ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: profmunkin on February 28, 2012, 11:07:41 AM
-
Intention is to post 7 frame capture photos from Apollo 11 film footage that includes astronauts excursion.
Film clip is single reel, shot continuously, at same frame rate, shutter speed and F-stop
Please download, then view photos in order.
Notice the location of the lunar lander shadow, the shadow progresses from left to right as you rotate through photos.
The shadow becomes progressively sharper and the picture progressively lightens. Best illustrated by moving from 1st to last photos.
All of these changes take place in 5:40 minutes x adjustment for frame rate.
The Sun when viewed from Earth would appear to move 1 degree of arc in 4 minutes.
From the Moon the Sun would appear to move 1 degree of arc in 112 minutes.
Evidence supports the apparent movement of the Sun, rising by several degrees, within a short period of time.
-
picture 2
-
picture 3
-
picture 4
-
picture 5
-
picture 6
-
picture 7
-
All of these changes take place in 5:40 minutes x adjustment for frame rate.
And the frame rate is?
Seeing how much the scene changes between the first and last frames, I think the length of time involved might be considerably longer than 5 minutes.
Evidence supports the apparent movement of the Sun, rising by several degrees, within a short period of time.
How have you measured the change in Sun angle?
-
Frame rate on the film clip has not been determined.
The change in degrees of arc of the Sun has not been objectively measured.
-
Profmunkin,
If you aren't going to stay on the subject of a thread then start a new one. Until you figure this out your posts will require my approval before they show up in the forum.
-
Frame rate on the film clip has not been determined.
The change in degrees of arc of the Sun has not been objectively measured.
At least, not by you. So how do you know anything is wrong with them?
-
To get some perspective, the LM, which is 5.5m tall, will cast a shadow over a flat plane 31.2m long with a Sun angle of 10°. After less than 2 hours, when the Sun angle is now 11°, the shadow will now be 28.3m long.
From the photos, I would guesstimate about 0.3m of movement of that shadow judging by a point in the shadow that's about half way up the spacecraft, so call it 0.6m for the top of the structure. That's about a fifth of that, which would suggest roughly 20 minutes has elapsed between the first and last frame shown.
-
Frame rate on the film clip has not been determined.
The frame rate the camera was run at is well documented.
-
What is the conversion through the formats?
-
Intention is to post 7 frame capture photos from Apollo 11 film footage that includes astronauts excursion.
What is the source of these 7 frames?
Film clip is single reel, shot continuously, at same frame rate, shutter speed and F-stop
These are clearly not 7 consecutive frames. Explain how these particular frames were selected.
The change in degrees of arc of the Sun has not been objectively measured.
Then you cannot support this statement:
Evidence supports the apparent movement of the Sun, rising by several degrees, within a short period of time.
-
What's more is that my eye balling suggests the change in sun angle is more like a fifth of a degree so his first assertion is way out.
Some people need to learn trigonometry and understand that a small change in sun angle when the sun is low leads to big changes in shadow length.
-
Profmunkin:
What was the frame rate of the clip you took those pictures from?
What was the frame rate of the DAC at the time the film was exposed?
Have you performed any analysis as to when those images took place in the real time of the EVA? There are some clear markers in there, such as the number of footprints, the positioning of the TV camera and the erection of the flag.
Have you accounted for the low sun angle in working out the effect on the LM shadow?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'no' or 'I don't know', how do you defend your conclusion?
-
To get some perspective, the LM, which is 5.5m tall, will cast a shadow over a flat plane 31.2m long with a Sun angle of 10°.
...and of course the lunar surface is far from flat. The shadow will be longer and move faster on a surface sloping down away from the LM than on a surface sloping up away from it.
-
Have you performed any analysis as to when those images took place in the real time of the EVA? There are some clear markers in there, such as the number of footprints, the positioning of the TV camera and the erection of the flag.
There are also things like the focal length of the camera lens (in this case a wide-angle lens will "speed up" the apparent shortening of the LM's shadow) and also the slope of the ground on which the shadow falls. It is well-known that the ground slopes gently downward to the front right of the LM, and that is the reason why, during the flag-raising, Armstrong and Aldrin cast very different shadow lengths, but later as they move to the right of the LM their shadow-lengths equalise when they fall on flatter ground.
But awww, c'mon Jason, you're asking him for real information and evidence? How unkind of you. :-)
To answer such things he will have to refer to things like the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to sort out the timing. That is, the record of Armstrong and Aldrin conducting their EVA on the moon -- and he probably believes they were never on the moon anyway.
At another forum a few months ago a hoax-believer used the record of the astronauts on the moon and their relationship to the command module orbiting above them to "prove" in his own mind that they were never there. That his arguments were circular and totally unconvincing to onlookers just never seemed to tell his intellect anything.
-
Why no response?
-
No response, because I have been trying to determine the frame rate and Sun angles.
Thank you for the alternative opinions on interpreting these photos.
Is the Sun angle 10 or 11 degrees?
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
-
Since the video is continuous, would it not be reasonable to expect, if the OP's position is correct, that the sun would either be describing a "start-stop" sort of motion, or that the astronauts would be in twilight before they finished the excursion with the sun racing across the sky? Both of which would be sort of noticable, I think.
-
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
Whose measurements are you referring to? Please provide a citation.
-
The thing is, Profmunkin, it isn't really necessary to do any of those things if you want to use the LM shadow as a factor in your argument. The time that the DAC started recording and the time it stopped are known, so why not simply compare the shadow at the beginning of the film and at the very end of it, rather than select random images from the film and try to work out the timings?
-
No response, because I have been trying to determine the frame rate and Sun angles.
Thank you for the alternative opinions on interpreting these photos.
Is the Sun angle 10 or 11 degrees?
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
30? Hardly. They arrived at the crack of dawn.
-
No response, because I have been trying to determine the frame rate and Sun angles.
I'll give you a hint. Here's Aldrin in the LM before he joins Armstrong on the lunar surface:
"Okay. I got the camera on at one frame a second"
-
No response, because I have been trying to determine the frame rate and Sun angles.
Should you have not tried to look for these beforehand?
Is the Sun angle 10 or 11 degrees?
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
The angle of the sun was 10 degrees at the time, date and location they landed at. 15 at the end of the EVA.
Where are your calculations for the 30?
-
No response, because I have been trying to determine the frame rate and Sun angles.
Still no response, so here's another hint:
You can estimate the astronaut's shadow length in your picture 5 by comparing it with the size of the flag, which lies in about the same direction.
-
Using picture #5
flag is 3.7 units tall
shadow is 6.5 units in length
angle of the sun is 30 degrees
-
If the frame rate is set to 1 frame per second
What is normal frame rate, 18 frames per second?
Problems in delays for posting, the moderator seems to be some sort of control freak, reviewing all of my replies before allowing them to be posted.
-
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
This requires considerably more elaboration. This is where previous amateur attempts at photographic analysis have fallen flat.
-
Where are your calculations for the 30?
Calculations??? He's eyeballing it and appears to be completely unaware of the phenomena called foreshortening.
"Fore'what'en'ing?" Yeah.
-
Problems in delays for posting, the moderator seems to be some sort of control freak, reviewing all of my replies before allowing them to be posted.
Yes, and insulting me is a great way to change that. I've placed you under temporary moderation because your first posts here were off topic in the thread you posted them in. When you understand that "new topic = new thread" I'll remove the restrictions from your account.
-
"Normal" would depend on the camera, and what they were trying to record with it.
-
Using picture #5
flag is 3.7 units tall
shadow is 6.5 units in length
angle of the sun is 30 degrees
It's not that simple. For instance, if you where to measure the sun elevation in the following photo by the above method, you'd get a different sun angle for each post/shadow.
(http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/hoax/photo04.jpg)
Have you figured out the flaw in your method yet?
-
What is this "method" of which you speak?
-
What is this "method" of which you speak?
Are you addressing me?
The "method" that I'm referring to is where profmunkin determines the sun elevation by measuring the height of the flag and the length of the shadow as they appear in the photo, and then taking the arctangent of the height divided by the length.
-
I'm suggesting that Profmunkin doesn't have anything approaching a method other than "it supports Apollo, so it must be wrong."
-
Using picture #5
flag is 3.7 units tall
shadow is 6.5 units in length
angle of the sun is 30 degrees
What led you to believe that this is a correct way to make this determination?
-
If the frame rate is set to 1 frame per second
What is normal frame rate, 18 frames per second?
Wouldn't this have been a useful piece of information to have had to hand before you started saying you had drawn conclusions about what the film is showing?
-
Because it appears that it is closer to 30 degrees based on the measurements of astronauts and their shadows.
This requires considerably more elaboration. This is where previous amateur attempts at photographic analysis have fallen flat.
Fallen flat. Baddum bum!
-
Here's a rundown on "normal" framerates:
Silent film circa 1920 - between 12fps and 24fps
8mm home movies - 18fps
16mm and 35mm professional films - 24 fps
16mm and 35mm made-for TV - 25 fps for Europe, 30 pulldown for NTSC
NTSC DVD - 29.97 fps
EBU DVD - 25 fps
If you didnt already know the fundamental basics of film and TV then you have absolutely no business trying to feign knowledge of the Apollo record.
-
16mm and 35mm made-for TV - 25 fps for Europe, 30 pulldown for NTSC
Pulldown? Wouldn't it just be 30 (29.97, actually) film frames/sec? The whole idea of shooting at 30 fps is to avoid the pulldown scheme normally needed to show 24fps film at a 30 Hz video frame rate.
Wouldn't it be nice if video interlacing could just go away forever? I suppose it already is with those HD networks using 720p, but 1080i is keeping it alive for no good reason. I mean, interleaving was a clever hack to work around the limitations of CRTs and analog transmission, but both of them have been gone for a while now.
-
The whole idea of shooting at 30 fps is to avoid the pulldown scheme normally needed to show 24fps film at a 30 Hz video frame rate.
Are there any actual examples of filmed-for-TV footage shot at 30fps rather than 24?
-
Using picture #5
flag is 3.7 units tall
shadow is 6.5 units in length
angle of the sun is 30 degrees
It doesn't work like that, the flag's height and the shadow's length lie in different directions across the frame and will be foreshortened by different unknown amounts. My suggestion was that you compare the known flag width with the length of the astronaut's shadow, as these are approximately in the same direction, then get an angle from his shadow length and his known height.
-
Are there any actual examples of filmed-for-TV footage shot at 30fps rather than 24?
I could be wrong, but that was the impression I got from talking to a producer who seemed to know these things. Many TV shows were shot on film at 30 fps, then converted to video and edited. Examples include Star Trek: The Next Generation.
I presume digital cameras have largely taken over by now, but I understand at the time they were encountering a lot of resistance from directors and producers, not sure exactly why. They would certainly be cheaper and quicker.
-
Most material made for TV in the US has been shot at 30 fps (or rather, 29.97 fps). You'll have a hard time finding anything made for TV and shot with video cameras in 24 fps. Material made for PAL systems can be either native 24 or 25 fps, sometimes nothing's done to compensate for the 4% difference in playback speed.
Shooting film at 24 fps gives barely perceptible flicker that audiences have deemed acceptable, and uses less film. Adoption of higher framerates then had problems due to the lack of flicker, the "video look"...people expected the flicker and thought higher framerates looked "cheap" due to the association of smoother motion with TV, despite the objectively better quality. In some cases, especially recently, they've even converted from higher framerates to 24 fps to achieve the same "look".
-
Red Dwarf VII did that when they decided to do the whole single camera thing.
-
It doesn't work like that, the flag's height and the shadow's length lie in different directions across the frame...
Further there is photographic evidence that the shadow falls across uneven ground. The effect of changing sun elevation upon the shadow length as seen from some line of sight is not a straightforward computation, especially at the tolerances being discussed here.
Fail.
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
30 degree angle on lens flare.
30 degree angle to horizon
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow.
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
30 degree angle on lens flare.
30 degree angle to horizon
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow.
Among your other mistakes, the angle of the line through the lens flares depends not on the sun's elevation but on the position of the camera relative to the sun. Draw a line through the two flares and it will always intersect the sun, which in this case is out of the frame. Had the camera been pointed, say, directly under (or over) the sun then the line through the flares would have been perfectly vertical. Would that have made it local solar noon? See the problem?
The actual sun angles during every Apollo EVA are readily available, so you don't really have an excuse for not knowing them. The Apollo 11 EVA began with a sun angle of 14.0 degrees and ended with a sun angle of 15.4 degrees. I've never seen anything to make me doubt those figures. Anyone familiar with Apollo photography can immediately tell from the Apollo 11 pictures that it's still very early in the lunar morning. The later missions (especially A15-17) remained on the surface for several days so their later EVAs were conducted with much higher sun angles -- and everything looks completely different.
-
It really isn't that hard to do a lot better with these measurements.
The most direct way to determine the sun elevation during an Apollo lunar EVA is to find a picture that includes both the sun and the level horizon taken with a camera whose image size and lens focal length are known, and just measure the angle between the two. Yes, the sun will be vastly overexposed and its image will bloom enormously. But it'll remain reasonably symmetrical, and with lens flares and other artifacts as additional clues it is usually easy to determine the sun's true position in the frame.
