Author Topic: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?  (Read 128695 times)

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1279
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #135 on: October 13, 2012, 07:51:06 PM »
I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.
Jay

While you're waiting, could you answer my questions at Reply #50 in the Lunar dust thread please?

I'm just curious about what you'd said about the Descent Engine and gas pressure.
Ecosia - the greenest way to search. You find what you need, Ecosia plants trees where they're needed. www.ecosia.org

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #136 on: October 14, 2012, 12:16:42 AM »
Hi Peter, I just answered you over there myself. Hopefully my answer is at least somewhat as good as Jay's.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2012, 01:06:52 AM »
You know, I don't spend hours on here every day, either.  Probably not even an hour, and I check back several times over the course of the average day.  There's just not all that much going on here--also, it seems I type faster than average, because I'm not sure I've ever put fifteen minutes into typing a post.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #138 on: October 14, 2012, 02:28:46 AM »
You know, I don't spend hours on here every day, either.  Probably not even an hour, and I check back several times over the course of the average day.

I just have this as a bookmark on my browser toolbar

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=recent

One click on the icon and I can see all the latest posts instead of having to trawl through the whole board looking for them.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Rob260259

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #139 on: October 14, 2012, 03:12:32 AM »
I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours. I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me.


Well, what is the question?


Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #140 on: October 15, 2012, 03:04:19 AM »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #141 on: October 15, 2012, 04:45:23 AM »
Pretty sure it's been over 48 hours now.  If he doesn't post the question, I'm going to jump.

I'm not on a ledge or anything, I'll just jump on the spot and nothing much will happen.

Offline Rob260259

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #142 on: October 15, 2012, 10:24:19 AM »
I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.

Well people, it seems Edward likes me for some reason or another and dropped a long PM in my box. The 48hours have passed and now I'm responsible for the delay.... :-)

Here is his message:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, it's the old 'star' question again, but this time, the other way around.  I fully understand (and have from the very beginning) why stars would not be visible in the lunar sky, using a camera or other optical instruments. As we know, the astronauts stated many times that it was difficult to see stars with the naked eye, although I think it was Eugene Cernan who said that it was very difficult, yet possible if he shielded his eyes from bright light sources.

This question therefore, is not the tired old (very much explained) one of why there are no stars in any photographs taken from the lunar surface. It is however, about why the astronuats said that they could not see any with their naked eyes (through their visors), and why Armstrong would have said that "the sky is a deep black" in cislunar space. As you know, Collins said that the stars were very visible on a Gemini mission, but the point is not whether he was in earth's shadow or not, as according to the NASA image (the link to which I'll give in a moment) he should have been able to see the stars he mentioned whilst in orbit on the sunlit side of the earth.

The NASA website contains an image (which has been on the website since 21 June 2007 - so NASA has obviously given their approval thereof ) by a professional astronomer by the name of Jerry Lodriguss, who's other work NASA also showcases, which is entitled: 'Stars and the solstice sun.' The page is at: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
Here you will see Lodriguss' impression of how the sky would appear during daytime on earth - if there were no atmosphere to scatter light from the sun.  Here (in Lodigruss' photo/picture) we have a blazing sun, and at the same time we have thousands of stars brightly visible throughout the sky, even easily visible right next to the sun and behind the sun's corona. This is corroborated in comments following the image by a professional astronomer, verifying  Lodriguss' image.

Surely this is how stars should also appear in the sky from the surface of the atmosphereless moon?  The only difference would be the glare from the surface of the moon, but given the clarity and luminosity of the stars as indicated in the image, surely glare from the moon would not be enough to obliterate every star?

NASA, in a brochure of theirs of the Johnson Space Center, (which a family member sent to me from Houston) state categorically in a caption which accompanies a photograph of a recreated scene, in which two Apollo astronauts are standing on the moon with a pitch black sky in the background: 'The Lunar Landscape features two spacesuited figures, the Lunar Rover Trainer - and no stars.  The astronauts could not see stars from the moon's surface.' (verbatim). Note that they specifically state that '...the Lunar Landscape features...NO STARS', and that 'The astronauts COULD NOT SEE STARS from the moon's surface.'

The Space Center does not refer to astronauts not being able to capture stars with their cameras, or say that stars were not visible in photographs. They state that stars were simply not visible to the astronauts. This correlates with the mock-up at the museum which portrays the astronauts as standing on the moon with the backdrop of a black, starless sky.  If NASA in their caption were referring only to stars not being visible in photographs, surely they would have, and should have, portrayed stars in the pitch black sky beyond the astronauts in the mock-up, and as it would have looked to the astronauts' naked eyes - without using a camera. But they don't. This view seems to be contradicted by the image cited above on NASA's own website.

According to the NASA webpage, they should portray the sky behind the astronauts (in the mock-up) and to any museum visitor as being star-filled, as visitors are not observing the sky through an aperture adjusted camera, and neither are the astronauts. This, however would be in direct conflict with the belief that the reflection of the moon, and the sun's brightness obliterates virtually any vestige of stars. Is the NASA museum in Houston simply leaving the sky black, even to the camera-less and unaided naked eye, because it corresponds with all the lunar photographs which show a black void?

