What's Sam Colby been up to?

[cjameshuff]

I think you mean the Raleigh criterion. Nyquist is about sampling rate IIRC.

No I do mean Nyquist's Theorem as I was using Hubble as an example. It, like any other remote telescope these days, converts analog to digital for signal transmission. Due to factors involving interference patterns and the wavelength range of visible light, the smallest resolvable object is about twice the theoretical resolution.

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/Nyquist-Theorem

Nyquist's theorem doesn't have anything directly to do with interference patterns or light wavelengths, or even the analog to digital conversion. As applied to imaging, it's all about the spatial frequencies of the sensor sites and light patterns on the sensor. You need samples at greater than double the highest signal frequency to reconstruct the original signal.

It's the Rayleigh criterion (which determines the limit of the spatial frequency of those light patterns) which is rooted in interference effects and dependent on wavelength, and that's where the diffraction limit comes from...provided you have an optical system that's actually diffraction limited.

I'm not sure if Hubble's optics are diffraction limited in the visible range or not. Corrective optics had to be installed, and the result may still be imperfect. Its given resolution in the visible range seems to be about half of what a diffraction-limited scope would be.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Also, "if I ran the zoo" arguments about how a hoax would have been done seem to be commonplace, so I don't know that I'd go with that one.

"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.

It's truly atrocious reasoning, and very common.

[Chew]

All the conspiracy websites refer to the LM as the LEM. It's a dead-giveaway where they got their information.

I can't find it at the moment, but I seem to recall someone here (or maybe the old version of here) mentioning that one of the astronauts even used the term LEM.

I wouldn't doubt more than one did. The LEM designation was officially shortened in the early 60s to just "LM" but was still pronounced "lem". You can find official NASA documentation from the 70s that referred to it as the "LEM" or "Lunar Excursion Module". But none of that changes the fact that it is a universal constant that when hoax believers show up here they always, invariably refer to it as the "LEM".

The idea of the bingo card is to cover the most-used arguments. The C-rock is on it.

Are we looking at the same bingo card?

The card is randomly generated http://apollohoax.net/bingo/ Wouldn't be much fun if everybody played with the same card.

[raven]

"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.

It's truly atrocious reasoning, and very common.

One conspiracy theorist I encountered, irontoad123 of Planet Youtube, this basically was their whole argument. It basically amounted to them saying in various ways that Apollo was a waste of money or it wasn't done  the way he did it, and therefore (somehow) must have been faked. Couple this with some simply atrocious physics errors even I caught, and, well, it was pretty bad.

[qt]

If I understand it correctly, the bingocard is generated from a pool of hoax-ideas, each time you click on it. So the bingocards are different - which makes sense, otherwise everybody would win at the same time.

Ah, got it.

"If I ran the zoo" arguments are hoaxists claiming that things not having been done the way they (in their ignorance) think it should have been done is evidence that Apollo wasn't genuine.

I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.

[Jason Thompson]

I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.

I don't know. I see a big difference between the hoax believers' 'if i ran the zoo' and our 'it wouldn't be done that way' argument. Hoax believers argue that NASA should have done something because they think it would have been a good way to go. They should have taken more pictures of Earth. They should have taken more star pictures. They should have pointed the spacecraft at the moon so they could see where they were going. They should have done more to make the TV interesting. And so on.

On the other hand, certainly when I argue that it would have been done a certain way it's because the hoax believer suggestion actually makes no sense for the goal the HBs state (fool the world). Why would they fake a scene set in a vacuum with a breeze blowing across the set flapping a flag? If the LM looks so unconvincing (as many HBs suggest) why wouldn't NASA have made it more convincing to the layman if it was faked? The idea that the rover was somehow put in place with a crane instead of driven in on the wheels it has. And so on. It's not so much 'if I ran the zoo' as 'if you ran the zoo that way the animals would escape and eat the visitors'...

[Andromeda]

'if you ran the zoo that way the animals would escape and eat the visitors'...

That's my favourite way to play Zoo Tycoon.

[Noldi400]

I understand that, it's just that I see the same type of reasoning so often on the other side (it can't be a hoax, because if it were, they would have done it some other way) that I question the wisdom of calling the hoax people out on this particular style of argument.

I don't know. I see a big difference between the hoax believers' 'if i ran the zoo' and our 'it wouldn't be done that way' argument. Hoax believers argue that NASA should have done something because they think it would have been a good way to go. They should have taken more pictures of Earth. They should have taken more star pictures. They should have pointed the spacecraft at the moon so they could see where they were going. They should have done more to make the TV interesting. And so on.

And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site. Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so? A not inconsiderable mass when they were shaving metal off the structural parts to reduce weight.

[ka9q]

And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site.

The CSM actually did have a TV monitor, but that was a fast-scan camera with standard resolution, not the special slow-scan low resolution camera used on the LM. I dare say a window gives better resolution, color rendition and 3D projection than even a modern TV camera.

Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so?

I don't know the actual mass of the CSM's monitor but judging from its size I'd say a kilo or two.

[ka9q]

(Re Nyquist vs Raleigh)

These phenomena are actually closely related examples of the Uncertainty Principle in action.

We just got back from several weeks in Germany. Over there they actually honor their scientists and scholars by naming streets after them. On a bus line in Munich, one of the stops was Werner Heisenberg Strasse. We may or may not have been there. :-)

[Noldi400]

And don't forget Hunchbacked's memorable suggestion that they should have had a TV monitor on the LM so the Commander could see the landing site.

The CSM actually did have a TV monitor, but that was a fast-scan camera with standard resolution, not the special slow-scan low resolution camera used on the LM. I dare say a window gives better resolution, color rendition and 3D projection than even a modern TV camera.

Just ignore the fact that a CRT of that time would weigh, what, 8 kilos or so?

I don't know the actual mass of the CSM's monitor but judging from its size I'd say a kilo or two.

Well, that's the thing - the monitor carried on the CM was pretty small; I would think it would have to be quite a bit bigger to be of any use in spotting a landing spot.  And I agree a window was better; just another example of Hunchy's zoo-running-skills. YOU know how he is - everything about Apollo could have been done a better way... of course, if you call him on that, he retreats to his default "it was all a joke by engineers to show that it was faked" position.

[ka9q]

of course, if you call him on that, he retreats to his default "it was all a joke by engineers to show that it was faked" position.

Yup, and he uses it routinely.

I find it especially amusing when he claims the NASA documentation says X, and I point out that it doesn't say X, it actually says Y. His usual response is that the NASA documentation is a joke and can't be trusted. I suppose that lets him claim it says whatever he wants as opposed to what it actually says.

[dwight]

Very early proposals for the landing craft did actually include TV cameras and monitors. From that fine book, "Live TV From the Moon" (p.18), "In a 1960 set of guidelines listed by Robert G. Chilton the suggestion was made that television may be  desirable  for  the  lunar  missions.  No further discussion was made of what such “desirability” would entail, although the existing notion of direct approach lunar landings  would  indicate  this  included assistance  in  landing  the  rocket  in  a vertical position. Earth Orbit Rendezvous would  have  required  the  crews  on  their backs and subsequently requiring the use of  mirrors  and/or  television  monitors  to see  the  lunar  surface  upon  settling  the spacecraft on the moon."

[Sus_pilot]

(Re Nyquist vs Raleigh)

These phenomena are actually closely related examples of the Uncertainty Principle in action.

We just got back from several weeks in Germany. Over there they actually honor their scientists and scholars by naming streets after them. On a bus line in Munich, one of the stops was Werner Heisenberg Strasse. We may or may not have been there. :-)

Oh, it was there, all right.  You just weren't quite certain as to it's location, and the very act of looking it up could move it.

You just wouldn't know if the hotel you booked, Schrödinger Hof, had been torn down or not until you got there...

[Daggerstab]

Wasn't his old site on Geocities? If so, it may be recoverable - there are websites that mirror Geocities. For the sake of nostalgia, I guess.

I was right. If someone wants to make a comparison with the new site, here's a mirror image of the old site:
http://www.geocities.ws/nasascam/

And here's a datestamped copy in the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091026205501/http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/