The Apollo surface Hasselblad cameras used 70mm film with 60 mm focal length lenses. The fiducials inscribed on the focal plane are at 1 cm spacings, with a larger cross marking the center of the photo. Therefore, the subtended angle between two adjacent fiducial marks is about 10 mm/60 mm = 1/6 radian or 9.55 degrees. (I do not know about the behavior of the lens on off-axis points, but taking or not taking the arcsin has a minimal effect of only about 1/2% so I ignored it).
I can't find any Apollo 11 EVA pictures with the sun actually in frame, so I looked for the next best - a picture showing both the level horizon and the camera's shadow. The angle between these two will also be the sun's elevation.
AS11-40-5882HR, taken by Buzz Aldrin as part of a panorama, is one such picture. Although the camera's shadow is hidden in Aldrin's own shadow, I can accurately estimate its position from the brightness of the Heiligenschein surrounding his head and from the orientations of small nearby rock shadows. (see below)
Using The Gimp, I measure 448 pixels vertically between the two fiducials to Aldrin's left. That works out to 9.55 deg/448 = .02132 degrees/pixel.
Also using The Gimp, I measure 795 pixels vertically between the camera's shadow and the horizon (which isn't quite straight because of a crater rim). That's an angle of 16.9 degrees, not terribly far from the known sun elevation angle of 14-15.4 degrees during the Apollo 11 EVA and certainly a lot closer than the 30 degrees claimed by profmunkin with his erroneous methods.
Besides possible errors in locating the camera's shadow, it's also possible (probable, even) that the horizon was not level. If the horizon to the west rose above level, as I believe it did, my result will be too large. Another possible error is the apparent drop in the horizon with the height of the camera, but even on the moon this seems too small to worry about given Aldrin's < 2m height.
(Regarding determining camera position from rock shadows: a line drawn through a shadow and the object casting it will necessarily pass through the camera's shadow, whether or not the latter is in frame. Do this for a whole bunch of object/shadow pairs and your lines will all cross at the camera's shadow. It is very important to ensure that each line joins a particular point on a shadow with the corresponding point on the object that cast it. You can't just draw lines through the centers of rocks and their shadows, especially when the shadows are short. Pick distinctive points that are visible both on the rock and in its shadow.)
-
30 degree angle on lens flare - Irrelevant
30 degree angle to horizon - Please show your method and math
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow - Please show your method and math
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow - Please show your method and math
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
30 degree angle on lens flare.
30 degree angle to horizon
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow.
This explains why you can't measure angles the way you are trying:
Shrunken Shadows on the Moon (http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/angles.htm)
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
30 degree angle on lens flare.
30 degree angle to horizon
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow.
The angle of lens flares in a frame has nothing to do with the sun angle.
I'm not sure what you're basing the rest on other than wishful thinking.
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
30 degree angle on lens flare.
30 degree angle to horizon
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow.
OK, use that picture. Assume the astronaut is square on to the camera, so measure his height. The square-on length of his shadow is longer than the distance from his feet to the edge of the frame, so measuring that length will give an upper limit on the sun angle. What do you get?
Actually, the shadow isn't square on, it extends towards the camera so is considerably longer than the square-on measurement, making the angle smaller still. From the angle of the LM in the photo, I'd guess the shadow is about 45 deg to the camera axis, making the shadow 40% longer. On that basis, my calculation for the upper limit on the sun angle is 18 deg. The claimed value of 14 or 15 deg is therefore consistent with this picture, but the exact value isn't measurable because the full length of the shadow isn't in frame.
-
Attached is Apollo 11 image.
Yep, the same one used by David Percy to "compute" sun angle -- comically wrongly.
30 degree angle on lens flare. No. The angle of a linear set of catadioptric elements is proportional to the angle between the light source and the optical axis. Until you rectify the photo, you cannot relate that angle to anything in the scene.
30 degree angle to horizon. No, this is very much the wrong way to measure an elevation. The line of flares will change as the photographer turns to the left; it will increase. If this observation can be manipulated by changing the azimuth, then it is clearly not a suitable measure of elevation.
30 degree angle on landing pod shadow. You neglect to note the points on the lander and the points on the shadow you consider to correlate.
30 degree angle on astronaut shadow. Again here you neglect to identify the point on the astronaut and the point on the shadow you consider to correlate. Percy actually tried to draw a line to the shadow of the astronaut's head -- yes, the out-of-frame feature. That fails on two accounts. You can't guess where things lie outside the frame, and the mathematics don't let you generalize that to an elevation angle anyway.
There is a science to doing this sort of thing, and it's clear you don't yet understand even the most basic fundamentals of it. You cannot simply draw lines on photos and pretend that it correlates to the 3D angles formed in the real world.
I suggest you look at some of the pages on my site www.clavius.org for some simple demonstrations and experiments you can do yourself to show how lighting and shadow vary depending on many variables.
-
If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.
-
Okay, follow that to its logical extension. If the evidence is in favour of Apollo in every case once you examine it, will you still believe that it was faked? Because the evidence is.
-
If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.
What would convince you otherwise?
-
If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.
What would convince you otherwise?
That's really the key question. If there's nothing that can be reasonably (i.e., not flying you personally to the Moon) provided that would convince you otherwise, there's really no point in debating it here.
You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program. So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future. What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?
-
If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.
What do you base your disbelief on? You're obviously in over your head when it comes to the science behind the evidence. Is your denial a conclusion you arrived at rationally, or something you just up and decided to believe in and are now trying to find a pseudo-intellectual justification for?
-
Are we to take this as a concession that the film does not show the Sun moving anomalously as you originally suggested, profmunkin?
-
What would convince you otherwise?
If your answer is "nothing would", then we can end the thread now because you've made your claim non-falsifiable, and such claims are inherently unscientific.
-
What would convince you otherwise?
If your answer is "nothing would", then we can end the thread now because you've made your claim non-falsifiable, and such claims are inherently unscientific.
While we are a science orientated group, an acknowledged unscientific reason for believing the landings were faked doesn't necessarily end the thread. It just changes the nature of the discussion. In fact it would be a refreshingly honest admission from a hoax believer.
-
The photo evidence for Apollo 11 technically supports moon scenes. I do not know about the other Apollo mission photos.
Photo attached - Buzz strolling towards the Sun. Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?
Armstrong photo evidence is that he did not use Sun visor during his 2.5 hours of activity time.
For the most part Buzz did not use sun visor for the majority of his activity time.
How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
Any signs of burned faces when they returned?
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
I'd like to see a convincing explanation of how it could have been done, because I can't see any way to do it. Just for starters, how do you provide all the scientific data that not only passed scrutiny at the time, but also every advance in techniques over the past 40 years?
-
Photo attached - Buzz strolling towards the Sun. Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?
Armstrong photo evidence is that he did not use Sun visor during his 2.5 hours of activity time.
For the most part Buzz did not use sun visor for the majority of his activity time.
So what?
How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
Any signs of burned faces when they returned?
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.
The sky was largely a 2.7 K background, the suit was temperature controlled, and they landed in the local morning so the surface was just starting to warm.
And really? Nobody can tolerate noontime sun in Cancun?
What's it like looking out the window of an air-conditioned building? What's it like standing next to a fire on a cool night or radiant heater in a cool room? Is that intolerable too?
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Actual evidence of a hoax, and explanations for the vast piles of evidence that we actually went.
-
How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
You are laboring under some common misconceptions about light: Light does not have a temperature; it has energy. The elementary school lessons they taught you about the "temperature" of space neglected to tell you those temperatures are the temperatures the surface of an object would rise to if left exposed in direct sunlight for a very long time and if the object absorbed all of the Sun's energy and they didn't tell you only a fraction of the object was exposed to sunlight so the fraction that wasn't exposed would be conducting that heat and radiating it away, lowing the average temperature of the object.
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.
The Earth's atmosphere only blocks 30% of the Sun's light. The reason objects don't heat up on Earth like they do in a vacuum is because the air convects a lot of the heat away.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
I don't see the circumstances under which NASA would be forced to fake it. NASA was filled with scientists and Engineers, so if transporting men safely to the moon and back was not possible, I genuinely believe they would have called a halt to it and announced that. After all, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on scientists and once NASA discovered it was impossible it wouldn't be long before someone else discovered the problem and asked NASA to explain how they overcame an apparently insurmountable problem.
If it was simply a matter of wanting to fake it to make sure they beat the Soviets, that doesn't fit either. In order to keep the conspiracy under wraps, NASA would need to keep it as close to their chest as possible, so the likes of Grumman (who built the LM) and the other contractors would not be aware of the fake, and would build hardware capable of travelling to the moon.
If you have hardware capable of doing the job, why would you fake it?
The reality is that none of the hoax theories have any actual evidence to back them up, most "anomalies" being the result of a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or of the aline environment of the moon itself.
If someone was to produce some actual evidence pointing to a hoax, I certainly would consider it, but it would need to be pretty substantial and entirely bullet-proof to outweigh the volume of evidence that Apollo happened exactly as advertised.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
You're evading. You were asked a question like this first. Answer it. You seem to have started from a position of choosing to the believe in the Conspiracy Theory of the Apollohoax and are now thrashing out desperately to try to find evidence to support your chosen position. What would it take for you to accept that your chosen position is wrong?
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
A common thought among hoax believers is that there only needs to be one smoking gun to blow the whole coverup apart. More widely experienced investigators understand that idea to be bogus. What would cause me to change my mind would be a compelling theory that accounted for all the knowledge about Apollo and the associated sciences and engineering. One that not only made a case for a hoax, but described an alternative set of actions that are more consistent with the evidence and showed why all experts in the relevant fields have been fooled all this time. It is a tall order, to be sure, but it is the proper requirement for a situation that has been exceptionally well documented and examined in depth over a period of years.
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
I am not sure what your question really means, but if such a theory as I've outlined were offered, examined and found to be valid, what choice would I have but to change my mind? I am not at all concerned that I will have to change my mind. How about you? What is your level of doubt about your position?
-
Frankly, I think all of us have the same answer to the question. Evidence. A coherent explanation of both why and how it was faked which doesn't violate the laws of physics, human nature, and the politics of the era would be a good start, and I've never seen one of those. However, I've never seen an HB give a straight answer to the question which wasn't based on impossible standards (sending them to the Moon themselves, for example) or immediately taken back when the required level of evidence was provided.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
Verifiable evidence.
You go first.
-
with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
The power of a heat source is not measured by temperature.
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Incontrovertible evidence. And I mean real evidence, not the kind of Mickey Mouse evidence the conspiracy theorists toss about. I would also need a plausible explanation for how the seemingly unfakable was faked.
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
I’m convinced that NASA could not have faked the moon landings as we know them. They might have been able to fake a moon landing, but they would have had to go about it in a much different way. I find no plausible explanation for much of the evidence other than the moon landings being authentic. And I find no evidence of fraud.
-
Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential, but movie of activity shows this not to be the case. Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?
Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?
-
Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult.
Yet it is done all the time, and you suggest that what Aldrin was doing did not cause him difficulty. I live in a desert and I typically wear sunglasses. However, there are times when I need to see clearly, such as to read a polarized equipment display. I momentarily remove my sunglasses and then replace them. It's slightly uncomfortable, but necessary. I don't see what the big deal is.
NASA implies the Sun visor was essential...
[citation needed]
Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
The LEVA features were to be used at the astronauts' discretion, based on their comfort and needs.
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature.
Compute how much and how fast. I'm an engineer and I'll be checking your work.
The level of UV light is also increased dramatically...
No. Clear Lexan is naturally opaque to UV.
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?
The astronaut's oxygen supply is temperature controlled, but you overstate the degree to which sun exposure would cause heat stress.
Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
Yes.
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?
No. You're making assumptions about how the space suit oxygen circuit worked.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
I've given my answer to this question many times in different forums. But you are the hook to defend your standard of proof for the moment. Turnabout doesn't work here.
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
I've also answered this question many times, and I'll answer it again. But you owe us your answers first.
-
The photo evidence for Apollo 11 technically supports moon scenes. I do not know about the other Apollo mission photos.
No, let's be absolutely clear about what happened. You tried to "analyze" the photos using the same ignorant, homegrown techniques that all Apollo conspiracy theorists have used. And you got caught.
Admitting that your conclusion was poorly founded is the proper first step to recovering from that mistake. But what's happening here is that you're unabashedly making up new "sciences" as you go in the attempt to show some objective reason to believe in a hoax theory. What this says to me is that you've already decided for other reasons that the Apollo missions are fake and now you're trying to come up with a sciency-sounding explanation that will convince others that your belief may not be wholly crackpot.
Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?
The sun visor was needed only when the astronaut felt he needed it. You're trying to make up a new rule for astronauts to follow, just so you can try to call them fake for not following it. The world doesn't work that way.
How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
This question doesn't even make sense. Read a book on heat transfer and try again.
Any signs of burned faces when they returned?
No.
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.
And if that had anything to do with the astronaut's condition, you might have a point.
-
Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential,
Where exactly is it stated that continuous use of the Sun visor was essential?
but movie of activity shows this not to be the case.
I grew up in the American Southwest. I could operate just fine without sunglasses, and the intensity of the the full Sun in visible light is not that much greater in space. Anyway, in addition to the Sun visor, the Apollo helmets had adjustable internal sunshades as well.
Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
This makes no sense whatsoever, as we have plenty of images of the crew's faces before and after EVAs, and their scruffy faces were photographed and publicized after splashdown as well.
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?
Both the inner visor and Sun visor rejected much of the infrared and ultraviolet light. I refer you to NASA TN-D-8093 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD8093EMUDevelop.pdf), Apollo Experience Report - Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?...
Of course the suits were temperature controlled; they provided active cooling through vacuum sublimation.
Edit: fixed typo.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
Clear evidence that the technology would not have worked. In the course of my work as a practicing space engineer, I have not only never seen such evidence, but I have seen plenty of evidence that validates Apollo technology and techniques.
Now, kindly answer the question that was asked of you: What exactly would convince you that Apollo was real?
-
Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential, but movie of activity shows this not to be the case. Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?
A tint is not necessary to block UV. Even common automobile windows are designed to block UV. UV protection was not the purpose of the tinted visor, they were simply for comfort in bright sunlight. That they weren't always lowered means only that they were not always needed, nothing else.
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating a documented fact. Detailed technical descriptions of the cooling system are widely available.
Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?
Yes, the oxygen tank was temperature controlled. And no, "used oxygen" was never compressed and put back into the tank...why would they ever do such a thing?
More, why didn't you do any research into such basic functionality of their suits before deciding they were inadequate?
-
Like I said on the old forum: I love the sound of batting practice on a nice ~spring day.
-
So I take it profmunkin that you haven't found any further inconsistencies with the 20,000 photographs since now you're on to begging the question with the LEMU.
-
Profmunkin,
In case you don't realize it yet, you are on a site populated by folks very knowledgable on Apollo, and spaceflight engineering in general. Several do it for a living. The rest of us are still learning...and that's the operative word here...."learning".
When on the Moon, many Earthbound paradigms no longer apply. There are also many assumptions made about the space/lunar environment which aren't understood using these paradigms. The sunlight on the Moon isn't instantly blinding nor incinerating. The surface doesn't immediately go from -250 to +250F in a matter of hours after lunar sunrise.
Do yourself a favor an read what you're being told, and ask real, un-leading questions. It's a fascinating field of science, with a lot of seeming contradictions with "common sense". Open your brain, you'll be the better for it. Get out of the hoax mindset, and learn what many thousands of folks depend on in their day-to-day jobs.
-
The answers to many of the questions you ask are in the NASA technical literature. Go have a look at it; it's vast. (Would an organization trying to protect a massive hoax release so much data?)
The site is the NASA Technical Reports Service, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/
You will have to know what you're doing and what you're looking for; most of these documents were written by working scientists and engineers for other scientists and engineers, not the general public.
Among the most interesting (IMHO) of the Apollo documents is the series of Apollo Experience Reports put out toward the end of the program. To this engineer, at least, they are surprisingly readable and give a lot of useful advice to anyone contemplating doing it all over again. (I'm sure they were required reading for engineers working on the Constellation program).
In Apollo Experience Report - Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, NASA TN D-8093, on page 20, is a table showing all of the relevant thermal and optical properties of each layer in the LEVA, the Lunar EVA Visor Assembly (?). The astronauts put them over their pressure helmets during EVA to shade the sun, block harmful ultraviolet (UV) light, cut glare, and reduce the external heat load on the life support system. Cooling was provided by evaporating a limited supply of water into space, so conservation was important.
Rather than just retype all the numbers here, I'll discuss a few that may be of interest.
Under the LEVA was the pressure helmet, the same one worn inside the spacecraft when needed. It was obviously not removed during EVA. It was made of Lexan (polycarbonate) plastic. It is practically transparent to visible light (92%), moderately transparent to near infrared (68%), completely opaque in the far infrared (0%), and dark but not opaque in ultraviolet light (18%).
The impact protective visor, worn over the bubble helmet, transmitted 63% of visible light, 37% of near infrared, but no UV or far IR at all. Because it completely blocked UV, this visor was always in place during an EVA to prevent sunburn and eye damage ("snow blindness").
The impact protective visor was still fairly transparent to visible light so you could see in shadow without too much trouble. But for the same reason there might be too much glare in sunlit areas so an outer "sun" visor was also provided. This is the gold one most famously seen on the astronauts on the moon. It transmitted only 19% of the visible light and even less (12%) of near infrared so it kept a lot of the sun's heat out of your face and the cooling system.
The gold visor was just like a pair of sunglasses, up to the wearer to use or not. Many astronauts lifted it to see in the shade, as the Apollo 11 astronauts did in the LM's shadow, and then dropped it when going back out into sunlight.
Remember that even with this gold visor up, the inner visor and the helmet still provided excellent protection against ultraviolet sunburn and eye damage.
On some of the later missions, especially Apollo 17, the visors quickly became badly scratched by the highly abrasive lunar dust. On TV we can often see Jack Schmitt, especially, often raising his visor while in sunlight simply to be able to see clearly.
-
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?
You don't need to tease out "implications" when the detailed designs, specifications and even the users' manuals are all available to you through the NTRS.
But yes, the oxygen supply was temperature controlled. It absolutely had to be, because the design philosphy was to make the suit as good an insulator as it could possibly be. This kept sunlight and the moon's thermal radiation from leaking into the suit, and it retained the astronaut's heat from being radiated to deep space when in shadow. But this also trapped the astronaut's own metabolic heat even when you didn't want it. Imagine wrapping yourself up tightly in the best sleeping bag you've ever had and then going out in the desert sun on a geology field trip. You wouldn't last long.
This waste heat was dumped to space through a "sublimator", an ingeniously simple device that evaporated water to space, carrying waste heat with it. Yes, water is a pretty precious commodity on the moon but the Apollo astronauts were there for only a few days so this was an appropriate method.
Originally the plan was to simply cool the oxygen that recirculated through the suit, but studies found that the metabolic rates on the moon were likely to be too high for this to work efficiently. The blower would be too loud and take too much power. The astronaut also wore a "liquid cooling garmet", basically long underwear into which small water tubes were embedded. The life support system circulated water through this to remove body heat, dumping it into space via the same "sublimator" used to cool the oxygen.
By all accounts the portable life support systems operated magnificently. None ever failed in flight (though it had an emergency backup, the Oxygen Purge System). The astronauts were given a 3-position switch to control the cooling, and most of them rarely went past the lowest level most of the time.
Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
The container didn't have to be temperature controlled; it simply supplied fresh oxygen to a fan-driven recirculation loop that went through the suit and backpack.
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?
"Used" oxygen is known as carbon dioxide. You would definitely not want to put this back into your oxygen tank. The backpack removed the CO2 with LiOH canisters, miscellaneous gases with charcoal, and humidity by condensation and separation as it passed through the sublimator.
A very accurate way to think of the PLSS is as a diving rebreather -- almost all the major components are the same. Rebreathers are famous for allowing very long dives because they use oxygen so efficiently.
The OPS could be thought of as SCUBA backup; far simpler than the PLSS (or a diving rebreather) but far less efficient with oxygen. The PLSS on the later missions carried about 8 hours of all consumables. The OPS contained substantially more oxygen than the PLSS, but had it been needed it would only have lasted 30-60 minutes because the gas would have flowed just once through the suit and out into space, just as the gas from a scuba diver's tank is exhaled as bubbles after being breathed only once, still containing a lot of oxygen.
-
On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?
No, you were asked the question first. Answer it, don't turn it back on the askers.
-
The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?
It is a very easily verifiable fact that the clear lexan (polycarbonate) material that the bubble helmet was made of is opaque to UV.
Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?
There is no implication. The temperature control of the suit is very well documented and, incidentally, the same method is still used in spacesuits today.
-
It is a very easily verifiable fact that the clear lexan (polycarbonate) material that the bubble helmet was made of is opaque to UV.
Very nearly so. According to that same Experience Report, the pressure helmet itself had a UV transmittance of 0.18. The impact protective visor was made of something called "UV stabilized polycarbonate" and has a UV transmittance of 0.00. The visible transmittance, however, is only 0.63 so you lose something for it.
I don't know how you "UV stabilize" polycarbonate, if it's something (like a dye) you add to it, or something you do to it.
-
I don't know how you "UV stabilize" polycarbonate, if it's something (like a dye) you add to it, or something you do to it.
It's an additive.
Polyamides are UV-opaque, but through absorption and not reflection. Absorbing UV rays excites the polymer molecules themselves, causing the polymer structure eventually to break down and lose structural strength. The internal fractures also cause opacity in the visible wavelength. Extended exposure to UV will, over time, break down polyamide materials.
UV stabilization additives, typically benzotriazole compounds, absorb UV directly but this is not the primary mechanism of stabilization. They also draw absorbed energy away from the polymer as thermal energy. This latter role works only if the compound is added to the polymer formulation prior to thermoforming.
Lest this seem too exotic, polyamide sold under the trade name Lexan is the material compact discs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs are made from. It's hardly an exotic material. The optical-grade version of Lexan is what the vast majority of "plastic" eyeglass lenses are made from. Opticians will tell you that they offer Lexan lenses with "UV protection," but they don't tell you it's an inherent property of the material. It's a very common substance. It just happens also to be what space helmets and space visors are made out of. However the helmets in Apollo 13 and From the Earth to the Moon are made from acrylic because George at Global Effects couldn't get his vacuum forming machine to work on polyamide.
-
The visible transmittance, however, is only 0.63 so you lose something for it.
I'm not convinced the two are linked. UV stabilization does not typically reduce visible-light transmissivity, nor does it substantially increase UV opacity. The stabilizers merely mitigate the secondary effects of UV absorption in the polyamide so that it does not photodegrade.
The outer visor indeed had lower visible-light transmissivity, but that was intentional -- it was the astronaut's "sunglasses." It wouldn't suprise me to learn that the optical coating substantially altered the UV transmissivity too. But that would be the case whether the underlying substrate were UV-stabilized or not.
-
Lest this seem too exotic, polyamide sold under the trade name Lexan is the material compact discs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs are made from.
Wait a minute. I do know Lexan is one trade name for polycarbonate, the distinguishing feature of which is the carbonate segment
–O–(C=O)–O–
Note that they do not contain nitrogen. Polyamides, on the other hand, refer to a large class of plastics containing the amide group -(C=O)-N<, Nylon being just one example. It therefore seems nitrogen is an essential ingredient of polyamides. Polycarbonate does not contain nitrogen, therefore it cannot be a polyamide.
Do I get an "I corrected Jay" t-shirt? :-)
-
The visible transmittance, however, is only 0.63 so you lose something for it.
I'm not convinced the two are linked. UV stabilization does not typically reduce visible-light transmissivity, nor does it substantially increase UV opacity.
I only know what I see in the Apollo Experience Report. It says the pressure helmet is polycarbonate and the inner visor is "UV-stabilized polycarbonate". The visible transmissivity of the helmet is 92% while that of the visor is only 63%, so if the only difference is that the outer piece of polycarbonate is "UV stabilized" and the other isn't, then it also decreases visible transmission.
Perhaps they used some other process than what you know as "UV stabilization" to alter the optical properties of the material, not just to make it last longer under exposure.
-
Do I get an "I corrected Jay" t-shirt? :-)
I would think so. That's one of my early-morning posts, which typically generate error.
-
As does writing from memory without checking. I've done the same more than a few times...
-
As does writing from memory without checking. I've done the same more than a few times...
Indeed. You start writing "poly-" and the rest just wanders around in search of a home. Space helmets are made from polywholebunchofsyllables. Plastic; just say plastic.
-
Argghh!! You guys have just reminded me of the embarrassment I felt back in the 1970s on learning that I had made a slight error in telling customers in my photography shop that red-eye was caused by the flashlight bouncing around inside our our eyes "which are full of blood."
Of course, I had got my anatomical information from impeccable sources: Hammer horror films. Most likely vampire movies starring Peter Cushing. :D
-
Space helmets are made from polywholebunchofsyllables. Plastic; just say plastic.
Yeah, but do you really want the guy who makes those pressure helmets to say "polycarbonate, polyethylene, what the hell, they're all plastics and the polyethylene is cheaper..."
-
I couldn't resist. We were off-topic enough already. :D
-
Just say it's made from polysyllabic plastic...
Fred
-
Just say it's made from polysyllabic plastic...
+1
-
Two astronauts supposedly accomplish arguably the greatest feat in human history that may not ever be duplicated, landing on the moon. They have the option of showing their faces in a photograph, but Buzz elects to be obscured behind a reflective gold visor, First Man on the Moon Armstrong never poses for a photo.
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
-
Two astronauts supposedly accomplish arguably the greatest feat in human history that may not ever be duplicated, landing on the moon. They have the option of showing their faces in a photograph, but Buzz elects to be obscured behind a reflective gold visor, First Man on the Moon Armstrong never poses for a photo.
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
Some people may be assigning more meaning to it than they should.
-
Two astronauts supposedly accomplish arguably the greatest feat in human history that may not ever be duplicated, landing on the moon. They have the option of showing their faces in a photograph, but Buzz elects to be obscured behind a reflective gold visor, First Man on the Moon Armstrong never poses for a photo.
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
I love the logic. Your last claim was that it was suspicious that the visor was up, now you claim that it is suspicious that the visor is down.
