ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Sarcasticus on January 29, 2013, 08:45:35 PM
-
Hello,
I've been studying the Apollo hoax for some time now and am not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we went to the moon.
For starters, the mathematical likelihood of the LM working on the moon with no malfunctions seems very low - let alone six times. As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back. Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
However, my major concern is with the picture record. There is no radiation damage on any pictures pointed directly at the sun. If there's no atmosphere on the moon, then there's nothing to protect the film from the solar radiation - not to mention the cosmic radiation. It seems to me that the pictures from the Apollo missions should show signs of radiation damage.
-
The LM didn't work with "no malfunctions." Apollo 11's LM had computer program alarms during its descent and its onboard timer failed as well.
-
Well, for one, it didn't operate without any malfunction 6 times, it's just that none of those malfunctions were severe enough to result in an abort.
Two, the lunar module was a two stage craft. The descent stage only had to land the LM. The second stage, the ascent stage, had its own fuel and rocket, and only had to carry itself back to orbit.
Third, what exactly do you mean by solar radiation damage? Your claim is so vague it isn't compeltly clear what angle you are coming at this from.
-
For starters, the mathematical likelihood of the LM working on the moon with no malfunctions seems very low - let alone six times.
Ever heard of Apollo 13?
As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
How much fuel is required?
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
Why not?
However, my major concern is with the picture record. There is no radiation damage on any pictures pointed directly at the sun.
All of the pictures I've seen where the camera was pointed directly at the Sun are washed out. It also destroyed the Apollo 12 video camera.
If there's no atmosphere on the moon, then there's nothing to protect the film from the solar radiation
Except the body of the camera, of course.
not to mention the cosmic radiation.
How much radiation was there?
-
The LM didn't work with "no malfunctions." Apollo 11's LM had computer program alarms during its descent and its onboard timer failed as well.
You're right.
Excuse me - ignore the mathematical likelihood of the LM for now.
-
Third, what exactly do you mean by solar radiation damage? Your claim is so vague it isn't compeltly clear what angle you are coming at this from.
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
-
Third, what exactly do you mean by solar radiation damage? Your claim is so vague it isn't compeltly clear what angle you are coming at this from.
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
Have you done the math? Can you quantify how much radiation it takes to ruin film? Can you quantify how much radiation the Sun puts out?
-
All of the pictures I've seen where the camera was pointed directly at the Sun are washed out. It also destroyed the Apollo 12 video camera.
Please see http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/IanR81Apollo11.jpg
Except the body of the camera, of course.
The radiation would ruin the film as soon as the picture is taken.
-
All of the pictures I've seen where the camera was pointed directly at the Sun are washed out. It also destroyed the Apollo 12 video camera.
Please see http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/IanR81Apollo11.jpg
That's a composite with likely further editing, not an actual single picture taken on the moon.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
Why wouldn't this happen in Earth orbit? It's the same distance from the Sun, with nothing blocking EM radiation. The answer is that your guess is based on assuming the radiation levels are high enough to do damage, when they are not.
-
All of the pictures I've seen where the camera was pointed directly at the Sun are washed out. It also destroyed the Apollo 12 video camera.
Please see http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/IanR81Apollo11.jpg
Please see the caption for that photo:
"Ian Regan writes: "Here is a mosaic that I have just finished working on that shows a view of the Apollo 11 landing site at Mare Tranquillitatis, using Hasselblad photographs taken by Buzz Aldrin. I wanted to produce this composite after browsing through the pictures on Kipp Teague's excellent 'Apollo Archive' website - I saw the opportunity to have Armstrong, Eagle, the Flag and the Sun all in a single frame, using genuine in-flight Apollo photography. I call the mosaic Armstrong and Eagle Under a Blazing Sun. The images I used are AS11-44-6598 (ascent stage photographed by Mike Collins in lunar orbit prior to descent), AS11-40-5886 (Armstrong at the MESA), AS11-40-5887 (more of the descent stage), and AS14-66-9305 (because no A11 images show the sun from the lunar surface)."
