The sun and stage lamps, revisited.

[AtomicDog]

I've been watching the live feed of Spacex's Starman in orbit in his Tesla Roadster. 

 One tenant of the moon hoax is that photos taken on the moon are made with a giant stage lamp because the image of the sun is far larger than it should be. Of course, we know that the "sun" is lens bloom caused by light overwhelming the sensor (film in the Apollo images.)

Anyway, as the Roadster rotates, you can see the sun pass behind Starman's helmet, but the bloom actually seems to pass in FRONT of the helmet until the actual disc of the sun is eclipsed - proof that this is the same phenomenon that makes hoax believers think that the sun is bigger than it should be.

[Glom]

That picture makes me think that someone needs to start a twitter feed, Solitary Starman, a bit like Lonely Luke after the Force Awakens.

[JayUtah]

...or Sarcastic Rover.  Love that guy.

[Obviousman]

I couldn't help but think of the opening scene from the movie Heavy Metal.

BTW, you see there are people (person?) claiming the Falcon Heavy booster landings were faked?

[Glom]

I couldn't help but think of the opening scene from the movie Heavy Metal.

BTW, you see there are people (person?) claiming the Falcon Heavy booster landings were faked?

How do we know that person isn't fake?

[tikkitakki]

I couldn't help but think of the opening scene from the movie Heavy Metal.

[jfb]

I couldn't help but think of the opening scene from the movie Heavy Metal.

BTW, you see there are people (person?) claiming the Falcon Heavy booster landings were faked?

Of course there are.  The question is whether they are true (dis)believers or just trolling.  Every YouTube video of every rocket launch (SpaceX or not) has some jackass going "I can't believe you sheeple are falling for this, it's obviously fake."  I'm convinced that well north of 90% of them are doing so just for the lulz.  Of the remainder, I'm convinced at least half some are Russians agents provocateurs  trying to sow doubt and confusion (and succeeding beyond their wildest dreams in some quarters). 

I mean, there's this video that tracks the launch and booster landings in a single, uninterrupted shot, and sure enough there are cries of "fake!" in the comments. 

[MBDK]

I just recently noticed that in this (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6897HR.jpg) picture, you can zoom in and see, in the astronaut's visor, the reflection of the Sun peeking almost half-way out over the astronaut's PLSS.  In that reflection, you can clearly see that the Sun is a tiny disc, and the bloom is very faint, due to the lower overall intensity of the light.  I think this is pretty good proof for the layperson as to the validity of the bloom explanation.  At least that is how I analyze it.  Any thoughts?

Note:  Edited for grammar.

[BertieSlack]

Watch what happens when one of the Apollo 17 astronauts passes the thin handle of his geology sampling tool across the front of his visor:

[AtomicDog]

I decided to go back and find the exact moment in the video. It starts at 1:18:24 in the feed.

[onebigmonkey]

Oh man the reflection of Earth on the car and starman's helmet - just amazing!

[AtomicDog]

Oh man the reflection of Earth on the car and starman's helmet - just amazing!

I see what you mean. That is poetic.

There are literally DOZENS of great shots that can be pulled off that feed. SpaceX should be up for a Pulitzer Prize.

[MBDK]

Fantastic stuff, gentlefolk!  And just for my own education, the differences in the Sun bloom is the result of the differences in the camera lens/settings, or the materials the Sun reflects off, or a combination?  I am also assuming there have been some upgrades to the helmet visors (new/upgraded material/coatings, etc.) used for EVAs between Apollo and the ISS era, but I couldn't find any specific mention in my searches (it makes sense that different improvements would be made, I just couldn't verify that). 

[Ian R]

I think I may have stumbled across a fuller explanation as to why the Sun looks so large in the Apollo surface imagery (in addition to the well-known effect caused by blooming from a bright and over-exposed object).

In David Woods's excellent all-round guide to the 'hows' and 'whys' of the Apollo missions (How Apollo Flew to the Moon), he explains that the reseaux plate in the back of the Hasselblad cameras were coated with a thin and transparent layer of gold, to prevent a build-up of static electricity (which presumably could have been generated by the friction of the film moving over the glass plate after each exposure).

This is a crucial and telling point, I believe, as almost every photograph that shows a bright halo surrounding either the Sun or a bright reflection was taken with a camera fitted with a gold-coated reseaux plate.

Here are a few cropped examples:


AS17-138-21080


AS14-66-9260

AS13-62-8955


AS13-62-8973



AS11-40-5893

[Dalhousie]

Of course there are.  The question is whether they are true (dis)believers or just trolling.  Every YouTube video of every rocket launch (SpaceX or not) has some jackass going "I can't believe you sheeple are falling for this, it's obviously fake."  I'm convinced that well north of 90% of them are doing so just for the lulz.  Of the remainder, I'm convinced at least half some are Russians agents provocateurs  trying to sow doubt and confusion (and succeeding beyond their wildest dreams in some quarters). 

Can we please NOT blame everything on Russian agents?  It's getting close to xenophobia.