-
So the first sample, potentially the most important sample, because the astronauts may have to evacuate in an emergency, so what is the procedure, take the sample of regolith, next to the lander.
Think about this for just a minute, why whould they elect to take arguabley the most important "contingency sample" were it has the greatest possibility of being contaminated by rocket exhaust, plus surface disturbed by rocket exhaust stream?
Why not walk out far enough to assure a pristine sample?
-
Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
As the lander moves over the lunar landscape, it does not show any visible effects on the landscape in the form of a bright spot or lighting shadowed areas as in capture image attached.
-
Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
As the lander moves over the lunar landscape, it does not show any visible effects on the landscape in the form of a bright spot or lighting shadowed areas as in capture image attached.
What makes you think that the DPS produces any light? Why don't you do some research into the type of motor that the DPS was, the fuel that it consumed and also the operation of a rocket motor in a vacuum.
But before you do any of that, why don't you answer the questions that are outstanding against you?
-
Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
The Sun apparently did not have an effect significant enough to require the use of a visor.
But every picture taken on an EVA had visor down and faces obscured behind.
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
-
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
How do you know this? Have you reviewed every single EVA image? I can think, off the top of my head, of images clearly showing Schmitt's face.
Stop making assumptions and then stating those assumptions as fact.
-
Please show me the evidence that hypergolic fuel burns without a visible flame?
-
Please show me the evidence that hypergolic fuel burns without a visible flame?
Since when did it become my job to educate anyone that asks an inane question? You made the contention, you back it up with facts. It was your contention that the DPS should illuminate the ground....what led you to that conclusion please?
-
Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
The Sun apparently did not have an effect significant enough to require the use of a visor.
But every picture taken on an EVA had visor down and faces obscured behind.
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
A 2 minute search on the Lunar Surface Journal gives this result:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17schmitt.face.jpg)
Will you publicly withdraw the contention?
Image AS11-40-5875 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875HR.jpg) not only shows Buzz Aldrin's face, but it shows it illuminated through the gold visor.
Neil Armstrong was captured with the movie camera that was mounted inside the LEM:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Forum%20Uploads/b4644cb6.jpg)
In fact, here's a link to a whole pile of images showing the astronaut's faces: http://whizzospace.com/face/face.htm
-
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
Name two other verifiable people besides you who do find it strange or odd. You're simply saying they should have behaved like tourists. Justify that expectation.
On the one hand you tell us that the astronauts had to keep their visors down or else they would have been instantly injured by the intense sunlight. Now you're telling us that they should have raised their visors to pose for tourist pictures. You can't have it both ways.
It's clear to me that no matter what the facts turn out to be, you have a reason why those facts must lead to a hoax. Which further tells me that your mind is already made up and you're just shopping around for something that seems like a reasonable justification for your pre-existing belief. Am I right?
-
Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
So you therefore concede not only that you were wrong about the science, but also that you are willing to make up whatever "science" you need to in order to support your beliefs, even when you know you're not competent. Please therefore explain how you are not a troll.
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
Begging the question.
-
Please show me the evidence that hypergolic fuel burns without a visible flame?
Discussed at length in the standard literature. You do know what the standard references are in rocket propulsion, don't you?
Under vacuum conditions, practically no rocket produces a visible flame except during the ignition transient. Please justify why you expect the DPS engine to produce a visible flame, and keep in mind that aerospace engineering is what some of us do for a living.
You have based almost all your pseudo-technical arguments on layman's expectations which have turned out to be without foundation or else egregiously wrong according to the facts. Have you stopped to consider that there's a reason why all the world's properly qualified experts accept the Moon landings as real?
-
Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
No, it is the expected result.
-
Why not walk out far enough to assure a pristine sample?
Because assuring a pristine sample was not a requirement or constraint for a contingency sample. It was a goal for the other samples that did not have to be collected under contingency constraints. The aim of the contingency sample was to get any material quickly, in case other sampling could not be done.
-
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
You are right, they should have taken them off to be sure they were who we think they were.
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
The exhaust is not burning.
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
The exhaust isn't burning. The combustion took place in the combustion chamber. The exhaust is just the gaseous products of combustion.
-
Burning exhaust - silly mistake
Burning fuel...hot exhaust
What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?
-
profmunkin, kindly answer the question asked you several times now, including by myself in post 436 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=33.msg436#msg436):
Exactly what reasonable evidence would convince you that Apollo was real? "Reasonable" does not include providing you a personal trip to the Moon.
I already did you this courtesy by giving my response, and I await your answer - still. If you continue to ignore this direct question, I will ask the moderator to compel you to answer.
I also reiterate my question to you in post 402 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=33.msg402#msg402):
You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program. So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future. What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?
Again, this is a direct question, and I expect a direct answer. I will not allow you to evade these by Gish-galloping off to new claims.
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
Get your physics right first, then ask the question again.
-
Here is Neil Armstrong on the Moon:
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5528_t.jpg)
Actually, what is a little suspicious is that the fourth Apollo 11 crewmember (http://www.theonion.com/articles/sherpa-who-led-neil-armstrong-to-moon-dead-at-71,2715/) didn't appear in any of the images taken on the Moon. And now he can't be asked about it, as he passed away a couple of years ago.
-
What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?
The first illustration is an artist's conception.
The second photo is of the OMS ignition transient. The DPS was in steady-state operation during the time captured in your LM descent video.
Why have you failed to address the discussion in the standard literature?
-
Mr sts60
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years. That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.
What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?
-
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
It is not important to convert you. It is important to know whether you can be converted -- that is, whether you have a reasonable standard of proof. He's asking you to state what your standard of proof is and why you think that should be the standard of proof for everyone.
Your arguments in which all facts inexorably lead to a hoax conclusion, and your repeated inability to tell what would change your mind are what we need to know: nothing will change your mind; it is firmly made up. That means nothing anyone can tell you with respect to the facts, of which I guarantee we are more conversant, will have the slightest effect on your belief.
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.
Then you will be asked specific questions dealing with the technology and why you think it was insufficient. And you will be quizzed on your knowledge of that technology by those of us who design and build it for a living.
That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.
Then you will be asked how you, of all people, managed to see through the deception. You will be asked for conclusive proof of fakery, not just for examples of things you personally don't understand.
What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?
What makes you think pre-1969 unmanned soft-landings were made without the benefit of a guidance system?
-
I was just wondering how this question about how you could get to the moon pre 1969 "without guidance". If it got there, it was guided?
-
Mr sts60
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
I don't care whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter to anyone but yourself.
However, if there is no reasonable standard of evidence that would convince you the landings - plural - were real, I may not put much effort into trying to educate you, as that would mean you ultimately can't be educated.
Also, several people - myself included - have provided you their answers to the converse question, so simple courtesy indicates you should answer the question repeated in post 436 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=33.msg436#msg436).
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.
Then I would ask you exactly what technology was lacking, and expect you to back up your claim with evidence. I would also ask you exactly what qualifies you to judge the adequacy of the technology or the safety of the mission design. I have been in the space business for two decades, and I will assess your answers accordingly.
That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct,...
I already asked you about this in question 402 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=33.msg402#msg402). I await your explanation of what makes this possible.
...so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.
Clearly you have no idea how spaceflight or space science work. Apollo technology and science are still in use and can be (and have been) verified through use by subsequent projects.
What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?
What in the world makes you think such spacecraft did not have guidance systems?
-
Actually, how could a spacecraft fly without a guidance system?
-
I suppose if you only consider an automatic guidance system to fit the requirements and having a human pilot doesn't. But even then, didn't they all have so much automatic guidance that a certain German didn't think human pilots were necessary or even required windows?
-
What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?
Your reasons to believe in a hoax seem to boil down to you responding with incredulity to not understanding how it was done.
Have you ever considered the fault is with your understanding rather than with history? It would be a simpler explanation.
You have already demonstrated and conceded multiple counts of misunderstanding. How many more must be uncovered before you accept that the remaining problems you have with Apollo are down to misunderstandings of your yet brought up?
-
Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?
What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
Space doesn't prevent electrons from emitting photons. But why would you expect those photons to necessarily be in the visible spectrum?
Since you obviously know so much, tell us about the emission spectra of the combustion products of the DPS. You can start but telling us what those products were.
-
Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
The Sun apparently did not have an effect significant enough to require the use of a visor.
But every picture taken on an EVA had visor down and faces obscured behind.
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
Not true. Some had their visors up. Its use was likely more to personal preference. But not everybody is as vain as you.
-
This guidance issue evolving to the questions?
Edit. Ignore this, I discomblobuating the reply.
-
Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?
"Yes". Surveyor had an autonomous terminal guidance system, but its parameters were updated from Earth to improve their accuracy. It would have landed anyway without such updates, but chances of a successful landing were improved with them.
Apollo also received updates from Earth, but in addition to a digital computer - which Surveyor did not have - Apollo also had the ultimate terminal guidance system - two experienced pilots, which allowed them to avoid dangerous obstacles not visible from earlier observations.
What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site
I had asked for a reasonable answer. The former is a very high cost mission, and would almost certainly involve use of government tracking, telemetry, and command assets even if privately mounted. The second doesn't exist. An answer like this lets you pretend to be reasonable without having to deal with the realization of your standard, not for years at any rate. I intend to adjust how much effort I put into my replies accordingly.
I still await an answer to my question last asked post 501 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=33.msg501#msg501):
You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program. So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future. What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?
-
Not to mention the fact that profmunkin would likely dismiss Virgin Galactic's Lunar Orbiter as part of the corporate wing of the Grand Unified Conspiracy.
-
Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained.
So what made you ask how it was done without one?
You really have no familiarity with the facts regarding space exploration, and what is more you have no interest in listening to those who have. Why are you here?
What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site
Now explain why that is a reasonable standard of proof, and why we should believe you will accept it anyway. How does showing something is there now prove it was put there on the Apollo missions?
Given your refusal to accept anythign you are told and your willingness to twist all situations to point to a hoax, why should anyone believe your answer to that question?
-
Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
So you therefore concede not only that you were wrong about the science, but also that you are willing to make up whatever "science" you need to in order to support your beliefs, even when you know you're not competent. Please therefore explain how you are not a troll.
Doesn't that pretty much make all hoaxies trolls?
In my experience they all do that.
Here is Neil Armstrong on the Moon:
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5528_t.jpg)
That's my favourite Apollo 11 picture.
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
It isn't.
It is important that you justify your claims.
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.
M'kay.
We are not convinced, quite the contrary.
Opinions are a dime-a-dozen, so what only matters is what the evidence shows.
Can you shows us evidence that backs up this believe.
That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.
So it's just that.
A believe.
Which is stuff in your head.
Rather irrelevant to other people unless you can back it up with evidence.
What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?
Why are you asking questions?
-
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Why is that a reasonable standard of proof?
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site.
Would you care to speculate on the engineering parameters of such an instrument?
-
More to the point, profmunkin, do you know what the Raleigh criterion is?
-
Burning exhaust - silly mistake
Burning fuel...hot exhaust
What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?
Are you serious?
Pic one is a drawing. By an artist. Giving his impression. Really? That is not evidence, that is nonsense.
As for pic 2, go look up ignition transients.
Furthermore, in future, provide a provenance for you images. Folks get browned off trying to find originals for the junk pictures that are posted. It is not our job to do your research.
-
Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?
Both. Look it up. Do not expect others to do your research.
What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site
Dawes Limit. Look it up. Do not expect others to do your research for you.
-
So the first sample, potentially the most important sample, because the astronauts may have to evacuate in an emergency, so what is the procedure, take the sample of regolith, next to the lander.
Think about this for just a minute, why whould they elect to take arguabley the most important "contingency sample" were it has the greatest possibility of being contaminated by rocket exhaust, plus surface disturbed by rocket exhaust stream?
Why not walk out far enough to assure a pristine sample?
Because, if anything went wrong, they could get the hell out in a hurry with a contingency sample.
Is that so hard?
-
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
Hypergolic fuels. You may want to research that.
Oh, and Rocket Science, that too.
You can flap your hands all you like, but this is actual rocket science.
-
Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
As the lander moves over the lunar landscape, it does not show any visible effects on the landscape in the form of a bright spot or lighting shadowed areas as in capture image attached.
Nope.
-
For anyone interested...even the exhaust from much larger hypergolic-fueled rockets in atmosphere can be hard to see, even when you have a clear view of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proton_rocket_launch.jpg
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/178228/3125313GTDvoHY/C9vH6JDStB/428704.jpg
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/148385/530wm/C0085561-Proton_rocket_launch-SPL.jpg
The engine in question here wasn't pushing a first stage largely full of fuel, an upper stage, and a payload to orbital velocity while in atmosphere, it was supplying just enough thrust to hover in 1/6th gravity while landing a small spacecraft, on top of operating in vacuum with the exhaust gases expanding outward in all directions rather than being confined to a narrow column by the surrounding atmosphere.
As usual, the supposed hoax evidence is just evidence of a lack of basic knowledge that could be remedied by just a little bit of research. Real research, not combing the internet for things that support your preconceived ideas.
-
For anyone interested...even the exhaust from much larger hypergolic-fueled rockets in atmosphere can be hard to see, even when you have a clear view of it:
It certainly is quite remarkable the difference in visibility different rockets can have depending on the fuel used.