Here is AS14-65-9305 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305.jpg). Note that it is pretty washed-out.
-
Thanks, Count Zero, I was just about to post that. :)
Here's a link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html) to the caption. (Scroll down to 15 March 2004)
Funny you did not see that when you got the link, Sarcasticus. ???
-
Third, what exactly do you mean by solar radiation damage? Your claim is so vague it isn't compeltly clear what angle you are coming at this from.
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
Have you done the math? Can you quantify how much radiation it takes to ruin film? Can you quantify how much radiation the Sun puts out?
I don't know the exact amount of specific radiation it takes to ruin film, but I know X-rays affect film.
I don't know the exact amount of radiation the Sun puts out, but I know it puts out a lot of X-rays. (See: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun.html)
Also, here's a NASA paper about how much their film was ruined when briefly exposed to radiation within LEO: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
-
Strong and weak are relative terms. Did you know that magnetic fields do not block or deflect x-rays or other electromagnetic radiation? This lack of deflection is in fact how gamma rays were isolated and discovered. Therefore, the x-ray levels from the sun would be exactly the same in Low Earth Orbit, where film photographs have been taken for decades during EVA.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
Why does photography work in Earth orbit?
-
I don't know the exact amount of specific radiation it takes to ruin film, but I know X-rays affect film.
I don't know the exact amount of radiation the Sun puts out, but I know it puts out a lot of X-rays. (See: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun.html)
Also, here's a NASA paper about how much their film was ruined when briefly exposed to radiation within LEO: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
So basically, it just feels wrong to you?
Okay, that's a good starting place. The answer is not "claim it's a hoax." The answer is "find out if your feeling has anything to do with reality." Do the math. If you can't, find someone who can. I'm sure that, if you asked nicely, several people here would be glad to help you with it. They can also explain what factors may mitigate any damage. (I actually took film through airport X-ray scanners, many years ago. As did a lot of other people. I will happily answer questions about that experience, and I'm certainly not versed enough in film or radiation to answer other questions!) The wrong answer is always, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I must be right and the experts wrong." The right answer is often "I need help with this."
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined.
Then why isn't every photographer and radiologist in the world revealing the hoax?
I don't know the exact amount of specific radiation it takes to ruin film...
So you haven't done the math.
...but I know X-rays affect film.
Have you ever put film through the x-ray machine at the airport?
I don't know the exact amount of radiation the Sun puts out...
So you haven't done the math.
...but I know it puts out a lot of X-rays.
At what wavelength?
X-rays at the wavelength (i.e., energy) emitted by the sun don't penetrate more than about a meter of air. What are the chances they'll get through a magazine rated for 600 rads?
Also, here's a NASA paper about how much their film was ruined when briefly exposed to radiation within LEO...
Tell me about film ISO ratings.
-
As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
I’ve personally performed detailed calculations and simulations of all the major Apollo maneuvers. I can confirm beyond any doubt that the spacecrafts carried sufficient propellant to perform all the required propulsive maneuvers. Here are articles explaining the results of some of my work:
Saturn V Launch Simulation (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/saturnV.htm)
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)
Hybrid Lunar Profile with LOI and TEI (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm)
Lunar Module Descent Simulation (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-descent.htm)
Lunar Module Ascent Simulation (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm)
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
TLI does not get a spacecraft into lunar orbit. TLI places a spacecraft into an Earth orbit that intercepts the Moon. An additional maneuver it needed to enter orbit, i.e. lunar orbit insertion, or LOI.
-
As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
The lunar landing strategy used by Apollo, called Lunar orbit rendezvous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous), was first worked out in 1916. The amount of fuel needed for the various velocity changes is governed by Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
The Hohmann transfer orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit) was worked out long before the first launch into space. It is used to put satellites into higher or lower orbits, including geosynchronous orbits, and to send probes to other planets. Do you believe there are satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth?
