Why Can't We Get Photos Of ALL Sides Of the Moon?

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace

 

I looked at the Apollo 8 image gallery and see that they used the 3400 on approach to the moon, and the 2485 when leaving. I believe they standardised on the 2485 afterwards. The images don't look much different

Regarding the 2485 film (magazine G) history.nasa.gov...
"This film was rated at 2000 ASA prior to flight and intended for taking photographs of astronomical phenomenon. Instead it was inadvertently used to photograph the Moon with a sensitivity of between 40 and 80 ASA assummed. The error was noted by the crew soon after the first 17 shots had been taken during the second orbit. With prior knowledge of the situation on Earth, the development chemistry was modified and usable, though grainy images were obtained."

In other words, a slower film was intended for photographing the Moon, and the 2485 film returned overexposed frames which had to be compensated for.

reply to post by GaryN


You jumped in with both feet making BS claims about what film was used



This has to fine a grain to be the high speed 2485 film!!!

I will also refer you to this from Phage

Originally posted by Phage


Nothing in particular regarding UV sensitivity but film in magazine D (12) was not type 2485 anyway. There was one magazine with 2485, that was magazine G (18).
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Magazine D, the above images, was type 3400. Now go ahead and twist that to fit your odd world view.

edit on 12/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace

 

I looked at the Apollo 8 image gallery and see that they used the 3400 on approach to the moon, and the 2485 when leaving. I believe they standardised on the 2485 afterwards. The images don't look much different,
.

Lets show everyone what BS you talk you claim above underlined

Well let everyone judge for themselves

A picture taken with 3400 film

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Looks the same as this!!! 2485 film.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Also do you want to explain this one using your theory of light!!!

www.lpi.usra.edu...

OH and a happy new year!!!

reply to post by wildespace


(sorry if I have who said what and my replies incorrectly associated)

With the Apollo images you can always find one or two that you can use to prove your own point of view. Both of these look like long exposures, but with the 3400 the Moon hardly looks bright to me.
And if both films are B&W, one with IR sensitivity and one with UV, how do you know you are not just seeing IR or UV?
3400
www.lpi.usra.edu...
2458
www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you watch the video, you will see the moon rising. By the end the moon is far from Earth. The Earth isn't even in frame anymore.

Regarding the video presented to you: if your theory were true, the Moon in that video would diminish in brightness as it gets further and further from the limb of the Earth. But there is no change in brightness.

Going by the radius of the Earth in that video (which isn't really a video, it's a movie made of stills), the ionosphere will extend out a good deal further than where the Moon gets to. Lets see them track it about 90 degrees around and watch what happens.

Other countries and space agencies have sent cameras and telescopes into space, are they also keeping NASA's secret?

I suppose I must be a hardcore conspiracy theorist as I think there is a power structure above any that we are aware of, and they have been around for thousands of years, and yes, they can control what we see and think and believe. I've worked with scientific instruments for over 40 years, and have looked at the specs for many of the 'telescopes' that have been sent into space, and I can tell you they are not just bigger versions of your amatuer astronomers device, which would see nothing from orbit, if you were looking outwards into deep space. They have never tried one from the ISS and never will, waste of time. Same for the IR night vision scopes, they wont work up there because it is (mainly) water in the atmosphere that produces the IR wavelengths the scope is sensitive to.
I know it sounds outrageous, but it is what NASA does not show us, and not what they do show us, that makes me continue to believe it. And no porthole to view the stars from the ISS, give me a break...

And just a reminder for those who may not be familiar:
Truth Behind the Photos: What the Hubble Space Telescope Really Sees
www.space.com...

Originally posted by GaryN
And just a reminder for those who may not be familiar:
Truth Behind the Photos: What the Hubble Space Telescope Really Sees
www.space.com...

Yes, thank you for linking an article that supports what I said. The Hubble "operates much like a digital camera, using what's called a CCD (charge-coupled device) to record incoming photons of light." Unlike a consumer camera, which uses a bayer matrix of red/green/blue filters, the Hubble uses separate filters (including UV and IR), but an ordinary colour image can be formed from the separate red/green/blue images. Actually, that's exactly what astrophotographers do on Earth. The Hubble camera is really just a digital camera adapted for scientific use. It captures plenty of visible light.

By the way, did you know that consumer cameras see in near-infrared, and some of them in near-UV, and that some photographers use filters that cut those frequencies out, to avoid the undesirable effects? An off-the-shelf digital camera contains an infrared hot mirror filter that blocks most of the infrared and a bit of the ultraviolet that would otherwise be detected by the sensor. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GaryN


First of all re your long exposure claims I suggest you look at the specs for the Hasselblad Cameras used by Apollo missions, second no comment I see on this image



Is that because this image pee's on your parade as for your comments re 3400 &2465 film well why don't you try and get some facts rather than making assumptions

www.taphilo.com...

Above link a list of Kodak film types 3400 is

Pan-X Aerial

It's a black & white film for Aerial use NOT what you claim!!!