A good example is the Black Arrow :
http://www.britain-in-space.co.uk/1960/images/blackarrow01.jpg
Does not look at all what you would expect from a rocket really....
-
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are that important. What you believe is unimportant and your projection that someone wants to "convert" you is uninteresting. We ask you questions to see if you know what you are talking about, so that if you do have evidence of a hoax it can be thoroughly compared to known science and history.
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.
You say that technology was the problem but questioning has revealed you don't understand the relevant technology. So your claim of honesty is...unconvincing. I am far more interested in why you just make up one objection after another rather than try to learn. Do you have any comments on that?
-
Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.
Profmunkin, you made this assertion, and it was shown to be completely false.
I did ask you to comment on this and if you are to withdraw your erroneous belief.
Will you please do me the decency of replying? And will you please do this before asking any more random, badly researched questions?
-
Two astronauts supposedly accomplish arguably the greatest feat in human history that may not ever be duplicated, landing on the moon. They have the option of showing their faces in a photograph, but Buzz elects to be obscured behind a reflective gold visor, First Man on the Moon Armstrong never poses for a photo.
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
Well, maybe it is odd, or not, but why is it indicative of a hoax? How would a hoax prevent pictures of the astronauts' faces being taken?
In fact, if there were tons of closeup photos of the astronauts' faces, I'm sure you would be arguing, "OF COURSE it's a hoax. See? They only took photos of themselves. The government/media complex was trying to brainwash us into identifying with these Noble Adventurers by plastering their faces everywhere. If it were a real mission, they would have concentrated on the Moon, instead of themselves."
To my mind, it is perfectly normal that people with scientific and military training were less interested in lionizing themselves, and more interested in doing what they went there to do.
-
Two astronauts supposedly accomplish arguably the greatest feat in human history that may not ever be duplicated, landing on the moon. They have the option of showing their faces in a photograph, but Buzz elects to be obscured behind a reflective gold visor, First Man on the Moon Armstrong never poses for a photo.
Some people may not find this strange, some people may find this odd.
Well, maybe it is odd, or not, but why is it indicative of a hoax? How would a hoax prevent pictures of the astronauts' faces being taken?
In fact, if there were tons of closeup photos of the astronauts' faces, I'm sure you would be arguing, "OF COURSE it's a hoax. See? They only took photos of themselves. The government/media complex was trying to brainwash us into identifying with these Noble Adventurers by plastering their faces everywhere. If it were a real mission, they would have concentrated on the Moon, instead of themselves."
To my mind, it is perfectly normal that people with scientific and military training were less interested in lionizing themselves, and more interested in doing what they went there to do.
A very good point. This is a common flaw with so many conspiracist arguments. So desperate are they in their contortionist attempts to make some observation out to be suspicious, that they fail to think why the hoax theory would make any more sense. It's like they think that simply throwing enough mud will make the hoax theory valid by default.
-
I don't know. There were no pictures of Edmund Hillary taken on top of Everest. What conclusion ought we to draw from this?
-
Cannot help but think there is a trail of all three getting in the space ship and all that that entailed, who do you expect to see on the moon? Statler and Waldorf?
-
I'm kind of wondering if maybe in the case of Apollo 11 there was a conscious decision by the astronauts to not show their faces because they "came in peace for all mankind". When you look at the famous picture of Buzz that I use as my avatar, you can't tell if it's a man or woman, or what their race is, because you can't see his face. Maybe that was intentional.
It seems like something Neil would do because he is often quick to remind us that a lot of people are responsible for getting him to the Moon. Buzz, on the other hand seems like more of a publicity seeker, at least recently.
-
It could also be something they didn't think all that much about.
-
It could also be something they didn't think all that much about.
Yeah, I agree it probably wasn't planned or purposeful. But it makes more sense than the conspiracy theory that it wasn't really Neil and Buzz inside the space suits or whatever it is that Profmunkin is getting at.
-
I'm kind of wondering if maybe in the case of Apollo 11 there was a conscious decision by the astronauts to not show their faces because they "came in peace for all mankind". When you look at the famous picture of Buzz that I use as my avatar, you can't tell if it's a man or woman, or what their race is, because you can't see his face. Maybe that was intentional.
It seems like something Neil would do because he is often quick to remind us that a lot of people are responsible for getting him to the Moon. Buzz, on the other hand seems like more of a publicity seeker, at least recently.
Neil Armstrong from the DAC, visor up.
http://blogs.sitepointstatic.com/images/tech/118-backup-nasa.jpg
-
Whoa.
Twenty men pile up.
That's got to be intimidating.
-
Buzz Aldrin, visible and recognizable even with the visor down.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/e8mqt5.jpg)
AS11-40-5875 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875HR.jpg)
-
I'm kind of wondering if maybe in the case of Apollo 11 there was a conscious decision by the astronauts to not show their faces because they "came in peace for all mankind". When you look at the famous picture of Buzz that I use as my avatar, you can't tell if it's a man or woman, or what their race is, because you can't see his face. Maybe that was intentional.
It seems like something Neil would do because he is often quick to remind us that a lot of people are responsible for getting him to the Moon. Buzz, on the other hand seems like more of a publicity seeker, at least recently.
Neil Armstrong from the DAC, visor up.
http://blogs.sitepointstatic.com/images/tech/118-backup-nasa.jpg
But notice he's looking cross sun.
-
Yeah but no but yeah.... Part of the problem for me getting my head around this is IF you were hoaxing it you would get the faces in? Would you worry about it? I can see that getting the faces in could be seen as "look! They are here!" from that point of view you could argue that the lack of obvious faces proves they went, or not. It is a lame duck in the annals of hoaxery. If you are really going and you are not thinking of the hoax, why would you, you would get on with it and come home safe. Anything snapped to film is a bonus.
profmunkin, there are several questions outstanding and I do not want to derail them but this idea does not fly.
(repeats parrot sketch for comedy effect).
-
(repeats parrot sketch for comedy effect).
"This hoax theory is just sleeping!.... There! IT MOVED!"
-
I'm kind of wondering if maybe in the case of Apollo 11 there was a conscious decision by the astronauts to not show their faces because they "came in peace for all mankind". When you look at the famous picture of Buzz that I use as my avatar, you can't tell if it's a man or woman, or what their race is, because you can't see his face. Maybe that was intentional.
It seems like something Neil would do because he is often quick to remind us that a lot of people are responsible for getting him to the Moon. Buzz, on the other hand seems like more of a publicity seeker, at least recently.
Neil Armstrong from the DAC, visor up.
http://blogs.sitepointstatic.com/images/tech/118-backup-nasa.jpg
But notice he's looking cross sun.
It doesn't matter much. The fact remains, the astronauts could raise/lower the visor to suit their own comfort level. The notion that no such picture exists, or that the astronauts deliberately did not, or never, show their faces is clearly wrong.
-
There is even video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLqvq11dgX8) of Apollo astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLAUZ4GWp4), with their visors up.
-
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/178228/3125313GTDvoHY/C9vH6JDStB/428704.jpg
Odd. This one looks like it has a serious oxidizer leak. I wonder if that's normal.
I know that some rockets (like the Titan III/IV) injected N2O4 from separate tanks into their SRB plumes to deflect them for steering, but the Proton has multiple liquid fueled engines that I assume are at least partly gimbaled for steering.
-
What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site
And you know full well you're not going to get either of these any time soon, so you feel quite safe in stating them knowing that you'll never actually have to revise your position based on their results. Like Jay said, this lets you pretend you're being reasonable when you're anything but.
How about if NASA launches a probe with a really good telescope into lunar orbit and then hands all the operations over to an independent university group who decides what to photograph and publishes all the raw image data for the world to see? What's wrong with this one except that it's already underway and clearly shows every Apollo site?
-
What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?
It's authentic.
Here is what the photographer, astronaut Joseph P. Allen, said about it in his NASA Oral History Project interview on 18 March 2004:
The first time we did an OMS [Orbital Maneuvering System] burn—it’s to change your orbit ever so slightly, after we were safely in space and the payload bay doors were open—you do the countdown and [fire the engine]. Since the burn was being done by Vance and Bob Overmyer, Bill and I had only to just look out the back and see at T-minus-zero the OMS engines ignite, and to my astonishment, it looked like the back of the Orbiter blew off. It just went [demonstrates], this enormous flash of light—[totally unexpected]. You hear kind of a “whump” of the engine starting, [and see] a flash of light. It just is there and then it’s gone, even though the engine continues to burn.
I later learned there’s a reason for that. The engines are started rich, more fuel than oxidizer, in order to make sure a clean burn starts, and then [the mixture is] made lean again, such that everything gets burned and there’s no light at all. You would think there would be light from a rocket; there’s none, at least looking out the back.
Every OMS burn from that time—I mean, we did maybe four or five during that mission—with every one, I would have a camera and at T-equals-zero I would take a photograph. To my astonishment, one of those photographs has the flash on it. [The] “OMS burn” [photo is] in the Entering Space book, [and] in several NASA publications. [It turns out] the flash lasts for only a fifth of a second, [a fact] we can tell that from video, TV cameras, camcorders. About a fifth of a second. The exposure of a camera is a sixtieth of a second, so you have to put a sixtieth of a second right during that fifth of a second, which is virtually impossible to do. But I got very lucky and was quite pleased by that result.
Isn't it a shame that the hoax believers never seem to keep metadata like this attached to the photographs they present?
-
Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
No. Hypergolic plumes are invisible in vacuum. They're only barely visible even in an atmosphere.
As the lander moves over the lunar landscape, it does not show any visible effects on the landscape in the form of a bright spot or lighting shadowed areas as in capture image attached.
Nor should it. However, you do see a faint "shadow" of the plume caused by the way it randomly refracts the sunlight passing through the very hot and turbulent gas stream. And of course when you get close to the surface it starts blasting dust radially outward at speeds so high that they look like continuous streams of fluid.
I would sure like to see a soundstage in a vacuum chamber big enough to allow a real LM DPS engine to burn for minutes to get these effects for the photography of the supposedly fake mission. Do you have any idea how much gas would have to be exhausted almost instantly by the vacuum system?
-
... but the Proton has multiple liquid fueled engines that I assume are at least partly gimbaled for steering.
Yes, the Proton gimbals its engines for steering.
-
I would sure like to see a soundstage in a vacuum chamber big enough to allow a real LM DPS engine to burn for minutes to get these effects for the photography of the supposedly fake mission. Do you have any idea how much gas would have to be exhausted almost instantly by the vacuum system?
NASA actually does have a chamber capable of testing rocket engines in simulated high-altitude conditions. It's the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/index.html) at Plum Brook station near Sandusky, Ohio. Of course it could never be used to fake a moon landing because the chamber is only 38' diameter (33' diameter test area) and the bottom of it has exhaust ducts and so forth, so there's no place to set up a fake moon set. The facility also didn't begin operations until 1970.
-
Odd. This one looks like it has a serious oxidizer leak. I wonder if that's normal.
It seems to be a common feature of Proton launches. My first thought was exhaust from turbopumps, but the Proton apparently uses staged combustion engines that should run all that through the engines themselves. Maybe just leftover nitrogen tetroxide boiling out of the plumbing used to load propellant.
-
I was shocked by the photographs of hypergolic fueled rockets without a visible plume.
I must say that this was enough evidence to cause me to move to a neutral position on the subject of moon landings.
I can say that at this point there is no substantial evidence or smoking gun that I can point to to disprove a moon landing.
Even though I still don't believe it was possible, I won't say it was not accomplished.
I want to thank all of you for your postings, informative.
-
In the age of tubes and transistors, how did the Russians or the USA soft land probes on the moon?
Has anyone actually studied the technology and determined that someone in the 60's figured out how to get a probe to ignite rockets to decelerate and finally soft land while maintaining correct trajectory and orientation?
-
In the age of tubes and transistors, how did the Russians or the USA soft land probes on the moon?
We're in the age of transistors now. Even the SS Botany Bay had them, much to Scotty's amusement.
Has anyone actually studied the technology and determined that someone in the 60's figured out how to get a probe to ignite rockets to decelerate and finally soft land while maintaining correct trajectory and orientation?
Erm, yeah. Pretty much the entirety of the aerospace industry.
You pose the question as though you think engineering feats happen in isolation.
-
Even though I still don't believe it was possible, I won't say it was not accomplished.
This is an incompatible position. If it was done, then ipso facto it is possible to do. I think what you mean to say is that you don't yet understand how it was done. That's normal; advanced aerospace engineering is not something most people understand without considerable training and study.
I want to thank all of you for your postings, informative.
You're welcome.
-
I was shocked by the photographs of hypergolic fueled rockets without a visible plume.
I must say that this was enough evidence to cause me to move to a neutral position on the subject of moon landings.
I can say that at this point there is no substantial evidence or smoking gun that I can point to to disprove a moon landing.
Even though I still don't believe it was possible, I won't say it was not accomplished.
I want to thank all of you for your postings, informative.
Now that we've resolved this situation, perhaps you'd care to start a new thread on what matters still befuddled you.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions so long as you'll listen to the answers and review your preconceptions based on those answers.
-
In the age of tubes and transistors, how did the Russians or the USA soft land probes on the moon?
