Photos from Apollo 11 film footage

[profmunkin]

Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?

What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site

[Glom]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

Space doesn't prevent electrons from emitting photons. But why would you expect those photons to necessarily be in the visible spectrum?

Since you obviously know so much, tell us about the emission spectra of the combustion products of the DPS. You can start but telling us what those products were.

[frenat]

Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.
The Sun apparently did not have an effect significant enough to require the use of a visor.
But every picture taken on an EVA had visor down and faces obscured behind.

Wouldn't most people want their faces associated with the greatest feat in human history?
All we have is pictures of somebody in a space suit.
Not one astronaut elected to have their face photographed while on an EVA.

Not true.  Some had their visors up.  Its use was likely more to personal preference.  But not everybody is as vain as you.

[Tedward]

This guidance issue evolving to the questions?


Edit. Ignore this, I discomblobuating the reply.

[sts60]

Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?

"Yes".  Surveyor had an autonomous terminal guidance system, but its parameters were updated from Earth to improve their accuracy.  It would have landed anyway without such updates, but chances of a successful landing were improved with them. 

Apollo also received updates from Earth, but in addition to a digital computer - which Surveyor did not have - Apollo also had the ultimate terminal guidance system - two experienced pilots, which allowed them to avoid dangerous obstacles not visible from earlier observations.

What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site

I had asked for a reasonable answer.  The former is a very high cost mission, and would almost certainly involve use of government tracking, telemetry, and command assets even if privately mounted.  The second doesn't exist.  An answer like this lets you pretend to be reasonable without having to deal with the realization of your standard, not for years at any rate.  I intend to adjust how much effort I put into my replies accordingly.

I still await an answer to my question last asked post 501:

You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program.   So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future.  What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?

[Glom]

Not to mention the fact that profmunkin would likely dismiss Virgin Galactic's Lunar Orbiter as part of the corporate wing of the Grand Unified Conspiracy.

[Jason Thompson]

Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained.

So what made you ask how it was done without one?

You really have no familiarity with the facts regarding space exploration, and what is more you have no interest in listening to those who have. Why are you here?

What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site

Now explain why that is a reasonable standard of proof, and why we should believe you will accept it anyway. How does showing something is there now prove it was put there on the Apollo missions?

Given your refusal to accept anythign you are told and your willingness to twist all situations to point to a hoax, why should anyone believe your answer to that question?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Visor, the astronauts apparently did not need the visors down during their excursions as evidenced in the film.

So you therefore concede not only that you were wrong about the science, but also that you are willing to make up whatever "science" you need to in order to support your beliefs, even when you know you're not competent.  Please therefore explain how you are not a troll.

Doesn't that pretty much make all hoaxies trolls?

In my experience they all do that.

Here is Neil Armstrong on the Moon:

That's my favourite Apollo 11 picture.

Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?

It isn't.
It is important that you justify your claims.

What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.

M'kay.

We are not convinced, quite the contrary.
Opinions are a dime-a-dozen, so what only matters is what the evidence shows.

Can you shows us evidence that backs up this believe.

That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.

So it's just that.
A believe.

Which is stuff in your head.
Rather irrelevant to other people unless you can back it up with evidence.

What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?

Why are you asking questions?

[JayUtah]

A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.

Why is that a reasonable standard of proof?

Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site.

Would you care to speculate on the engineering parameters of such an instrument?

[Glom]

More to the point, profmunkin, do you know what the Raleigh criterion is?

[Abaddon]

Burning exhaust - silly mistake

Burning fuel...hot exhaust

What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?

Are you serious?
Pic one is a drawing. By an artist. Giving his impression. Really? That is not evidence, that is nonsense.

As for pic 2, go look up ignition transients.

Furthermore, in future, provide a provenance for you images. Folks get browned off trying to find originals for the junk pictures that are posted. It is not our job to do your research.

[Abaddon]

Yes if anyone actually could soft land a probe on the moon, it would need a guidance system, either from Earth or self contained. Was guidance self contained or were they guided to a soft landing via instructions from Earth?

Both. Look it up. Do not expect others to do your research.

What I need to be convinced, this is a great question and to be fair, an answer.
A probe that is independent of all government, that can transmit high resolution pictures of landing site.
Or a Earth based telescope powerful enough to acquire a high resolution image of landing site

Dawes Limit. Look it up. Do not expect others to do your research for you.

[Abaddon]

So the first sample, potentially the most important sample, because the astronauts may have to evacuate in an emergency, so what is the procedure, take the sample of regolith, next to the lander.
Think about this for just a minute, why whould they elect to take arguabley the most important "contingency sample" were it has the greatest possibility of being contaminated by rocket exhaust, plus surface disturbed by rocket exhaust stream?

Why not walk out far enough to assure a pristine sample?

Because, if anything went wrong, they could get the hell out in a hurry with a contingency sample.

Is that so hard?

[Abaddon]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

Hypergolic fuels. You may want to research that.

Oh, and Rocket Science, that too.

You can flap your hands all you like, but this is actual rocket science.

[Abaddon]

Is it an anomaly that as the lander is descending, the exhaust does not produce any light?
As the lander moves over the lunar landscape, it does not show any visible effects on the landscape in the form of a bright spot or lighting shadowed areas as in capture image attached.

Nope.