LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[raven]

Ignorance.  The hoax sites that they believe every word of use it wrong so they do too.  Using it correctly would require personal effort.

To be absolutely fair, it is a common mistake in other sources as well, though, yes, I can see why it rankles.

[ka9q]

Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.

I've noticed that. Another word in the same category is "evidences" rather than just "evidence", which is both singular and plural. I hear it all the time from creationists and other pseudoscientific cranks, but very very rarely from mainstream scientists or laymen who know what they're talking about. It often tips me off that some guy "just asking questions", isn't.

I take this as evidence that the cranks have largely isolated themselves from the mainstream and only talk with each other. And just as any isolated population begins to evolve away, their language is evolving away from mainstream scientific English.

[Chew]

Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.

I've noticed that. Another word in the same category is "evidences" rather than just "evidence",

Is it list time again?

"Earth changes" from the Planet X/Nibiru/Mayan Doomsday crowd.
"Mauser" from the JFK crowd.
"Barium" from the Chemtrail crowd.

[ka9q]

I saw a barium release once, while I was living in New Jersey. A sounding rocket launched from Wallops Island released it (and probably some other chemicals) in space shortly before dawn. I went out hoping to glimpse a bit of it on the southern horizon when I happened to look up to see a huge colorful cloud in the sky, much higher than I had expected. Very impressive, but I doubt very many others were up and watching then. Had it been at sunset, I'm sure 911 lines would have lit up everywhere.

Barium and other releases from sounding rockets were common in the 1970s and 80s but I haven't heard of many since I moved to California. Do they still happen, or are there other ways to gain the scientific information they want?

[ChrLz]

It's original official designation was the LEM, but it was changed in about mid 1966 by NASA managers concerned that the term 'Excursion' might seem a little frivolous..  I just looked at a NASA document from March 1966, and it is titled "LEM Guidance, Navigation and Control Subsystem Course No. 30315"... but then one from April 1966 refers to the LM..

I don't see it as a big problem.

[Mr Gorsky]

I seem to recall that the Lunar Module is referred to as the LEM several times in the course of the movie Apollo 13. That may explain why a great many people call it that ... it is probably the most famous pop culture reference to the Apollo programme for non-enthusiasts, after all.

[Glom]

I seem to recall that the Lunar Module is referred to as the LEM several times in the course of the movie Apollo 13. That may explain why a great many people call it that ... it is probably the most famous pop culture reference to the Apollo programme for non-enthusiasts, after all.

It's pronounced lem but spelt LM. They did however refer to it at least once as the Lunar Excursion Module. It was on the telecast just prior to the explosion.

The ironic thing about the depiction of that telecast was that it was supposed to show how everyone on Earth found spaceflight boring, but it was in fact significantly amped up compared to the real telecast. Jim Lovell can certainly talk in monotone when he wants to.

[RAF]

It's original official designation was the LEM, but it was changed in about mid 1966 by NASA managers concerned that the term 'Excursion' might seem a little frivolous..  I just looked at a NASA document from March 1966, and it is titled "LEM Guidance, Navigation and Control Subsystem Course No. 30315"... but then one from April 1966 refers to the LM..

I don't see it as a big problem.

Not so much a "problem"...it's just rather lame for someone who is trying to convince that Apollo didn't happen....that they know what they are talking about, when they obviously don't.

[inconceivable]

Correct, that is what I was wondering.  Why is the shadow of the craters the same as the shadow for the PSEP?  Did they put the PSEP in a crater?  I am troubled that the shadow of the PSEP is not on the same side as the LEM/LM. 

[nomuse]

Before I answer this, do you still think the lighting direction on the craters is different from the lighting direction on the LM?  You haven't answered that yet.

[ka9q]

I can't be sure you're looking at the same thing I am, but I would recommend studying a diagram or close-up picture of the Apollo 11 seismic experiment. Unlike the later ALSEP experiments that were nuclear powered, the Apollo 11 PSEP was powered by a pair of solar panels deployed on the east and west sides of the instrument. The east panel was tilted to the east to pick up the sun in the morning and the west panel was tilted westward to pick up the afternoon sun. Both would (to a lesser extent) pick up the sun at midday.

The brightness of artificial objects on the lunar surface varies radically with sun angle, as many (like solar panels) are specular reflectors (i.e., they have smooth, shiny surfaces that reflect much like mirrors even if they're not silvered). If the sun catches a panel at a certain angle, it may appear very bright while the other appears dark because it is both intrinsically dark and reflecting only dark lunar sky.

Note that while the LROC uses a 1-dimensional "pushbroom" imager, it is not necessarily looking straight down but may be rolled to the left or right to view a particular surface target. Since the LROC is in a polar orbit, the views it gives us of each Apollo site may be from the east or west. This can affect both its perspective of 3-D objects on the surface and the sun angles that give a specular reflection.

What you think is a "shadow" is probably just one of the two solar panels.

[Jason Thompson]

Correct, that is what I was wondering.  Why is the shadow of the craters the same as the shadow for the PSEP?  Did they put the PSEP in a crater?  I am troubled that the shadow of the PSEP is not on the same side as the LEM/LM. 

The PSEP 'shadow' looks much more like the 'shadow' of the LM. I suspect this is not so much a shadow as an imaging artifact caused by the bright specular reflections of the mylar/kapton on the LM and the solar panels of the PSEP. The shadow around the LM and the PSEP looks much darker than any other shadow, which is why I think its an artifact of imaging a very bright region, producing a darker halo around it.

[ka9q]

I found this diagram with measurements of the Apollo 11 PSEP:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11PSEP_NASM.jpg

Each panel is 13" high and the distances between their top and bottom edges differs by 9". Assuming the two panels are tilted the same way, we can solve for their angle as follows:

acos(9/2 / 13) = 69.7 deg ~= 70 deg. I.e., the panels are tilted only 20 degrees from being perpendicular to the surface. Check out the sun angle on that LRO image as well as its view angle of the Apollo 11 site, and you'll probably find that the specular reflection works out just right for the one panel that shows brightly.

[RAF]

I take this as evidence that the cranks have largely isolated themselves from the mainstream and only talk with each other. And just as any isolated population begins to evolve away, their language is evolving away from mainstream scientific English.

I don't know how I originally missed this post....anyhow, the only people who refer to the LM as the LEM, have, in my experience, been hoax believers.

[ka9q]

I don't know how I originally missed this post....anyhow, the only people who refer to the LM as the LEM, have, in my experience, been hoax believers.

Interesting, isn't it?