By using tubes and transistors, combined with straightforward control system techniques from the era before solid-state electronics. The sequencers for many early space vehicles, for example, were the coaxial-cam type systems that still run some washing machines. Tubes typically require immersion in cooling fluid and so were only used in environments that allowed for that. Transistors can be cooled conductively, and are still the basis today for control system engineering.
Has anyone actually studied the technology and determined that someone in the 60's figured out how to get a probe to ignite rockets to decelerate and finally soft land while maintaining correct trajectory and orientation?
Yes, many thousands of us have studied sequential-logic control systems since the late 1930s and practice the techniques professionally. Why do you think these are obscure sciences?
-
In the age of tubes and transistors, how did the Russians or the USA soft land probes on the moon?
There is also a wealth of material on the US Surveyor program available through the NASA Technical Reports Server, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/
I've read detailed descriptions of the Surveyor flight systems: its star trackers, inertial reference, attitude control engines and yes, its electronics. It's a reasonable design for the mid 1960s, and being an unmanned robot it could accept a much greater chance of catastrophic failure than Apollo. Indeed, two of the seven Surveyors were lost during landing.
Although it had a landing radar to measure distance and velocity to the surface, Surveyor could not detect obstacles such as craters and boulders. Even the radar it did have could be confused. During the landing of Surveyor III, famous for its later visit by the Apollo 12 crew, its radar got confused and did not shut down the engines when it reached the surface. It bounced high off the surface twice before its engine was manually shut down by ground command and it settled down -- on the slope of a crater.
This is exactly the kind of thing that made a skilled human pilot so valuable; he could see where he was going, avoid obstacles and pick a safe place to land, and no flight demonstrates that better than Apollo 11. Even today we don't really have much of a clue how to write computer programs that can analyze the output of a TV camera in the way that the human brain can interpret what it sees through its eyes.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is returning photographs and maps of the moon that are so detailed that they can be used to pick safe landing spots for future missions, manned or unmanned. This was one of its major mission goals. This has never been done before; even with intensive Lunar Orbiter and Apollo orbital photography, the Apollo landing missions still had to depend on their pilots to avoid the obstacles that were simply too small to be seen from orbit at that time. This information will be especially of help for future robotic landers.
Even today spacecraft electronics are not nearly as advanced as you might think. They generally lag the technology on the ground by at least 10 years because of the necessarily ultra-conservative nature of spacecraft engineering. Commercial-grade parts are not necessarily excluded, but everything new has to be analyzed, tested and finally qualified for space before it can be used. The traditional design principles for spacecraft are still valid: a part that isn't present cannot fail, so KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid. If you can still accomplish the mission while keeping some part or system on the ground instead of putting it in the spacecraft, then do so. If you haven't tested something, then it does not work. Even if it seems to work, test, test, test, and test again.
And you can still be damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't; I personally put much of the blame for the failure of the first Ariane V on overly strict rules on the selection of the computer processors for the guidance system (specifically the inertial platform).
Radiation susceptibility is always a big issue, especially for spacecraft designed to fly in or repeatedly throgh the Van Allen belts. Unlike manned missions that last no longer than 2 weeks, robotic spacecraft are expected to operate for years, accumulating considerably more radiation and almost certainly being exposed to a number of solar proton events. Here the older technologies actually have the advantage as they tend to be more radiation-resistant than newer, very highly integrated circuits with very small feature sizes.
-
In the age of tubes and transistors, how did the Russians or the USA soft land probes on the moon?
Has anyone actually studied the technology and determined that someone in the 60's figured out how to get a probe to ignite rockets to decelerate and finally soft land while maintaining correct trajectory and orientation?
We know they figured this out by the fact that said landers actually did land on the Moon.
Surveyor did not have a digital computer; its guidance system was analog. And, yes, one can also see they figured it out by reading about what and how they figured out. Descriptions and block diagrams are available in documents such as Surveyor Spacecraft - Functional Description, Hughes Aircraft Company publication # 70-93401. Go to the NASA Technical Reports Server (http://ntrs.nasa.gov) and type the name in. Or type in "Surveyor guidance", or "Surveyor spacecraft design", and you too can read all about it.
Apollo used a more sophisticated guidance system because (a) it had more time and money to develop one, (b) it could take advantage of "man-in-the-loop" design, but most importantly, (c) it had to be able to land safely because of its crew; it couldn't simply land "blind" with regard to surface hazards. This risk was acceptable for the robotic Surveyors.
ETA: Well, I see ka9q was there firstest with the mostest. (Shakes fist, grumbles)
-
Remember that the underlying physics of orbital mechanics and space flight have been known for a long time, and they haven't changed at all:
Two masses still attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. (Newton, Hooke, et al, circa 1670)
The velocity increment of a rocket is still proportional to its specific impulse times the log of its mass ratio. (Tsiolkovsky, 1903)
Pairs of objects still orbit their common centers of gravity in conic sections, sweeping out equal areas in equal times. (Kepler, 1609)
Arbitrary functions are still numerically integrated by algorithms first developed hundreds of years ago by geniuses like Newton and Gauss. One of the most popular algorithms, Runge-Kutta, was developed in 1900.
Force is still equal to mass times acceleration. (Newton, 1687)
And so on. Sure, hardware has advanced enormously, and we now have vastly faster computers for trajectory design and simulation that have enabled some truly spectacular interplanetary billiards shots. And some good performance tweaks have been made to old algorithms. But by and large the underlying principles of space flight have been known for a very long time and they simply don't change.
(Edited to add discoverers and dates)
-
Remember that the underlying physics of orbital mechanics and space flight have been known for a long time, and they haven't changed at all:
Indeed, I have a celestial mechanics textbook from 1912 that has all the right math in it. And for John Carter fans, I also have a 1920 first edition of Thuvia, Maid of Mars.
Most spaceflight is indeed Newtonian physics and is based on centuries-old knowledge. In one sense we simply deal with gravity and momentum the same way we always have. In another sense, we are still innovating. The authors of my 1912 text wouldn't see anything amiss in Bate et al.'s Fundamentals of Astrodynamics or in the Apollo trajectory planning. They would understand patched conics. They would understand numerical integration of perturbations. But it might take them some blackboard scribbling to understand how Lissajous orbits work in the three-body case.
Sure, hardware has advanced enormously...
And that's a big help. The ability to measure changes in dynamic state to very great accuracy and precision allows us to plan more ambitious activity. The ability to regulate control actions to a similar precision and accuracy opens up new doors.
High-end engineering always defies lay expectations for several years after its introduction.
-
Has anyone actually studied the technology and determined that someone in the 60's figured out how to get a probe to ignite rockets to decelerate and finally soft land while maintaining correct trajectory and orientation?
Yes. A lot of technology used now for such things is directly derived from that used back then. Maintaining trajectory and orientation by use of an inertial guidance system had been in use at least since the V2 was flying in the 1940s. Inertial guidance was a big part of ICBM design in the 1950s. Automated sequencing to make things happen at particular times is as old as the first time someone used a clock to form a time fuse for a bomb. OK, that's a very basic example, but the principle is the same for a spacecraft: some timing mechanism set up to perform certain tasks at certain times.
-
I was shocked by the photographs of hypergolic fueled rockets without a visible plume.
Hmm. You raised this issue quite confidently, saying:
What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?
In other words, you had already dismissed any idea that the 'burning exhaust' might not produce many or any photons (for any of a number of reasons). As an earthly example, have you never seen methylated spirits burning almost invisibly? If not, I'm shocked.
I must say that this was enough evidence to cause me to move to a neutral position on the subject of moon landings.
Given you have admitted several times to being uninformed on these matters, I'm not sure that your 'position' is of great significance in the grand scheme of things, but I guess any move towards being informed (and correct) is a good one..
I can say that at this point there is no substantial evidence or smoking gun that I can point to to disprove a moon landing.
I'm sorry, but if you have no substantial evidence, then you cannot possibly justify saying:
I still don't believe it was possible
If all your best evidence has now been completely rebutted, then that would be a completely irrational belief.
-
profmunk, let me first say that I appreciate your efforts to actually address and process information from other posters. This doesn't happen all that often.
Your last posts leave me curious, though. You mention that, despite some blows to your evidence that "you still don't believe that it was possible". I'm interested in what you consider the "tentpole" for this belief - what is the main thing that makes you disbelieve it, for which the other evidence is merely supporting?
"The moon landings were impossible because ... " what?
-
OK, that's a very basic example, but the principle is the same for a spacecraft: some timing mechanism set up to perform certain tasks at certain times.
Somewhere in my library I have a book that describes a hundred or so of the basic mechanical designs that endured throughout history, simple machines such as the Archimedean screw or the Chinese winch. When you're doing mechanical design, you work with a "vocabulary" of well-proven mechanisms such as levers, gears, screws, bell cranks, tension rods, and so forth.
The cam-and-follower design pattern is one of those ancient, robust machines. Machine a circular disc to have a certain perimeter profile, then mount it on a shaft, and arrange for something to follow the varying radius. You can generate linear motion with a piston follower, or angular motion with a lever follower. Mount several discs on a common shaft and you can synchronize several operations. To this day, many washing machines employ a clockwork shaft rotating a set of plastic cams that operate electrical switches to implement the cycle. You rotate the camset to the starting point when you "select the cycle" on the round knob. Pushing the knob in engages the clockwork.
Escapements are another fascinating mechanical design pattern. They're like the mechanical equivalent of the Schmitt trigger.
But in keeping with the theme of repeating these patterns over and over, the summing-lever mechanism in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner rudder control linkages -- a thoroughly 21st Century airframe design -- traces its lineage to almost identical valve-gearing designs (e.g., Stephenson or Wallschaerts) in steam locomotives, dating to 150 years prior. Yes, there is a digital signal from the FBW system that opens a PCU solenoid valve, but the summing among the tiller position arm, the yaw damper, and the rudder command arm is still accomplished mechanically. Why? Because the design has worked reliably for 50 years that way.
-
profmunk, let me first say that I appreciate your efforts to actually address and process information from other posters. This doesn't happen all that often.
It's certainly better than "my sister/girlfriend says", "I'm really good with sextants!", etc. However, I am also interested in knowing what specific shortfall of technology would have prevented it from being done.
Farnsworth developed electronically scanned TV in 1927, and electronics was sophisticated enough for 525-line TV to be introduced in the US in 1941, color TV in 1953...as consumer products. The basic principles of radar were being experimented with in the 1800s, and by the end of WWII there was a wide variety of radar equipment in existence, including radar fuzes for bombs and artillery shells. The Talos surface-to-air missile used radar guidance to hit aircraft, and it was introduced in 1958. The first Atlas ICBM flew in 1957, and the design continued to be used for satellite launches and even some manned missions for decades afterward. The U2 spy plane, which required basic life support systems (including a pressure suit in case the cabin lost pressure) due to the altitudes it operated at, first flew in 1955. The SR-71 "Blackbird", with a largely titanium structure and cruise speed of Mach 3.2, first flew in 1964.
So what exactly did Apollo require that couldn't be achieved at the time?
-
I thought it would be interesting to list at least some of the technologies without which Apollo simply could not have happened, and when those key technologies appeared. Of course, many did not appear at one instant in time but evolved over a period by the contributions of many people, so some have to be stated as date ranges. In some cases the Apollo program itself had to bring an immature technology to a usable point.
Here's just a few that come to mind. By no means do I imply that this list is complete:
Radio communications on CW (continuous wave) carriers - 1920-1940s.
Radar - 1940s.
Cryogenics - liquifying, purifying by distillation, storing and transporting and using extremely cold liquids such as oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen - 1870s-1920s. The development of the deuterium-fueled fusion bomb prompted the development of large scale liquid hydrogen facilities in the early 1950s.
The discovery of helium in natural gas fields and the making of it available in commercial quantities - 1903-1920. (Helium's properties make it almost indispensable in modern rocketry: it's utterly inert, it's very light, and it remains a gas when all other materials are liquids or solids.)
The integrated circuit - early 1960s.
The stored program computer - 1940s-1950s.
The Hall–Héroult process for the production of metallic aluminium - 1886.
It would be interesting to pick one technology that was the most critical to Apollo in arriving the latest and/or having to be developed by the program. I'd nominate the Apollo Guidance Computer for this, as it was the first computer ever built entirely out of integrated circuits to meet the volume, weight and power requirements.
-
I'd nominate the Apollo Guidance Computer for this, as it was the first computer ever built entirely out of integrated circuits to meet the volume, weight and power requirements.
Indeed, it being the first practical embedded digital control system and a paradigm-shifter for much technology that followed. In all fairness the DEC PDP systems caught up to the AGC on most of those points while Apollo was still operational, but there was still considerable magic in how the AGC was used in the overall system design.
One of the unsung advances is project management. Apollo used advanced project-management techniques previously only employed in military development programs. These techniques and their tools (e.g., PERT and Gantt charts) are commonplace now.
-
I wonder what the Prof would make of the images of the Black Arrow launch.... (see attached)
And that was on earth as well.
-
I've split the thread and moved all of the rocketry discussion to the Reality of Apollo section:
It really is rocket science (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=55.0)
-
The Delta II rocket second stage uses the same fuel and oxidiser and is very close to the thrust of the Lunar Module ascent stage engine. In fact, early Delta II rockets used surplus ascent stage engines according to the Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela2000.htm).
