW, these were film cameras, so your use of the term �pixel� is incorrect.

The reason that stars do not show up on the photographs has to do with the dynamic range of the film emulsion.

Originally posted by genesiss
in notice in every debate where someone swears we went there they avoid the question of heat on the surface (to hot to film anything) or the no stars issue or the pictures taken and yes they are very funny with the sites on the one shot being behind an object and one more time why is buzz so mad at nasa and most astronauts are not pillars and hero's of society upon their return? why does everyone that says we went to the moon avoid questions like the film\heat, no stars, van allen belt, and photoshoped pics, even now on mars we are discovering nasa is photoshoping pics cutting and pasting skies and removing them

genesiss, is English your second language?

If you read the above Hasselblad link, you will see that the camera and film magazines were silver coated to minimize the amount of thermal variation from the incoming solar radiation.

Are you familiar with vacuum bottles (or Thermoses)? Do you know how they keep coffee hot or ice tea cold for so long? There are two main mechanism at work there. One is that the inner flask is surrounded by a vacuum. This eliminates the effect of air in the transfer of heat via convection. The other is that the inside of the bottle is silver. This reduces the loss of heat through radiation.

Since, as I am sure you are already aware of, there is no air on the moon, the transfer of heat to the camera film via convection is not an issue. The reflective exterior coating takes care of the thermal radiation issue. That leaves conduction as the primary source of heat. Since the cameras were obviously carefully handled and stored throughout the mission, it would have been relatively easy to avoid putting the camera down on top of a hot surface.

Oh, and perhaps you can explain just how NASA �photoshopped� the moon pictures in 1969?

i wont even respond to someone that is rude on this site,, dont bother responding to any posting that i make with that rude and obnoxious behavior ,, and no i only speak english u ***

Originally posted by genesiss

i wont even respond to someone that is rude on this site,, dont bother responding to any posting that i make with that rude and obnoxious behavior ,, and no i only speak english u ***

That is fine by me.

I have no intention of being the grammar nazi here, but if you can�t even bother to capitalize the word �I,� then well, . . .

[shrug]

HowardRoark
I have no intention of being the grammar nazi here, but if you can�t even bother to capitalize the word �I,� then well, . . .

WHAT! your bitchin because someone didn't capitalize an eye? who gives a #.

As gazrok said before, they didn't use film for those outside pics, So i assume that the cameras must of being made for close use only. BTW, I watch the Spaceship One go into space and it was solid black, I saw no stars.

HowardRoark
There are quite a lot of photographers out there that will tell you that even though the camera, and lenses and film designs are 35 years old, they are probably superior to 98% of the commercially available equipment currently on the market.

I'm assuming that was a joke, My camera is far better then that one. That was a pretty dumb statement.

There already is a rover on the moon. We left it there in '73.

Originally posted by Murcielago

HowardRoark
I have no intention of being the grammar nazi here, but if you can�t even bother to capitalize the word �I,� then well, . . .

WHAT! your bitchin because someone didn't capitalize an eye?

who gives a #.

As gazrok said before, they didn't use film for those outside pics, So i assume that the cameras must of being made for close use only. BTW, I watch the Spaceship One go into space and it was solid black, I saw no stars.

HowardRoark
There are quite a lot of photographers out there that will tell you that even though the camera, and lenses and film designs are 35 years old, they are probably superior to 98% of the commercially available equipment currently on the market.

I'm assuming that was a joke, My camera is far better then that one. That was a pretty dumb statement.

No, this is neither a joke nor a dumb statement. Do you homework. Read about the cameras used in the Apollo missions. Your camera is NOT far better than NASA's Hasselblads. THAT is a dumb statement.

Zip

Originally posted by Murcielago

HowardRoark
I have no intention of being the grammar nazi here, but if you can�t even bother to capitalize the word �I,� then well, . . .

WHAT! your bitchin because someone didn't capitalize an eye?

who gives a #.

The failure to follow some simple and easy rules of grammar, punctuation and capitalization only reflects back on the person making the post. An occasional typo is one thing, we all have those, but this is something different. It is called intellectual laziness.

This isn�t a high school.

As gazrok said before, they didn't use film for those outside pics, So i assume that the cameras must of being made for close use only. BTW, I watch the Spaceship One go into space and it was solid black, I saw no stars.

HowardRoark
There are quite a lot of photographers out there that will tell you that even though the camera, and lenses and film designs are 35 years old, they are probably superior to 98% of the commercially available equipment currently on the market.