-
Wasn't the "x-ray ruins film" experiment conducted by a hoaxer completely snafu'ed? Wrong magazines, 1000 times more radiation, etc?
-
Welcome to the board Sarcasticus. Thanks for posting an actual article on the subject. That is quite a rarity for most hoax proponents. However, if you read the article, no where does it say that film was routinely fogged. Infact this research was triggered by the use of high sensitivity films, some 25 years after the moon missions. The bibliography points to contemporary articles from the time of the Gemini/Apollo missions and if you read those you'll find that the parameters were researched and understood. The shielding provided by the camera body was known to be more than adequate for the job. Furthermore the cameras had been extensively and successfully used in the space program years before the moon landings.
-
I've been studying the Apollo hoax for some time now...
Yet you seem to have missed a study of all the techniques used to accomplish it.
...and am not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we went to the moon.
Interesting standard of proof. Name an historical event whose authenticity you do know beyond the "shadow of a doubt."
I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
They did. Every college student repeats the Apollo mission planning if he's going into any sort of space operations. They are among the most well documented space maneuvers ever accomplished.
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
Why not?
-
Wasn't the "x-ray ruins film" experiment conducted by a hoaxer completely snafu'ed? Wrong magazines, 1000 times more radiation, etc?
Much higher energy and flux, yes. The hoax claimant used a diagnostic x-ray machine rather that simulating the wavelengths the sun emits. "X-ray" is actually a very broad band of wavelengths. Wavelength matters. Diagnostic x-ray machines produce much shorter wavelengths (i.e., higher energies) than the sun.
-
Hello,
I've been studying the Apollo hoax for some time now and am not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we went to the moon.
For starters, the mathematical likelihood of the LM working on the moon with no malfunctions seems very low - let alone six times. As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back. Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
However, my major concern is with the picture record. There is no radiation damage on any pictures pointed directly at the sun. If there's no atmosphere on the moon, then there's nothing to protect the film from the solar radiation - not to mention the cosmic radiation. It seems to me that the pictures from the Apollo missions should show signs of radiation damage.
Balderdash. Show me a single Apollo surface picture with the Sun in the frame that hasn't been degraded by that fact.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Apart from the cut-off UV, some holes in the infrared, and atmospheric scattering and absorption across the visible and near-infrared range (heaviest on the blue end, which shouldn't be a surprise), especially the long infrared, sunlight in space is basically the same as sunlight on the ground. UV is a small contribution and glass lenses don't transmit it well (special lenses and film were used for the UV photography experiments that were done), and the long infrared won't expose film.
As for x-rays:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_1m.html
If there aren't flares or other solar activity going on, about a tenth of a microwatt per square meter over the 0.1-0.8 nm range (roughly 1.5-12 kEv), and a billionth of a watt per square meter over the 0.05-0.4 nm range (3-25 kEv) compared to about 1.3 kilowatts per square meter for the UV, visible, and infrared. The sun is very bright in x-rays for a ~6000K black body...it's still quite dim in x-rays as far as notable x-ray emitters go, and emits mostly very low energy, low-penetration x-rays.
-
I think I'd be very surprised if anything outside of the visible wavelengths had an easier time punching through nearly half an inch of optical glass in the fraction of a second the shutter was open, than they wood pushing through the body and/or magazine.
And in visible wavelengths, the peak energy is just what has the expected chemical effect on photographic emulsion. As in; the sun gets over-exposed, enough to bleed significantly.
Anyone who expects some kind of magical radiation from the sun to slip through that lens and overwhelm all other effects hasn't been studying anything...except perhaps watching "The Core" on YouTube.
-
Also, here's a NASA paper about how much their film was ruined when briefly exposed to radiation within LEO: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
"Ruined"?
Apparently you did not actually read the paper.
For starters, note that the film used for Apollo surface photography was ISO 160 - a fine-grain film with low sensitivity (i.e. optimized for outdoor daylight, and not great for indoor work).