2485

Kodak 2485 was ASA 3200

NASA sometimes push processed that film to 16,000 asa iirc.

reply to post by wmd_2008

(How's this for a rant?) ;-)

When you say Hubble sees visible light, what is it from? You think the 508nm line is from a yellow light shining out there somewhere, that you could see by eye if you were out in space? All the Hubble filters are chosen in order to see the photons produced by transitions of energy levels of certain elements, and cadmium has a line at 508 nm. That light is so weak however that they need to collect photons for extended periods of time, many hours sometimes. Your eyes can not store photons, but the CCD can store the electrons produced by the photons, and then read out how many electrons are collected over that period to give a 'strength' to the emissions. No matter how long you stared at an object with very low spectral line intensity, you still would not see anything.
Our eyes are practically useless in space, it will be black, except near to a planet or moon where you are in range of the transverse waves poduced by a suns longitudinal UV waves colliding with matter (or the electrons) and only instruments will allow us to see anything, just like on the original Star Trek, everything they saw was on the screens around the bridge, there were no windows they could see out of. With Hubble it is the aplanatic lenses that allow for the conversion of the incoming wavefronts (from the mirror)that are guided and then filtered before reaching the CCD.
These books would be good to have if you are serious about some of the behaviours of light.

Handbook of Optics
www.mhprofessional.com...

second no comment I see on this image

The Earth is much bigger than the Moon, and has a much higher albedo, and will be visible by my estimates, by eye, out to about 4-500,000 miles. The Moon only to about 50,000 miles. The fact that we can see the Moon from Earth is because the longitudinal UV 'waves' emitted by the moons hydrogen shell (Lyman Alpha emissions) are turned into transverse waves of visible light by actions occuring in the Earths atmosphere/ionosphere. But, I have only NASAs word with that image that it did not require extensive processing and tweaking to look like that, and I don't trust NASA one bit.
Similarly, the only reason we can image the distant objects is because the longitudinal wave, a Gaussian beam(*) in effect, can travel almost forever without loss of intensity, and are then converted either by the space based instruments, or by our atmosphere if you are using a regular telescope on Earth. Ask NASA to take a telescope out on an EVA from the ISS (I'm going to start calling it the International Earth Station as you can't see deep space from it) and see what answers you get. I get no answer, maybe someone else can try?
I think they need one of these out at the ISS too, equiped with the very best still and video cameras, then we could get an outside tour of the IES (ex ISS) and of course some pictures of the Moon and planets and millions of stars. I know NASA has no spare money for such, maybe we could pass a collection hat and finance it publicly? Think NASA would like that?
application.denofgeek.com...
Here I have illustrated what the Sun would look like from the IES. This is from the Earth facing side, which is lit by the transverse waves produced by conversion of the longitudinal planewaves (a beam) in the atmosphere to transverse waves. The Sun will appear as a small, pinkish dot. Prove me wrong NASA!
www3.telus.net...

(*)

Another important aspect of Gaussian beams is that they don’t exist no matter how rigorous the theory is that describes them!

Search that quote to find the pdf document. Gets compicated eh?

reply to post by GaryN


Star Trek some info for you it wasn't real just in case you didn't realise!

Earth & Moon from voyager from 11.7 million kms




Earth & Moon from 88 million miles




Earth and Moon from 114 million miles



Funny in all of those images Earth is bigger than you estimate for the size of the sun seen from the ISS!!!

An image from the ISS



There are other images like these from various probes so back to you!!!

Now see if you will answer this !!!!

If i can provide a picture taken in a vacuum in which the light source and camera are in that vacuum and the camera can register an image will you give up on your BS light theory

Here GarYN

Look at these

ISS IMAGES of Stars/Clusters

The coma cluster



Bowl of the Big Dipper



The Big Dipper



The Large Magellanic Cloud




The Southern Cross (left center), the Coal Sack Nebula (bottom left), and the Carina Nebula (upper right)




The Coal Sack Nebula (bottom center), the Southern Cross (lower right), and the two prominent stars
in the upper left, which are the two prominent stars of the southern constellation Centaurus



The Moon



The Moon & Mars



No doubt after seeing these you will think up yet another excuse why your theory is still correct

OP

what are you getting at

it's a mother ship
alien bases
it's fake


???

reply to post by wmd_2008

Here GarYN

Look at these

ISS IMAGES of Stars/Clusters

You keep showing me the same images which I have shown in other threads were taken looking though the Earths ionosphere. NASA knows when conditions will be just right, as the Sun has to be approaching sunrise, kind of a back-lighting effect. Those are the photos they used on the Saturday Morning Science transmission from the IES.

