Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation

[nomuse]

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.

I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.

[onebigmonkey]

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.

I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said this to hoax nuts:

See that big old moon shining like a spoon? Go outside and take a photo of it. Now come back and tell everyone how disappointed you are with the result.

[Zakalwe]

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.

I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said this to hoax nuts:

See that big old moon shining like a spoon? Go outside and take a photo of it. Now come back and tell everyone how disappointed you are with the result.

Very much this.
Our optical system vastly overestimates the apparent size of the moon. Ask anyone to guesstimate the size of the Moon and they'll usually guess about 2 inches across. They are usually shocked when you ask them to compare it to their little finger on their outstretched arm. The Moon's actual apparent visual size is roughly the size of their little finger nail.

To capture images like these I need to use 3 metres of focal length 

https://www.closr.it/s/7pd/

https://www.closr.it/s/xih/

[nomuse]

The Moon Illusion is powerful. I've told people to use the pinkie trick when the Moon is high, and when it is looming near the horizon. They look at me doubtfully and mumble something about it still being larger, somehow.

[raven]

The Moon Illusion is powerful. I've told people to use the pinkie trick when the Moon is high, and when it is looming near the horizon. They look at me doubtfully and mumble something about it still being larger, somehow.

When I was taking a train ride that took me from the Rockies through the prairies, I saw the moon at the horizon for the first time, and the seeming size difference it is quite spectacular. Like most optical illusions, knowing it is an illusion does not help with seeing it.

[smartcooky]

Its called the Ponzo Illusion. Here is a great example from Phil Plait

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2010/05/13/why_does_the_moon_look_so_huge_on_the_horizon.html



Both red lines are the same length, but even knowing that, and even after putting a ruler on the screen and measuring them, the brain refuses to accept this; the right one still looks longer

Of course, this is science, so cambo will know better and claim its irrelevant.
 

[JayUtah]

And for heaven's sake, why does the profession of test pilot exist if "send the designer" were always the most sensible option?

Designing and flying are two different sets of skills.  I'm a skilled designer of flying machines, but I'm a below-average pilot.  The point of Apollo was to put a man on the Moon, not simply to land a spaceship on the Moon.  If the designer can presume that man will be a skilled pilot, his task is that much easier.  Especially when there's an end-of-decade deadline.

[nomuse]

Yeah this. Land a spacecraft on the Moon. Done and done (pretty early on, too, depending on your definition of "land.")

Landing a human is a different goal. And despite Tom Wolfe, the human was never just payload. Engineers don't think like that. That 180 lbs of meat contains a massive parallel processor with a huge memory. (Lousy math co-processor, though!) And forget automation; two hands on two arms are vastly more flexible than the state of the art (and it is still a close race today). So of course you are going to design to use it.

[smartcooky]

Yeah this. Land a spacecraft on the Moon. Done and done (pretty early on, too, depending on your definition of "land.")

Landing a human is a different goal. And despite Tom Wolfe, the human was never just payload. Engineers don't think like that. That 180 lbs of meat contains a massive parallel processor with a huge memory. (Lousy math co-processor, though!) And forget automation; two hands on two arms are vastly more flexible than the state of the art (and it is still a close race today). So of course you are going to design to use it.

As well as intuition and judgement, which are very important as was clearly shown on Apollo 11.

With the automatic landing system, Eagle would have come down in the  boulder-strewn floor of ”West Crater,”  with a high probability of crashing. When Neil Armstrong saw this, he realised the danger, took manual control of Eagle, and landed in the plain beyond. His intuition and judgement probably saved the mission and both their lives.

There are all manner of things which, if it were left to automation, could have resulted in aborted missions

1201/1202 alarms on Apollo 11
The lightning strike on Apollo 12
The 2nd stage inboard J2 two minutes early shutdown on Apollo 13*

* I should note that the reason the engine shut down was pure luck. It was caused by a low chamber pressure sensor and had nothing to do with the problem the engine was really having (a violent 16hz "pogo")
 

[bknight]

As well as intuition and judgement, which are very important as was clearly shown on Apollo 11.

Some people has intuition and judgement

[nomuse]

I like the way Hans Morovec put it.

It's basically backwards from intuition. (Almost) anyone can walk, talk, and recognize faces. Even the best of us, though, feel like we are working hard when we are multiplying some big number. It was natural to think that since computers had an easy time with the latter, it would be trivial to teach them to do the former.

Morovec's example; there came a time when a computer could beat the best chess player in the world. But picking up a piece and moving it based just on vision (something a four-year old child can do) was entirely beyond it.

[beedarko]

Apologies for re-popping a months old thread, but I couldn't help noticing the similarities between cambo's debate and writing style, and an unbeliever I wrangled with for two weeks on Twitter recently.  At one point we both sort of acknowledged our mutual autism and agreed that the debate probably wouldn't end any time soon.   

I just felt the exchange warranted a mention because the commonalities were so striking.

If the designer can presume that man will be a skilled pilot, his task is that much easier.  Especially when there's an end-of-decade deadline.

I've often wondered about the definition of Kennedy's deadline and how it was popularly interpreted.  Since a decade can refer to any 10-year period, was he referring to the decade of the "60's", meaning Jan 1 1960 ~ Dec 31 1969, or was he referring to the 197th decade of the Gregorian calendar, meaning Jan 1 1961 ~ Dec 31 1970.

If the latter, then NASA had a year + 5 months left on the clock to complete the mission instead of 5 months.

[ineluki]

Designing and flying are two different sets of skills.

Or to use an example that should be even more familiar to most... programming a computer game is different from playing it...

[nweber]

I've often wondered about the definition of Kennedy's deadline and how it was popularly interpreted.  Since a decade can refer to any 10-year period, was he referring to the decade of the "60's", meaning Jan 1 1960 ~ Dec 31 1969, or was he referring to the 197th decade of the Gregorian calendar, meaning Jan 1 1961 ~ Dec 31 1970.

If the latter, then NASA had a year + 5 months left on the clock to complete the mission instead of 5 months.

I suspect that if NASA weren't able to land on the moon in 1969, they would have decided that the Jan 1 1961 to Dec 31 1970 interpretation was the appropriate one.

Was the deadline really a big deal?  I mean, suppose they only managed to get the first landing on the moon, still ahead of the Soviets, in 1972.  Would everyone be pissing and moaning about this disastrous failure?