All of the film tested in the paper you cite had higher (in some cases much higher) ISO/sensitivities. Not surprisingly, the most sensitive film showed the greatest effect:
Ektapress Gold 1600 Professional Film (a natural-light indoor film - ISO1600)
"The increase in minimum density resulted in grainy shadows. Areas such as dark colored shirts, hair, and shadowed areas around the eyes appeared grainy. These same images appeared "flat", low in contrast, and lacking in tonal response."
This hardly qualifies as "ruined". At the other end of the sensitivity spectrum, the paper reports negligible damage:
Vericolor 400 Professional Film (ISO 400 - still higher than the Apollo film)
"Vericolor 400 was the least affected color negative film tested... The effects are minimal and would not be apparent in secondary products from these originals."
"Ruined"?
Ektachrome P800/1600 Professional Film
"This decrease in maximum density would not cause any noticeable image degradation effect because the resulting density is well above the range of usable densities. Densities above 2.5 are visually and operationally insignificant to the image rendering properties of the film... the tonal response of the film was unaffected... The only degradation potentially apparent... is associated with color balance and would be readily correctable in the printing process."
"Ruined"?
T-Max P3200 Professional Film
"The increase in the minimum density caused an increase in graininess, but the increase was not readily apparent.. There was a minimal increase in contrast that was insignificant."
"Ruined"?
T-Max 400 Professional Film
"The increase in the minimum density caused an increase in graininess, but the increase was not readily apparent.. The contrast had a negligible increase but did not affect image contrast."
The results of the radiation exposure in the paper you cite is wildly at odds with your characterization.
"High speed reversal or positive films (Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.) will have little image degradation due to radiation."
-
So there are four arguments at work here.
1. The LM should not have worked perfectly six times. As pointed out, it didn't. There was numerous faults. Just none that doomed the machine. It appears you have accepted this. So that's one quarter of your arguments you admit were flawed.
2. There wasn't enough fuel to meet the mission requirements. Given how you've been stating in response to comments that you haven't done actual maths on radiation details, I'm not convinced beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that you have here. Gut feeling do not an argument make. Show your maths to demonstrate this.
3. TLI isn't a way to enter lunar orbit. As has been mentioned, TLI only put the spacecraft on the trans lunar coast. But the bigger point is why you think that at all. What's wrong with TLI?
4. Radiation would have destroyed the film. As already mentioned, the film was couped up safely inside reflective cameras and protective magazines. You admit you have done no maths so simplistic statements like it would have ruined the film instantly are really without basis.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
As cjameshuff points out, the sun doesn't put out much X radiation. Why? It's simply not hot enough. For an object to emit significant thermal x-rays it must be heated to millions of degrees; the sun's photosphere is only about 5800 K.
Only solar flares do this. Energy stored in a portion of its magnetic field is suddenly dumped into a small pocket of plasma, heating it to several million degrees. They show up as bright spots on an otherwise dark sun when photographed from space in far ultraviolet and x-ray light. That's the primary role of spacecraft like STEREO and SDO, as these wavelengths do not penetrate the earth's atmosphere.
A sufficiently strong flare can produce enough X radiation to significantly increase the ionization in a layer of the earth's atmosphere called the "D" layer, sometimes resulting in a complete HF radio blackout. These flares can also eject clouds of charged particles that may or may not hit the earth/moon system in hours to days. Had the worst of them occurred during an Apollo mission, film would have been fogged and astronauts would have gotten sick or even died from radiation poisoning. Fortunately, that didn't happen. The typical doses were only 0.1 to 1.0 rem (1 to 10 mSv). It takes about 100 rem (1 Sv) to get acutely sick.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
What you think is of little importance, especially if it's not backed up with any evidence.
Yes the Sun gives off a "wide range of EM radiation". When the camera shutter is opened this "wide range of EM radiation" DOES "bombard" the film. How else would the film become exposed (here's a hint...the "wide range of EM radiation" contains visible light)?