If you look up video of Delta II launches, I challenge anyone to find one with visible 2nd stage exhaust aside from an initial "belch" at start-up, something also seen in Apollo lunar lift off video.
-
But in keeping with the theme of repeating these patterns over and over, the summing-lever mechanism in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner rudder control linkages -- a thoroughly 21st Century airframe design -- traces its lineage to almost identical valve-gearing designs (e.g., Stephenson or Wallschaerts) in steam locomotives, dating to 150 years prior.
Did you once speak with a British accent and call yourself James Burke? :-)
-
Did you once speak with a British accent and call yourself James Burke? :-)
No, but I'm a big fan of his in case it's not obvious. You can't be an effective engineer without knowing the history of technology.
-
I'd nominate the Apollo Guidance Computer for this, as it was the first computer ever built entirely out of integrated circuits to meet the volume, weight and power requirements.
One of the unsung advances is project management. Apollo used advanced project-management techniques previously only employed in military development programs. These techniques and their tools (e.g., PERT and Gantt charts) are commonplace now.
Absolutely - and one of the things I've always found surprisingly fascinating when reading through histories of the program. Both this and the procurement process were ground breaking and absolute requirements to achieve what they did in the timescales.
Though a bi-product is Project Management speak which comes through when you read some of the technical histories. My favourite was "there's an emerging negative slack in the critical path" which translated into simple English meant "we're late"...
-
Some highlights of that:
Involuntary conversion of a 747. Translation: plane crash.
Negative patient outcome. Translation: death.
Vertically deployed anti-personnel device: Translation: bomb.
Customer conveyance mobile lounge. Translation: bus.
And there are many more. I think there is even a term for it, but cannot recall.
-
It is, after all, a little beyond euphemism at that point.
-
I like " unintentional lithobreaking manoeuvre" ;D
-
That's the maneuver (U.S. spelling) you make for insertion into lithosynchronous orbit.
I've had one of my satellites launched into hydrosynchronous orbit.
Then there are the satellites which are "repurposed as deep ocean imagers".
-
Involuntary conversion of a 747. Translation: plane crash.
Also, "rapid unscheduled disassembly."
-
I like it. ;D
-
Then there are the satellites which are "repurposed as deep ocean imagers".
Ooh, ;D that's a good'un!
-
C. Montgomery Burns: "Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus."
-
In thread 'disproving a hoax believer meta-claim' sts60 post 26 had the following link to the following page http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
on this web page noted was the flag motion on Apollo missions, various youtube videos were linked to show the movement of flags as astronauts moved past.
I have not bothered to analyze anything on this web page other then watching 2 of the youtube videos linked.
Can someone explain why the flags do move as astronauts pass them?
-
Can someone explain why the flags do move as astronauts pass them?
No one knows for sure but the explanations that have been postulated are (1) the astronaut brushed the flag as he walked past, or (2) it was attracted to the astronaut by static electricity.
Many hoax believers claim that the flag was set in motion by a breeze caused by the astronaut walking by. However, please note how long the flag continues to rock back and forth after it has been set in motion. If air were present, the motion would dampen out and cease very quickly. The prolonged rocking is consistent with the behavior of a flag in a vaccum. The evidence actually points to the absence of air rather than the presence of it as claimed by many hoax proponents.
-
Can someone explain why the flags do move as astronauts pass them?
The speculation of a breeze from the astronaut causing the flag to move can be dismissed by an observation of the time that the flag is not moving. Including when the astronaut by the pole is bouncing around and then walks away, which caused no flag motion at all. There are plenty of videos that show the various flags for extended periods with absolutely no movement, something that would not be possible in an air filled environment.
BTW, you have question outstanding from the past few days in the JFK thread, why are you raising new questions in a thread where you have been absent for a month?
edited for spelling
-
Echnaton
An explanation of vibration caused by the impact of astronauts feet on the moon seems implausible since the moons surface is covered in regolith or fine powder, the vibration would not to be transmitted effectively or easily, plus you can see in the videos that the flag pole does not seem to move.
I sliped back to hoax Theory because I was asked to come back and answer some question concerning Dan Goldin and when I went to the link to recreate information necessary to answer, the flag movement was on the top of the page, just caught my attention.
-
There is a variety of possible explanations, but the least likely is the one claimed by the conspiracy theorists, air.
For one, the flag, a very light, as can be seen by its translucency, nylon one, does not billow but maintains its folds and swings back and forth in more a pendulum fashion than any flag in air would. Moreover, the video also shows the astronauts kicking up dust as they pass in view, which settles quickly without aerosolizing, which again is vacuum behaviour.
Finally, the flag takes a considerable amount of time to stop moving, again behaviour to be expected of a vacuum environment. Drag on something with such a low mass, high surface area as a nylon flag in air would bring it to a stop quite quickly I believe.
So whether it is electrical charges, vibrations up through the pole, or the astronaut simply brushing it at some point, air in particular can be pretty safely ruled out in my opinion.
-
Echnaton
An explanation of vibration caused by the impact of astronauts feet on the moon seems implausible since the moons surface is covered in regolith or fine powder, the vibration would not to be transmitted effectively or easily, plus you can see in the videos that the flag pole does not seem to move.
Who said anything about the astronauts causing ground vibrations? They hypotheses offered by Bob were brushing the flag or static electricity. I offered no hypothesis, just further criticism of the typical hoax proponents FUD mongering explanation.
I sliped back to hoax Theory because I was asked to come back and answer some question concerning Dan Goldin and when I went to the link to recreate information necessary to answer, the flag movement was on the top of the page, just caught my attention.
Right. It's the same either way when you live in the valley of the damned.
-
Can someone explain why the flags do move as astronauts pass them?
No one knows for sure but the explanations that have been postulated are (1) the astronaut brushed the flag as he walked past, or (2) it was attracted to the astronaut by static electricity.
There's a third possibility. The astronauts are seen in the TV to kick a lot of dirt about as they move around. Perhaps a lump hit the flagpole.
-
Can someone explain why the flags do move as astronauts pass them?
No one knows for sure but the explanations that have been postulated are (1) the astronaut brushed the flag as he walked past, or (2) it was attracted to the astronaut by static electricity.
sorry about attributing the vibration comment to you, I must have picked it up from the conspiracy site.
1) The flag moves after the astronaut passes, there is no evidence of an astronaut brushing a flag.
2) If it were static electricity, the flag would have a tendency to be less effected the quicker the astronaut moves past, this is not the case.
It would be ironic if after all the planning that would have gone into getting all the details exactly correct, it comes down to a flag moving when it should not.
-
[There's a third possibility. The astronauts are seen in the TV to kick a lot of dirt about as they move around. Perhaps a lump hit the flagpole.
perhaps, but the pole does not appear to move and there is multiple instances of the flag moving on various missions. There is a slight delay for the movement, a delay that could be anticipated if it were air movement causing the motion of the flag.
-
And, as has already been pointed out, the length of time the oscillation of the flag continues for categorically refutes any notion of air being responsible, as air would damp the small vibrations a lot quicker than that.
Also, provide your evidence of 'multiple' cases of flags moving at time other than when being directly manipulated by an astronaut. To the best of my knowledge only one such example has been provided.
-
there is no evidence of an astronaut brushing a flag.
An astronaut moves past the flag with his elbow extended out to his side, and as soon as the astronaut moves past the flag, the flag is seen to move in a fashion consistent with being bumped by the astronaut's elbow. That looks like evidence to me.
-
profmunkin, I assume that you are positing that the filming was done in a non-vacuum situation, am I correct? If so, how do you account for other things behaving in a way clearly not compatible with an atmosphere, such as dust particles?
They can't have air around the flag, and nowhere else.
-
An astronaut moves past the flag with his elbow extended out to his side, and as soon as the astronaut moves past the flag, the flag is seen to move in a fashion consistent with being bumped by the astronaut's elbow. That looks like evidence to me.
I would agree with this assertion if you could prove this by pointing out where the flag is deformed by the impact of the elbow.
-
profmunkin, I assume that you are positing that the filming was done in a non-vacuum situation, am I correct? If so, how do you account for other things behaving in a way clearly not compatible with an atmosphere, such as dust particles?
They can't have air around the flag, and nowhere else.
I am not proposing anything, I was asking for an explanation as to why the flag moves, apparently as a result of an astronaut moving past.
-
And, as has already been pointed out, the length of time the oscillation of the flag continues for categorically refutes any notion of air being responsible, as air would damp the small vibrations a lot quicker than that.
Also, provide your evidence of 'multiple' cases of flags moving at time other than when being directly manipulated by an astronaut. To the best of my knowledge only one such example has been provided.
You are most likely correct. I went back to conspiracy page, Apollo 15 mission is depicted on youtube. I had not even bothered look at all the videos linked on the conspiracy page, I assumed the guy would have had more proofs then just one mission.
Apollo 11 time lapsed film of astronauts excursion on the moon, it appears that the flag also moves as a result of astronauts passing, but because of the time lapse and quality of the image this example would be questionable at best to advance as evidence of movement of flag.
-
An astronaut moves past the flag with his elbow extended out to his side, and as soon as the astronaut moves past the flag, the flag is seen to move in a fashion consistent with being bumped by the astronaut's elbow. That looks like evidence to me.
I would agree with this assertion if you could prove this by pointing out where the flag is deformed by the impact of the elbow.
Demonstrate that that is an acceptable standard of proof.
The flag is hanging in a vacuum, therefore does not necessarily behave in the way you would intuitively expect. A small impact may impart just enough momentum to set the whole flag swinging as a unit, rather than deforming it, especially in the absence of any air resistance over the area of the flag.
-
profmunkin, I assume that you are positing that the filming was done in a non-vacuum situation, am I correct? If so, how do you account for other things behaving in a way clearly not compatible with an atmosphere, such as dust particles?
They can't have air around the flag, and nowhere else.
I am not proposing anything, I was asking for an explanation as to why the flag moves, apparently as a result of an astronaut moving past.
And you have been given several possibilities.
-
I would agree with this assertion if you could prove this by pointing out where the flag is deformed by the impact of the elbow.
Why should I expect to see a deformation? The impact, if it occurred, happens out of sight while the astronaut's body is between the flag and the camera. What we see after the astronaut moves past is the after effect of the contact, i.e. the flag swaying back and forth. Due to the small amount of movement observed, my belief is that no more than a slight brush along the edge of the flag would get it moving in the manner seen. Under that condition, I wouldn't expect to see a deformation.
(EDIT) Let me also point out that my comment wasn't an "assertion". In Post #208 I stated that no one knows for sure why the flag moves. Contact between the astronaut and the flag was postulated as a possible explanation.
-
An astronaut moves past the flag with his elbow extended out to his side, and as soon as the astronaut moves past the flag, the flag is seen to move in a fashion consistent with being bumped by the astronaut's elbow. That looks like evidence to me.
I would agree with this assertion if you could prove this by pointing out where the flag is deformed by the impact of the elbow.
The replies provided were labeled as speculation of a plausible but uncertain cause for an even whose cause cannot be accurately determined. Your request to be shown a specific impact is unreasonable and your disagreement with a speculative answer implies that this particular cause of the motion is not even plausible. Quit trying hiding your conspiracy thinking behind equivocations, it's not fooling anyone.
-
profmunkin,
Since we can rule out air currents as the cause of the flag’s motion, being that the prolonged rocking of the flag and the behavior of the dust is evidence of a vacuum, what explanations can you suggest for the movement of the flag?
-
profmunkin,
Since we can rule out air currents as the cause of the flag’s motion, being that the prolonged rocking of the flag and the behavior of the dust is evidence of a vacuum, what explanations can you suggest for the movement of the flag?
Either astronaut coming in contact with the flag or air movement as a result of astronaut moving past the flag.
What other choices are there?
-
profmunkin, I assume that you are positing that the filming was done in a non-vacuum situation, am I correct? If so, how do you account for other things behaving in a way clearly not compatible with an atmosphere, such as dust particles?
They can't have air around the flag, and nowhere else.
I am not proposing anything, I was asking for an explanation as to why the flag moves, apparently as a result of an astronaut moving past.
You have been given a number of possible explanations, such as static electricity or jarring of the flag. All of which seem more likely than "It was a hoax!!!1!"
As Bob B. says, we can rule out air movements, because nothing else shows movements indicating air, even things like the dust which should show it if an atmosphere is present. Air that will blow a flag will make dust billow.
I propose it was the movement of underground Moon Worms. You seem to have ruled out everything else.
-
Either astronaut coming in contact with the flag or air movement as a result of astronaut moving past the flag.
The air that would make the flag move would also dampen its motion and stop it from swaying back and forth. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
What other choices are there?
At least a couple others have been suggested.
-
profmunkin, I assume that you are positing that the filming was done in a non-vacuum situation, am I correct? If so, how do you account for other things behaving in a way clearly not compatible with an atmosphere, such as dust particles?
They can't have air around the flag, and nowhere else.
I am not proposing anything, I was asking for an explanation as to why the flag moves, apparently as a result of an astronaut moving past.
You have been given a number of possible explanations, such as static electricity or jarring of the flag. All of which seem more likely than "It was a hoax!!!1!"
