why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Andromeda]

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg

Are you joking?  Look at the background.  Those two photos were taken from very different angles.

Please answer Jason's questions.

[dwight]

What is this? Amateur week for HBs?

[JayUtah]

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

And the Gish Gallop continues.

Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?

Really?  You can't figure it out?

The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...

No, it's clearly in a different position.  In one its a good 2-3 inches below the shield tab.  In the other it's partially occluded by the shield tab.

...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same

But clearly not identical.  So if you're going to make a quantitative argument, don't beg the question of how much is close enough.

which means the camera is in about the same place...

How sure are you?  Are there any other cues in the image?  What do you know about the image?

lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...

Many times.

This is why people have questions.

You don't have "questions."  You just mindlessly regurgitate someone else's 10-year-old stuff to try to look smart.

First of all, no, a spherical reflector is not a good line of sight reference.  And if you'd actually paid attention to the visor reflection, you can see for yourself that the photographer is standing in one frame and kneeling in the other.  He's reflected in the visor.

Second, there are at least half a dozen cues to the camera position and orientation that I was able to find just glancing at the photo.

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.  We can see him kneel, detach the camera from the RCU, and aim it upward to take the second shot, which includes the Earth.

[alexsanchez]

I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...

So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?

uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

[dwight]

I worked on Apollo 11 EVA TV technologies. I took a betamax recording of the first moonwalk and converted it to DVD.

[JayUtah]

uninformed = false premise

No, it is an observation.  As in, we observe that you are uninformed.

on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada...

What document?  What kind of equations?  Did you derive the equations and understand what they were for?  Or was it simply mindless entry-level coding?

[Noldi400]

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg

Lower angle, of course. Look at the level of the horizon against Cernan's PLSS.

Honestly, is this that hard?

[alexsanchez]

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

And the Gish Gallop continues.

Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?

Really?  You can't figure it out?

The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...

No, it's clearly in a different position.  In one its a good 2-3 inches below the shield tab.  In the other it's partially occluded by the shield tab.

...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same

But clearly not identical.  So if you're going to make a quantitative argument, don't beg the question of how much is close enough.

which means the camera is in about the same place...

How sure are you?  Are there any other cues in the image?  What do you know about the image?

lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...

Many times.

This is why people have questions.

You don't have "questions."  You just mindlessly regurgitate someone else's 10-year-old stuff to try to look smart.

First of all, no, a spherical reflector is not a good line of sight reference.  And if you'd actually paid attention to the visor reflection, you can see for yourself that the photographer is standing in one frame and kneeling in the other.  He's reflected in the visor.

Second, there are at least half a dozen cues to the camera position and orientation that I was able to find just glancing at the photo.

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.  We can see him kneel, detach the camera from the RCU, and aim it upward to take the second shot, which includes the Earth.

Yes, I can figure it out.  Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by.  But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

[JayUtah]

Yes, I can figure it out.

Then why did you volunteer a wrong answer?

Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by.

Meaning what, exactly?

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

Are you really that clueless?  Yes, that's a serious question.  Why do you think that's a valid way of reckoning a field of view between two uncontrolled photographs?

[Echnaton]

Yes, I can figure it out.

Then why did you volunteer a wrong answer?

Because everything alex has said has been rebutted.  There is nothing left but trolling.

[JayUtah]

There is nothing left but trolling.

Agreed.  At this point I have a hard time believing his are serious questions anymore.

[ka9q]

As far as "steampunk", well...
First of all, "steampunk" machines generally don't include solar cells, X-ray spectrometers, radioisotope heaters and such. 
Second of all, appeal to ridicule is a standard tool of ignorant laymen

I can't really object too much to this word. Traditional Russian space engineering practice was visually distinctive. They often used tank-like structures (sometimes even pressurized) for thermal control, while the Americans preferred lightweight structures open to vacuum and to control temperatures with more intricate (and delicate) optical coatings.

Another noticeable difference is in antennas. The Russians seem very fond of broadband antennas, many of which have a conical or corkscrew appearance.

Their stuff still worked; they simply took a different approach to the same set of engineering problems.

[Mag40]

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.

[ka9q]

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.

Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?

[Noldi400]

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.

Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?

What red stripes? They are obviously maroon. Besides, the Bertol radiation would have effected^* the film emulsion in such a way that colours are unreliable, anyway. I've made an extensive study of film emulsions - it took me almost half an hour on the internet. And how could the earth be in the sky, anyway? Wasn't it "daytime"?  If you can't see the moon from the earth in the daytime, you can't see the earth from the moon. That's logic even a six-year-old could understand, innit?  I don't know why I even waste my time - you apollogists always have an answer for everything, doncha? Huh?

Peace on you.




^{"Effected"?
  On purpose, Dear.
 Oooohhh. Like 'colour'?
 Yer catchin' on, Cutie.}