Also, the film is still contained within the camera body, and is sitting behind various lenses. Have you even thought the the lenses and the lens coatings might have an effect?
Your knowledge of radiation, film emulsion, photography and nature in general appears to be totally inadequate for the subject that you are discussing.
-
I think the film should be essentially ruined. The sun gives off a wide ray of EM radiation - when the camera shutter opens, the film should be bombarded with this radiation - ruining the film.
Rubbish. Solar radiation is light, which is precisely what a film is designed to be sensitive to.
Photographic film is also sensitive to heat, but it takes a lot of heat over a short period of time, or a moderate amount of heat over a long period; this is why films have a "develop before" date, because storage for years at a moderate temperature such as 20°C will eventually fog (or heat-damage) the film emulsion. You can extend the life of film beyond the "develop by" date by keeping your them in a fridge
-
As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
The lunar landing strategy used by Apollo, called Lunar orbit rendezvous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous), was first worked out in 1916. The amount of fuel needed for the various velocity changes is governed by Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
The Hohmann transfer orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit) was worked out long before the first launch into space. It is used to put satellites into higher or lower orbits, including geosynchronous orbits, and to send probes to other planets. Do you believe there are satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth?
IIRC they used a One-Tangent Burn rather than a Hohmann transfer......due to the length of time it would take.
-
I think I see the problem. It was in the very first sentence typed:
I've been studying the Apollo hoax
Yep, there's your problem. You hung out at conspiracy sites to do your 'research', and now you're "not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we went..". Well, who'da thort that would happen...
Thing is, that first sentence also speaks loudly of your 'research' approach. The fact that you were taken in by them speaks loudly about your expertise (or lack..).
I'm late to the party as usual (dang time differences), and all the salient points have already been addressed - Sarcasticus, when will you be addressing the responses? You have received a number of quite comprehensive explanations - wouldn't it be polite to properly respond to them, point by point?
-
For starters, the mathematical likelihood of the LM working on the moon with no malfunctions seems very low - let alone six times.
Please show the calculations that you used to come up with this statement.
I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
Again, please show your calculations. And some idea of your qualifications or experience in the field of orbital mechanics and spacecraft.
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
You are absolutely correct. TLI doesn't get you into Lunar orbit. It puts you on a trajectory towards the Moon, and in the case of the (earlier) Apollo Lunar flights, it put the CSM stack on a free-return trajectory. Lunar Orbital Insertion is the manoeuvre required to put you in Lunar orbit. But of course, as you have done your research, you would know that, wouldn't you?
-
I don't know the exact amount of specific radiation it takes to ruin film, but I know X-rays affect film.
I don't know the exact amount of radiation the Sun puts out, but I know it puts out a lot of X-rays. (See: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun.html)
So you don't know any of the quantitative stuff needed for your conclusion. What have you based it on?
Many people do know the type, intensity and flux density of solar radiation across the spectrum, and the characteristics of the film used on Apollo. They also know how different types of radiation penetrate things like the glass lenses of the camera. The film is not simply exposed openly to all incoming radiation.
These people find nothing wrong with the idea that the camera could work on the Moon. Equally, those who don't know all the data point to the use of the same type of camera in Earth orbit, where it is just as much exposed to the Sun's EM radiation output as on the Moon.
-
As well, I don't think they had enough fuel to get to the moon, land, lift off and get back.
The lunar landing strategy used by Apollo, called Lunar orbit rendezvous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous), was first worked out in 1916. The amount of fuel needed for the various velocity changes is governed by Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)
Further, the TLI does not appear to be a valid way to get into lunar orbit.
The Hohmann transfer orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit) was worked out long before the first launch into space. It is used to put satellites into higher or lower orbits, including geosynchronous orbits, and to send probes to other planets. Do you believe there are satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth?
IIRC they used a One-Tangent Burn rather than a Hohmann transfer......due to the length of time it would take.
That's correct.