And... where is the pilot?

[JayUtah]

A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat...

1. We can.  You just haven't looked at much of the Apollo record.
2. Why is it a shame?

We just have a dubious story...

Uh, it's not the least dubious.  The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.

So to prolong your trollish Gish gallop you invent yet another thing that you, in your infinite wisdom, say should have been photographed, and in a certain way.  And the simple answer for all of that is no -- you don't get to decide for someone else what's important and interesting for them.  When you have your own space program, you can direct your astronauts to photograph what you want to see.  In the meantime you don't make that decision for anyone else, and especially not for NASA.

[bknight]

A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat...

1. We can.  You just haven't looked at much of the Apollo record.
2. Why is it a shame?

We just have a dubious story...

Uh, it's not the least dubious.  The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.

So to prolong your trollish Gish gallop you invent yet another thing that you, in your infinite wisdom, say should have been photographed, and in a certain way.  And the simple answer for all of that is no -- you don't get to decide for someone else what's important and interesting for them.  When you have your own space program, you can direct your astronauts to photograph what you want to see.  In the meantime you don't make that decision for anyone else, and especially not for NASA.

Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.

[Rob260259]

And... where is Tarkus?

[Luckmeister]

And... where is Tarkus?

He's probably resting. Repeated goalpost moving can be quite tiring.

[dwight]

Especially when there's no-one to help.

[JayUtah]

Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.

I doubt he'll acknowledge how flagrantly he's begging the question.  Tarkus is using a rhetorical strategy so common we've given it a name -- the "If I Ran the Zoo" argument.  The reference is to the title of a Dr. Seuss book in which the young protagonist daydreams about what sorts of exotic (and completely made-up) animals he would keep if he ran the local zoo.  Consequently the argument takes the form of a proclamation (often in just the form of a bare assertion) that a certain thing should be evident and forthcoming from a real space program, and that its absence from Apollo signals suspicion.  It is the justification of that expectation that embodies the begged question.  It is difficult to argue against a proposition that it would have been useful or entertaining to conduct a space mission according to the proposal.  But no matter how appealing the expectation, it still consists of substituting the proponent's desires and goals for someone else's.  Appeal is thus irrelevant.  If a person or organization conducts itself according to well-stated goals and well-documented limitations, then attacking the justification of the goals has no effect on the propriety of the actions that would still logically follow from them.

[Abaddon]

Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.

I doubt he'll acknowledge how flagrantly he's begging the question.  Tarkus is using a rhetorical strategy so common we've given it a name -- the "If I Ran the Zoo" argument.  The reference is to the title of a Dr. Seuss book in which the young protagonist daydreams about what sorts of exotic (and completely made-up) animals he would keep if he ran the local zoo.  Consequently the argument takes the form of a proclamation (often in just the form of a bare assertion) that a certain thing should be evident and forthcoming from a real space program, and that its absence from Apollo signals suspicion.  It is the justification of that expectation that embodies the begged question.  It is difficult to argue against a proposition that it would have been useful or entertaining to conduct a space mission according to the proposal.  But no matter how appealing the expectation, it still consists of substituting the proponent's desires and goals for someone else's.  Appeal is thus irrelevant.  If a person or organization conducts itself according to well-stated goals and well-documented limitations, then attacking the justification of the goals has no effect on the propriety of the actions that would still logically follow from them.

Yeah, right.

Here is the thing that annoys me about that. If I, or you, or anyone were landing the first men on the moon, or the second, third, fourth etc, the last thing on my mind would be glad handing and taking selfies and patting one another on the back.

All of my attention would be on putting the ship on the ground and to hell with the cameras.

This does not require science or engineering or anything much beyond simple self preservation. But according to Tarkus, Neil and Buzz should have been high fiving and taking selfies. This is at least one of the few circumstances where common sense is actually right. One would have to be barking mad to take pics while landing an actual spacecraft on the actual moon.

[JayUtah]

Here is the thing that annoys me about that. If I, or you, or anyone were landing the first men on the moon, or the second, third, fourth etc, the last thing on my mind would be glad handing and taking selfies and patting one another on the back.

But even that doesn't matter.  What you or I would do, versus what Tarkus would do, or what some random joe would do, is simply irrelevant.  There was a definite photography plan for each of the missions, according to rationales determined by mission planners and scientists.  And yes, contrary to what Tarkus might think, photographing the astronauts working and moving on the lunar surface was considered important information compared to photos of Earth that would simply not be as good as pictures of Earth obtained by other means.

All of my attention would be on putting the ship on the ground and to hell with the cameras.

Which was a legitimate concern for Apollo 11.  Mission planners wanted to delete television from that mission altogether, explaining that Apollo 8 had provided suitable TV coverage for publicity purposes and arguing that Apollo 11 was already a dangerous and iffy enough mission without adding publicity elements.

[sts60]

Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread.  Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.

First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film").  Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.

Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work.  This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.  You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done".  Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith.  That's arrant nonsense.

Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions.  That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that.  You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject.  Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.

Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.

[darren r]

Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.

[bknight]

Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.

I could postulate worse.  Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM

[JayUtah]

I could postulate worse.  Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM

You laugh, but this happens.  People ask who filmed Armstrong's first step off the ladder, etc. And when they find out it was by means of an automatic camera deployed upon egress, they want to know why that same camera can't have filmed the landing.

[bknight]

I could postulate worse.  Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM

You laugh, but this happens.  People ask who filmed Armstrong's first step off the ladder, etc. And when they find out it was by means of an automatic camera deployed upon egress, they want to know why that same camera can't have filmed the landing.

I have seen questions regarding who filmed Neil on the ladder but not why the camera couldn't have filmed the landing.

[Luke Pemberton]

We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...

Sigh, this isn't really worth entertaining is it? Tarkus, your arguments really are flimsy. There isn't a picture of me anywhere that shows me at the wheel of my car, but there is plenty of evidence proving that I have driven my car.

[sts60]

One of the cool things about having an exploration "infrastructure" (in the sense of observational assets orbiting a celestial body) is being able to capture glimpses of EDL, e.g., Shuttle reentries seen from ISS, or MRO capturing Phoenix and Curiosity descending.  Amazing images.