I'm assuming that was a joke, My camera is far better then that one. That was a pretty dumb statement.

No, as Zipdot pointed out, these were the best of the best.

Now, if your are talking about the video cameras, that is a different story, yes those were quite primitive by today�s standards.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Oh, snap!

Moon landing hoax supporters totally refuse and ignore the evidence that supports the FACT that we landed on the moon. Why? Why do they want to so badly believe that we didn't land on the moon? Is it so horrible that we said we would land on the moon and then we did?

Hoax supporters think things are SO SIMPLE when in reality there is a thick layer of science beneath everything about space travel from beginning to end. Hoax supporters think themselves to be juniour scientists just because they can say the phrase "Van Allen Belt."

Hoax supporters: read the Bad Astronomy page and LET IT GO.

Zip

yea those stupid junior reports on fox, how did they get on tv anyway? right? lolmao give me a break theres scientific evidence both ways, please quote facts when saying we went there, not just "we did" theres lots of evidence to prove we did not

Excuse me, but there is no "scientitfic evidence." that we did not go to the moon.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Excuse me, but there is no "scientitfic evidence." that we did not go to the moon.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

howard once again u are feeding in to my point to easily, give me some real evidence we did go to the moon. I have not decided either way but i dont believe that we know the truth, and one more thing howard, VAN ALLEN BELT, say it with me buddy, VAN ALLEN BELT, let me know when u can explain it away

all hal BADASTRONOMY.COM!! truely the best disinformation site on the web ,, everyone that is a skeptic loves that one site

Genesiss, if you really want to believe that we didn't go to the moon, then, of course, it is your choice to do so.

All your comments, including the Van Allen Belt radiation, the fact that the exposure on the still cameras were set to capture the people and moonscape and not the stars, the so-called "rippling" flag, the inability to discern among thermal radiation, conduction, and convection, and whatever else have been debunked over and over and over again.

Your questions and comments tell me that you are either a johnny-come-lately to the discussion, or are refusing to believe evidence because you choose to believe the hoax scenario.

But again, this is a (more or less) free country; you may believe whatever you choose.

Originally posted by genesiss
howard once again u are feeding in to my point to easily, give me some real evidence we did go to the moon. I have not decided either way but i dont believe that we know the truth, and one more thing howard, VAN ALLEN BELT, say it with me buddy, VAN ALLEN BELT, let me know when u can explain it away

How bout this for evidence.

During Apollo 11's mission several pieces of scientific gear were emplaced on the surface for taking measurements. Everyone else here points to the laser reflector, which is used for taking precise distance measurements to the moon. Among the other experiements that they set up (as did subsequent missions) was a seismic detector. These detectors were able to allow scientists to determine the weight of the moon by crashing the expended S-IVB onto the surface and recording the impact.

Apollo PSE's

Ah, the Van Allen Belts. Here is a pretty good synopsis of the Van Allen Belt issue.

Please read through that and let me know exactly which part of his analysis of the problem that you disagree with. If his data is flawed, please provide a link to data that you consider to be more accurate. If his calculations are wrong, please provide the corrections.

While you are at it, please provide a specific example of where BadAstronomy.com is wrong.

Originally posted by genesiss

Originally posted by Zipdot
Oh, snap!

Moon landing hoax supporters totally refuse and ignore the evidence that supports the FACT that we landed on the moon. Why? Why do they want to so badly believe that we didn't land on the moon? Is it so horrible that we said we would land on the moon and then we did?

Hoax supporters think things are SO SIMPLE when in reality there is a thick layer of science beneath everything about space travel from beginning to end. Hoax supporters think themselves to be juniour scientists just because they can say the phrase "Van Allen Belt."

Hoax supporters: read the Bad Astronomy page and LET IT GO.

Zip

yea those stupid junior reports on fox, how did they get on tv anyway? right? lolmao give me a break theres scientific evidence both ways, please quote facts when saying we went there, not just "we did" theres lots of evidence to prove we did not

Yeah, FOX, the people who brought you Alien Autopsy. Ever hear of ratings? You know how advertising works, right?

As for calling badastronomy.com disinformation -- all I can say to that is "hoo boy..."

Your mind is obviously not going to be changed with even the most reasonable and logical arguements and the most solid evidence.

Anyway, why do you think we didn't go to the moon -- why do you think we were lied to?

Zip