Here is an image that puts those shots in perspective. The rim of the Earth is not out of shot, and the attitude of the spacecraft means it is looking through the atmosphere. The Sun is about to rise, and it has been shown that with the Sun in a very specific location, the stars appear. Even so, the graininess indicates a long exposure or a fast ISO setting.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
The Moon and Venus. The rim of the Earth is visible, and based on the curvature and the craft orientation, the view is through approximately 8000km of the upper atmospher/ionosphere.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

The Moon & Mars

I realise this might be very confusing for you, but before they added the cupola, there was only an Earth facing window, and the fileld of view is very limited as if you try to look at to much of an angle though the glass there is too much reflection and too little transmission of light. By using Celestia I can wind the clock back and find out when the viewing conditions would allow them to see the Moon and Mars, and it turns out they must be close to the Earth. Mars is on the wrong side of the Moon as the photographer would have had his head close to the Earth facing window, standing on his head if you like. So they stage the shot so the Earth is not visible, but it is close by.
I though I might be able to wean you off NASAs cool-aid wmd, but seems like you swallow the stuff by the gallon, so think I'll give up.
www3.telus.net...

reply to post by GaryN

The Sun is about to rise, and it has been shown that with the Sun in a very specific location, the stars appear.

The sunlight travelling through the atmosphere illuminates the starlight?

?

?

Originally posted by GaryN


You keep showing me the same images which I have shown in other threads were taken looking though the Earths ionosphere. NASA knows when conditions will be just right, as the Sun has to be approaching sunrise, kind of a back-lighting effect. Those are the photos they used on the Saturday Morning Science transmission from the IES.

Here is an image that puts those shots in perspective. The rim of the Earth is not out of shot, and the attitude of the spacecraft means it is looking through the atmosphere. The Sun is about to rise, and it has been shown that with the Sun in a very specific location, the stars appear. Even so, the graininess indicates a long exposure or a fast ISO setting.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
The Moon and Venus. The rim of the Earth is visible, and based on the curvature and the craft orientation, the view is through approximately 8000km of the upper atmospher/ionosphere.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

The Moon & Mars

I realise this might be very confusing for you, but before they added the cupola, there was only an Earth facing window, and the fileld of view is very limited as if you try to look at to much of an angle though the glass there is too much reflection and too little transmission of light. By using Celestia I can wind the clock back and find out when the viewing conditions would allow them to see the Moon and Mars, and it turns out they must be close to the Earth. Mars is on the wrong side of the Moon as the photographer would have had his head close to the Earth facing window, standing on his head if you like. So they stage the shot so the Earth is not visible, but it is close by.
I though I might be able to wean you off NASAs cool-aid wmd, but seems like you swallow the stuff by the gallon, so think I'll give up.

www3.telus.net...

edit on 9-1-2013 by GaryN because: sp.

First of all were you not the person claiming that there were NO PICTURES OF STARS taken from the ISS then when I post some links you seem to have posted them on other threads

A quick lesson for you the picture showing part of the ISS is not a long exposure or we would see evidence of star trails the NOISE evident on the picture as it was taken with a digital camera shows a high iso rating.

The other pictures I linked to could have been taken out side the ISS for all you know!!! or from the shuttle like I said you would come up with an excuse as usual!!!!!

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Nice to see someone paying attention anyway. Yes, backlighting is not the correct word, but from some of the earth and moon orbiting missions, they photographed the zodiacal light, and when they did it was apparent that the stars were more visible within and around the most visible region of the dust disk. In my model, it is the electrons, bound or unbound, in the disk, which are causing the starlight to be made visible, much as our atmosphere does, allowing us to see the stars from the Earths surface. That's my story anyway, and I'll stick with it 'till proved wrong.
home.earthlink.net...

because they dont want us too know whats on that side why do you think we never went back? why do you think were colonizing mars which is way father away and way more expensive to colonize??hmmm

Originally posted by dom221211
because they dont want us too know whats on that side why do you think we never went back? why do you think were colonizing mars which is way father away and way more expensive to colonize??hmmm

Yeah, but we do have images of all sides of the moon. So the original question posed by the OP is a strawman.

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Nice to see someone paying attention anyway. Yes, backlighting is not the correct word, but from some of the earth and moon orbiting missions, they photographed the zodiacal light, and when they did it was apparent that the stars were more visible within and around the most visible region of the dust disk. In my model, it is the electrons, bound or unbound, in the disk, which are causing the starlight to be made visible, much as our atmosphere does, allowing us to see the stars from the Earths surface. That's my story anyway, and I'll stick with it 'till proved wrong.
home.earthlink.net...

Sorry but that does still not cover images taken by probes MILLIONS of miles from Earth of Earth which you claimed was impossible.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Sorry but that does still not cover images taken by probes MILLIONS of miles from Earth of Earth which you claimed was impossible.

Sorry but you do not understand the instruments used to obtain those images, which are nothing like your eyes or a regular camera, which can not see IR or UV and can not detect the plane-wave fronts, the simple lens of your eyes just can not do it. You need to accept that humans in space will always have to use instruments in order to be able to see what's out there.

Originally posted by GaryN
Sorry but you do not understand the instruments used to obtain those images, which are nothing like your eyes or a regular camera...

I'm sorry, but it is you who does not understand. The photo of Earth from Voyager for example was, for all intents and purposes, taken with a regular camera, using blue, green and violet filters.

I'll say this to GaryN: keep your beliefs. You are the only person I've seen with such a view on physics, it's fairly unique and intriguing. It keeps us researching, looking stuff up, asking ourselves questions. You make these threads interesting.

Perhaps, with the advent of space tourism, many ordinary people will go up there and see for themselves what they can or cannot see.