This would not be an accurate representation though, and of course conflicts entirely with NASA's image by Lodriguss on their own website. I agree that the stars in the lunar sky may not have been very important to the astronauts, but it is strange that they do not mention them to any degree. In fact, they even state that "...the stars were not visible in lunar orbit - only when we travelled behind the moon." This contradicts Lodigruss' (and NASA's) image. Stars should have been spectacularly visible anywhere in atmosphereless space to the astronauts unaided eyes, including from any point in lunar orbit. The astronauts also used star charts to navigate on the way to the moon. How would this be possible if, as Armstrong states, "The sky is a deep black", and that he did not see any stars or planets on his way to the moon? Anywhere in atmosphereless space the stars should be spectacularly bright (not in photographs) - according to the image on NASA's website.

Perhaps there is an explanation for the fact that stars would be spectacularly bright as viewed from an atmosphereless earth, but not from the moon. I posed this question on another forum to a chap who was staunchly pro-Apollo, and who seemed quite knowledgeable, and with whom I had been having an ongoing discussion for weeks on end, but after I had posed this question he failed to reply, not posting on the forum again. I saw him posting on another forum, and referred to the NASA image question, and once again, he immediately ceased to post.

Perhaps Apollohoaxnet members have an answer. Please post this message in its entirety on the website (including this paragraph) for them all to see. It is not, as one alleged that I am 'hiding away'. Why would I do that? I would simply rather not deal with some of them (not all), as they continually make assumptions and comments which are incorrect, such as that 'I am not going to post the question', and 'the 48 hours were 3 to 4 days ago', 'that I am insincere', etc.
My word... As you can see from when I gave the time frame of 48 hours, I have posted the question within that time period, and it wasn't simply a one or two sentence question as they might have thought.  I think you know by now, that when I say I'm going to do something, I do it - such as joining the site within a time frame I gave, which I also adhered to.

So, hoping to hear member's comments on the NASA image!

All the best

Edward
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I really don't have much time to dive into this right now, but I'm pretty sure many of you are willing to help and answer.

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #143 on: October 15, 2012, 10:28:07 AM »
Awfully wordy for something that could have been asked in a few lines.  Reminds me of Patrick.
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #144 on: October 15, 2012, 10:41:48 AM »
Awfully wordy for something that could have been asked in a few lines.  Reminds me of Patrick.

Patrick typically used excessive words to make himself seem more educated.  Edward's sometimes awkward phrasing seems to be more a struggle to describe his meaning while not always having the proper terminology or full understanding of the concepts.  Both of those afflict us all, at times, and can be remedied. 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 11:36:56 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #145 on: October 15, 2012, 10:49:00 AM »
Jason Thompson owes me a fiver.

The simple and straightfoward answer is that the photo by the astronomer is an artist's impression (he uses the words "might look like this" - emphasis mine) and does not take into account the way the human eye works.  The astronauts were standing on a lit up plain, their eyes simply could not adjust and become dark-adapted enough to see stars when there was so much ambient light coming from the lunar surface (as well at the LM, suit of the other astronaut etc etc).  It's simply to try this out for yourself - on a clear night, walk from a brightly lit room straight outside and look up.  How many stars to you see?  None or very few, and remember the astronauts also has visors on which would have made seeing stars even more difficult.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 10:55:29 AM by Andromeda »
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Valis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #146 on: October 15, 2012, 10:58:17 AM »
So all this drama, and it comes down to an artistic rendition on APOD? And when even the APOD forum discussion about the composite image (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12418&p=86433) explains the actual situation?

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #147 on: October 15, 2012, 11:06:55 AM »
Look at the caption for that photo.  They have a composited an image of the Sun made by exposures taken through solar filters, onto an image that clearly took an hour or more of exposure to get.  That's absurd.

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #148 on: October 15, 2012, 11:19:47 AM »
So all this drama, and it comes down to an artistic rendition on APOD?

It would be funny if it wasn't so exasperating.


And when even the APOD forum discussion about the composite image (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12418&p=86433) explains the actual situation?

I didn't even see the forum discussion, although I said the same thing as they do so I am agreement.



Look at the caption for that photo.  They have a composited an image of the Sun made by exposures taken through solar filters, onto an image that clearly took an hour or more of exposure to get.  That's absurd.

Yep.  The integration time of the human eye is about 0.1-0.2 seconds, which is why cameras with shutters open for minutes or hours at a time pick up dim objects a human wouldn't see naked eye.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #149 on: October 15, 2012, 11:24:27 AM »
The NASA website contains an image (which has been on the website since 21 June 2007 - so NASA has obviously given their approval thereof ) by a professional astronomer by the name of Jerry Lodriguss, who's other work NASA also showcases, which is entitled: 'Stars and the solstice sun.' The page is at: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

First, the idea that NASA applies rigorous controls of "approval" over everything thing that appears on its servers is simply incorrect.  APOD is a collaborative web site coordinated from Michigan Technological University that is hosted on NASA servers.  It is not the official word of NASA.   

Second, NASA has many web pages and publications that are used for many purposes.  These purposes include non rigorous public relations and general information.  It  is up to the user of the information to determine which publications are suitable for the users intent.  APOD is a general information web site, limiting is suitability for anything more than a general reference.

Third, it is almost always the case that people who question the Apollo landings do not differentiate between the official source of information and their personal interpretations, which are mostly in error.  You are making this classic mistake in assuming that because NASA posted something, your interpretation of that post must carry the same authority. 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 11:33:34 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett