Thinking about the film...

[nomuse]

This may belong in "Reality of Apollo" instead but here it is;

It always bugs me when the hoaxies go on about how the film in the surface cameras would have melted, shattered, or fogged until it was unusable. Because it seems to me that if you can protect an astronaut, you can protect film.

But here it is; my gut says the conditions that would actually destroy film would make a similarly-exposed human very sick. I've never heard of film being destroyed on safari; instead it needs to be left on a dashboard for several hours (conditions which kill dogs and babies). In the inverse, they were taking pictures of the Endurance while nearly dying in the cold.

Sensitivity to ionizing radiation is possible -- after all, you can expose an X-ray plate without killing the patient -- but this seems marginal; it is my memory that X-ray film is unusually sensitive. And meeting it from the other side, getting ten full-chest X-rays in one day is more than any radiologist would allow -- so we're within a couple magnitudes of the level of ionizing radiation necessary to make a sick human being.

But I don't have any hard figures, or any good way to look them up. I just don't know photography that well -- my film days were quite amateur and quite a long time ago to boot.

There's no ongoing discussion, no nice new hoaxie at a thread somewhere, just some random thoughts.

[gillianren]

I remember that, when my older sister went to Europe in (math) 1989, she bought this lead-lined (or something) pouch to put her exposed film into when she brought it home so that the pictures wouldn't be ruined.

[raven]

If Apollo conspiracy theorists thought about their claims and made them logically consisitent, they probably wouldn't be Apollo conspiracy theorists. There was a thread on the old board dedicated to these kinds of contradictions.

[onebigmonkey]

My argument is always that if the harsh environment of space would have destroyed Apollo film, it would also have destroyed the film in the unmanned probes that was used to photograph the moon before Apollo. They then have to start arguing that the unmanned probes were faked, and their convoluted arguments start twisting themselves in ever more complex knots,

[Zakalwe]

My argument is always that if the harsh environment of space would have destroyed Apollo film, it would also have destroyed the film in the unmanned probes that was used to photograph the moon before Apollo. They then have to start arguing that the unmanned probes were faked, and their convoluted arguments start twisting themselves in ever more complex knots,

The unmanned probes also puts paid to the argument that we didn't have the computing power/ability to enable navigation to the Moon.

[Ranb]

I was under the impression that most HB's claimed any rocket landing vertically under power was not possible in the 60's; this would have made Surveyor a hoax also.

Ranb

[nomuse]

I was under the impression that most HB's claimed any rocket landing vertically under power was not possible in the 60's; this would have made Surveyor a hoax also.

Ranb

I've only run into a few of the "rockets can't land" folks. I sort of see where they are coming from, but I can't figure out how they draw the distinction between landing and taking off. How is one supposed to be more unstable than the other? You'd think landing would be easier, even -- you are applying less force.

As with most hoaxies, though, they change subjects quick when you start bringing up things like Harriers, or Pixel, or (my favorite) Thunderball (or, rather, the stadiums-full of people who have witnessed a rocket landing safely, flame-first).

[smartcooky]

I was under the impression that most HB's claimed any rocket landing vertically under power was not possible in the 60's; this would have made Surveyor a hoax also.

Ranb

I've only run into a few of the "rockets can't land" folks. I sort of see where they are coming from, but I can't figure out how they draw the distinction between landing and taking off. How is one supposed to be more unstable than the other? You'd think landing would be easier, even -- you are applying less force.

As with most hoaxies, though, they change subjects quick when you start bringing up things like Harriers, or Pixel, or (my favorite) Thunderball (or, rather, the stadiums-full of people who have witnessed a rocket landing safely, flame-first).

Ran into one some time ago who accepted that rockets do work in a vacuum, but that landing a rocket in a vacuum would near impossible because, unlike in an atmosphere "there would be no air-resistance to stabilise the rocket". I had to point out that it was probably easier to land in a vacuum (lack of aero-braking aside) because landing in a vacuum, one did not have to take into account

► drag.
► variations on atmospheric density
► the exhaust causing turbulence.
► crosswinds and the possibility of a sudden, unexpected wind gust.

The thrust controls would work exactly as expected; a given thrust would have the exact known effect on the lander's attitude and changes in R,P and Y, regardless of height and descent velocity

[Kiwi]

...the stadiums-full of people who have witnessed a rocket landing safely, flame-first.

I've occasionally wondered how the "rocket stands on it's exhaust" crowd explains that.  Perhaps it's like this:

Once the flame is impinging on the ground they start reeling in the exhaust column and wrapping it up inside the rocket so it can continue downward.

[smartcooky]

...the stadiums-full of people who have witnessed a rocket landing safely, flame-first.

I've occasionally wondered how the "rocket stands on it's exhaust" crowd explains that.  Perhaps it's like this:

Once the flame is impinging on the ground they start reeling in the exhaust column and wrapping it up inside the rocket so it can continue downward.

So if that is what they believe, it does not tie up with their insistence that there ought to have been be a crater under the LM. The "reeling in" of the exhaust plume would be the perfect explanation for no crater!!

[ka9q]

Ran into one some time ago who accepted that rockets do work in a vacuum, but that landing a rocket in a vacuum would near impossible because, unlike in an atmosphere "there would be no air-resistance to stabilise the rocket".

It might actually be possible to reach this person. He/she has certainly seen small rockets that are passively guided by fins at the rear. As every model rocket builder learns, as long as the center of pressure is behind the center of gravity, the rocket will naturally turn into the relative wind and fly stably. The tail fins ensure that rearward center of pressure.

This person may simply not know that there are other ways to guide a rocket that have nothing to do with aerodynamic forces, and cannot because they operate in space.

There are some fin-guided rockets with fins at the front to specifically make them unstable. They have to be actively guided but are extremely maneuverable. I'm thinking mainly of anti-aircraft missiles, such as the Sidewinder.

[Luke Pemberton]

My argument is always that if the harsh environment of space would have destroyed Apollo film, it would also have destroyed the film in the unmanned probes that was used to photograph the moon before Apollo. They then have to start arguing that the unmanned probes were faked, and their convoluted arguments start twisting themselves in ever more complex knots,

I pointed this out to the 'one who shall not be named' when he was using the Lunar Orbiter (LO) photos to argue Apollo down. I think at the time he was comparing LRO and LO images, and claimed NASA could use LO photos to fake the LRO photos. He came back with 'the LO used a film that was radiation resistant.' I then tried to explain 'against the radiation levels he claims no film is radiation resistant.'

This was met with silence as he pushed the goalposts to a new part of the field and took his ball so no one else could play.

If any cares, his latest effort is a laugh - Radiation Anamoly III. It's an utter car crash of sloppy thinking, ludicrous assumptions and a wrong calculation that destroys his own argument. Nothing new there then. As I say, if you care, take a look. 

[onebigmonkey]

My argument is always that if the harsh environment of space would have destroyed Apollo film, it would also have destroyed the film in the unmanned probes that was used to photograph the moon before Apollo. They then have to start arguing that the unmanned probes were faked, and their convoluted arguments start twisting themselves in ever more complex knots,

I pointed this out to the 'one who shall not be named' when he was using the Lunar Orbiter (LO) photos to argue Apollo down. I think at the time he was comparing LRO and LO images, and claimed NASA could use LO photos to fake the LRO photos. He came back with 'the LO used a film that was radiation resistant.' I then tried to explain 'against the radiation levels he claims no film is radiation resistant.'

This was met with silence as he pushed the goalposts to a new part of the field and took his ball so no one else could play.

If any cares, his latest effort is a laugh - Radiation Anamoly III. It's an utter car crash of sloppy thinking, ludicrous assumptions and a wrong calculation that destroys his own argument. Nothing new there then. As I say, if you care, take a look. 

I've heard of his little booboo, hilarious - I refuse to give him the clicks though

His problem with the idea that LO images are the basis for LRO and/or Apollo is that while they are good they are not good enough. I've done an examination of this and they Orbiter images don't contain the level of detail in the Apollo and LRO photographs. This applies not just to hardware but teeny tiny little rocks an craters in any photograph you care to pick out.

Cue "Well the real ones are secret, they blurred them on purpose blah blah etc etc...."

[dwight]

I wonder how his Astrophysics degree is going?

[onebigmonkey]

I wonder how his Astrophysics degree is going?

He has, apparently, re-done his video to correct the error, and his excuse is that he employed a method he had used in an assessment based on Pioneer 10's data from Jupiter (a mission, ironically, with which Van Allen was heavily involved).

The 'professor' who marked it did not point out his error, so he believed he had done the maths correctly.

So you see, it wasn't his fault for getting it wrong, it was the professor's.