As Bob B. says, we can rule out air movements, because nothing else shows movements indicating air, even things like the dust which should show it if an atmosphere is present. Air that will blow a flag will make dust billow.
I propose it was the movement of underground Moon Worms. You seem to have ruled out everything else.
Ok - Moon Worms.
It is obvious that there is no explanation for the movement of the flag, believe what you want.
Can we just call this an unexplained mystery?
-
It is obvious that there is no explanation for the movement of the flag
Since the flag did indeed move, then obviously there is a not very obvious explanation.
-
Can we just call this an unexplained mystery?
No! It is not mysterious. Merely something prosaic that could have multiple plausible causes, none of which can be ruled out.
-
Can we just call this an unexplained mystery?
No! It is not mysterious. Merely something prosaic that could have multiple plausible causes, none of which can be ruled out.
OK if it's not a mystery, exactly which one was it?
You can't even be positive that this is not an unknown phenomenon that happens in a vacuum, with strong radiation from the sun, with synthetic materials.
Mystery def "One that is not fully understood"
-
It is obvious that there is no explanation for the movement of the flag
Since the flag did indeed move, then obviously there is a not very obvious explanation.
Yes Exactly
You are a voice of reason
-
Can we just call this an unexplained mystery?
No! It is not mysterious. Merely something prosaic that could have multiple plausible causes, none of which can be ruled out.
OK if it's not a mystery, exactly which one was it?
You can't even be positive that this is not an unknown phenomenon that happens in a vacuum, with strong radiation from the sun, with synthetic materials.
Mystery def "One that is not fully understood"
Lets not get into the meanings of mystery. But what the movement of the flag is not, is an event need have anything other than prosaic causes. There is a difference between not being able to give a 100% guaranteed answer and a mystery.
You can't even be positive that this is not an unknown phenomenon
Please. You make this kind of statement at the same time you complain in another thread of mistreatment while just asking simple questions. There are no simple questions with you, everything is wrapped up within the belief that some unknown phenomenon is really the cause and then you deflect the prosaic when it is laid out right in front of you.
-
Please. You make this kind of statement at the same time you complain in another thread of mistreatment while just asking simple questions. There are no simple questions with you, everything is wrapped up within the belief that some unknown phenomenon is really the cause and then you deflect the prosaic when it is laid out right in front of you.
Its Hyperbole
-
Can we just call this an unexplained mystery?
No! It is not mysterious. Merely something prosaic that could have multiple plausible causes, none of which can be ruled out.
OK if it's not a mystery, exactly which one was it?
You can't even be positive that this is not an unknown phenomenon that happens in a vacuum, with strong radiation from the sun, with synthetic materials.
Mystery def "One that is not fully understood"
Where is my other black glove? There are several plausible explanations as to why it disappeared, but not enough evidence to fix one specific one.
Therefore, we must conclude we cannot be positive that the Moon Worms didn't teleport it to the Sea of Tranquility.
-
So what exactly is your point here? A number of explanations have been postulated which would work. The other one that is hoax compatible has been rejected because other evidence contradicts it.
So what are you saying?
-
If I may so, it seems you're, profmunkin, not so much looking for an answer as looking for the "right" answer, the one that fits a hoax.
As others, including myself, have pointed out, evidence within the video suggests quite strongly otherwise.
-
profmunkin, if I may. Interesting thing with this flag is you can try this yourself to see what happens. That is of course in an atmosphere and observe the results and compare.
-
Please. You make this kind of statement at the same time you complain in another thread of mistreatment while just asking simple questions. There are no simple questions with you, everything is wrapped up within the belief that some unknown phenomenon is really the cause and then you deflect the prosaic when it is laid out right in front of you.
Its Hyperbole
It's backtracking because you now realize that the statement is revealing of the irrationality underlying your arguments. You also reinforce my point, if we cannot differentiate between "hyperbole" and what you really mean, don't complain when people respond to the irrationality underlying your posts. It is there for all to see.
-
It's backtracking because you now realize that the statement is revealing of the irrationality underlying your arguments. You also reinforce my point, if we cannot differentiate between "hyperbole" and what you really mean, don't complain when people respond to the irrationality underlying your posts. It is there for all to see.
leave it here with words of wisdom from Bob B.
"Since the flag did indeed move, then obviously there is a not very obvious explanation."
-
profmunkin, if I may. Interesting thing with this flag is you can try this yourself to see what happens. That is of course in an atmosphere and observe the results and compare.
Thanks for the positive suggestion.
-
leave it here with words of wisdom from Bob B.
"Since the flag did indeed move, then obviously there is a not very obvious explanation."
The explanation for the movement of the flag may not be immediately obvious, but all the plausible explanations are obviously quite prosaic. Please don't think for a moment that I endorse any of the hoax explanations, obviously.
-
It's backtracking because you now realize that the statement is revealing of the irrationality underlying your arguments. You also reinforce my point, if we cannot differentiate between "hyperbole" and what you really mean, don't complain when people respond to the irrationality underlying your posts. It is there for all to see.
leave it here with words of wisdom from Bob B.
"Since the flag did indeed move, then obviously there is a not very obvious explanation."
Hyperbole
-
Please don't think for a moment that I endorse any of the hoax explanations, obviously.
OBVIOUSLY
I agree with your comment and you become suspicious. You guys are so paranoid.
I have no agenda.PERIOD.
-
You guys are so paranoid.
No. What we are is experienced with semi-closeted conspiracy believers. Those that feel free to sugest almost any cause except the prosaic and explained, but back off from any actual responsibility for supporting their posts.
-
You guys are so paranoid.
No. What we are is experienced with semi-closeted conspiracy believers. Those that feel free to sugest almost any cause except the prosaic and explained, but back off from any actual responsibility for supporting their posts.
Point taken.
-
You can't even be positive that this is not an unknown phenomenon that happens in a vacuum, with strong radiation from the sun, with synthetic materials.
Which immediately raises the question why no such effect was ever observed without an astronaut moving very close to, and possibly, maybe even probably, touching the flag.
-
I agree with your comment and you become suspicious. You guys are so paranoid.
The "I'm just asking questions" approach is the most common one used by conspiracy theorists when debating.
Your agreement was equivocal, forcing Bob to issue a clarification. Don't like to be misunderstood? Don't equivocate.
I have no agenda.PERIOD.
Your agenda is apparently to confirm your prior belief that we are closed-minded irrational believers in the authenticity of Apollo. That's what the "I'm just asking questions" approach is designed to achieve. It baits people into responding to hoax arguments, then tries to achieve a rhetorical victory by pointing out that there's apparently no one actually defending the hoax.
-
Your agenda is apparently to confirm your prior belief that we are closed-minded irrational believers in the authenticity of Apollo. That's what the "I'm just asking questions" approach is designed to achieve. It baits people into responding to hoax arguments, then tries to achieve a rhetorical victory by pointing out that there's apparently no one actually defending the hoax.
I told Professor James Moriarty that his scheme would never fool you guys.
-
Oh, your games are far too tedious and predictable for him.
-
Yes, many thousands of us have studied sequential-logic control systems since the late 1930s and practice the techniques professionally.
Wow, from the photo I've seen, you're looking quite good for someone who's been studying sequential-logic control systems since the late 1930s. ;D
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll go now . . .
-
Yes, many thousands of us have studied sequential-logic control systems since the late 1930s and practice the techniques professionally.
Wow, from the photo I've seen, you're looking quite good for someone who's been studying sequential-logic control systems since the late 1930s. ;D
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll go now . . .
I suppose he could, in theory, if he had a womb with a view. :P
-
Intention is to post 7 frame capture photos from Apollo 11 film footage that includes astronauts excursion.
Film clip is single reel, shot continuously, at same frame rate, shutter speed and F-stop
Please download, then view photos in order.
Notice the location of the lunar lander shadow, the shadow progresses from left to right as you rotate through photos.
The shadow becomes progressively sharper and the picture progressively lightens. Best illustrated by moving from 1st to last photos.
All of these changes take place in 5:40 minutes x adjustment for frame rate.
The Sun when viewed from Earth would appear to move 1 degree of arc in 4 minutes.
From the Moon the Sun would appear to move 1 degree of arc in 112 minutes.
Evidence supports the apparent movement of the Sun, rising by several degrees, within a short period of time.
This is way awesome dude. So the sun is rising at a rate not commensurate with a real landing?
-
Yo dude, dont call him dude.
-
Do you ever plan to read the entire thread you post to before coming up with posts like this that make you look like an idiot?
-
Can youn post and say more. We need more details.
-
There are 18 pages of details. Read it yourself and stop trolling.
-
Might be a way to reverse sequence this and get more info.
-
What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?
It's authentic.
Here is what the photographer, astronaut Joseph P. Allen, said about it in his NASA Oral History Project interview on 18 March 2004:
The first time we did an OMS [Orbital Maneuvering System] burn—it’s to change your orbit ever so slightly, after we were safely in space and the payload bay doors were open—you do the countdown and [fire the engine]. Since the burn was being done by Vance and Bob Overmyer, Bill and I had only to just look out the back and see at T-minus-zero the OMS engines ignite, and to my astonishment, it looked like the back of the Orbiter blew off. It just went [demonstrates], this enormous flash of light—[totally unexpected]. You hear kind of a “whump” of the engine starting, [and see] a flash of light. It just is there and then it’s gone, even though the engine continues to burn.
I later learned there’s a reason for that. The engines are started rich, more fuel than oxidizer, in order to make sure a clean burn starts, and then [the mixture is] made lean again, such that everything gets burned and there’s no light at all. You would think there would be light from a rocket; there’s none, at least looking out the back.
Every OMS burn from that time—I mean, we did maybe four or five during that mission—with every one, I would have a camera and at T-equals-zero I would take a photograph. To my astonishment, one of those photographs has the flash on it. [The] “OMS burn” [photo is] in the Entering Space book, [and] in several NASA publications. [It turns out] the flash lasts for only a fifth of a second, [a fact] we can tell that from video, TV cameras, camcorders. About a fifth of a second. The exposure of a camera is a sixtieth of a second, so you have to put a sixtieth of a second right during that fifth of a second, which is virtually impossible to do. But I got very lucky and was quite pleased by that result.
Isn't it a shame that the hoax believers never seem to keep metadata like this attached to the photographs they present?
I searched for and found this thread, so I'll resurrect it if you folks don't mind.
About a month or so I was searching for HB's videos. I came upon one, that I didn't link, that basically stated the any photo/image that had Photoshop/Ducky in the metadata area MEANT that it had been photo shopped. So I trucked on over to NASA, but couldn't find any images. Googled the images and found they appear to be at ASU web site. Found many that had descriptions added and knew those are obviously photo shopped, but did find one of A16 that did not have any descriptions. After downloading and opening in one of my hex editors, found:
"CCPPhotoshop ICC profile<bh:00><bh:00>x<bh:da>c"
toward the beginning of the file.
Now not being a camera buff or have photoshop even installed on my lap, brought me to a screeching halt.
Googled something like faking LRO images (or something close to that) lead me to some forums in which there appeared to be a description of the information. That's how I now know that this information is metadata. But none of the links were live still.
So I know some of you guys can fill me in on the real reason this information comes from the file?
Edit:
Can't add the file, but the name is M192817484LR_thumb.png "Astronaut's Eye View of Apollo 16 Site"
-
Simply because the picture, while being prepared for web use, has been loaded into photoshop, probably resized, has had color or brightness adjusted, or simply has been altered to a different jpg-compression ratio. It does not mean that the picture has had elements added or removed.
Remember, the original photos are on 120-film, has been through a scanning process which makes very large files, probably .tiff-files which are HUGE. As in Titanic. If those files had been used on a web page, you'd need a lot of memory on your computer and a fast connection. Don't know if a browser even supports .tiff files. Most photos we see are small 50-500 mb .jpg. Compare that to dozens of gigabytes for a simple picture.
-
So I know some of you guys can fill me in on the real reason this information comes from the file?
Edit:
Can't add the file, but the name is M192817484LR_thumb.png "Astronaut's Eye View of Apollo 16 Site"
It would be strange if the file didn't have any indication of how it was converted and compressed. NASA's contemporary releases of press photos of Pluto are also in interchange formats; the science information certainly is not being transmitted that way from the New Horizons probe! Checking http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh-plutosurface.png (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh-plutosurface.png)... yup, Photoshop.
-
You see how seductively the HB's suck in the unenlightened and present "reasonable" proposition to trap the unsuspecting.
Thanks
-
What the average HB forgets, or doesn't realise, is that while Photoshop has become shorthand for faking things in images in some way, it is also the industry standard photo editing and processing software. It gets used for basic jobs, not just adding UFOs to things.
There isn't a single image taken by me that doesn't have that photoshop metadata in it, because the first thing I will do with holiday snaps and so on is tweak the levels and sharpen them.
The HB argument is that this means I never went on holiday.
-
You should use Lightroom for that. Better for batch jobs.
-
You should use Lightroom for that. Better for batch jobs.
Tried that, didn't get on with it :)
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one "view" the post number in each of the threads?
I have searched through the help and can't find the setting to facilitate this option.
Edit:
Never mind, I see the information on each post. I just thought that number referred to the post number in reference. My bad