NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?

[raven]

I am not a photographic expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor am I a radiation expert, but I think it is worthwhile to point out that Soviet probes Zond 5 through 8 (scroll down) sent photographic film literally to the moon and back, and the only one that shows fogging is one that crashed and cracked open on landing, exposing the film to EM radiation, sure, but in this case it was just ordinary visible spectrum light.

[ka9q]

Deposited energy is measured in watts, such as the solar influx for the purposes of computing solar heating.

Deposited energy is measured in joules. Watts are units of power, not energy.

Deposited energy from ionizing radiation is often normalized to the mass of the object doing the absorbing, in which case the units become joules per kilogram. 1 J/kg is defined as one Gray. 1 gray of whole-body X-radiation (e.g., 100 joules absorbed by a 100 kg human) is roughly the amount needed to cause acute radiation sickness.

You are of course entirely correct that the distribution of individual photon energies is critically important in determining the energy they deposit in some protected target (film, human tissue) behind some sort of shielding material (such as aluminum of a given thickness).

At about 5800 K the sun's photosphere is much too cold to be a significant source of X-radiation. This is easily seen in space observatory pictures (STEREO, SDO) that show the sun to be mostly dark in far UV and soft X-ray wavelengths. The sun releases significant X-rays only in brief bursts associated with solar flares. The ejected material is somehow heated in the corona to extremely high temperatures (millions of kelvins) by mechanisms that are still not fully understood. Only these temperatures are high enough to produce significant X-rays by black body (thermal) radiation.

These X-ray bursts, when severe, can cause HF radio blackouts on the day side of the earth. The easily observable fact that HF radio works is proof the sun is not a continuous strong X-ray source.

[RAF]

Comments?

VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Look at you...al shout-y with the cap lock.

You must finally realize how "out of your depth" you are.


So, when will you be abandoning this thread?

[Bob B.]

I am not a photographic expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor am I a radiation expert, but I think it is worthwhile to point out that Soviet probes Zond 5 through 8 (scroll down) sent photographic film literally to the moon and back, and the only one that shows fogging is one that crashed and cracked open on landing, exposing the film to EM radiation, sure, but in this case it was just ordinary visible spectrum light.

Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.  The film was automatically processed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and then the scanned images were transmitted back to Earth.  The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

[JayUtah]

Deposited energy is measured in joules. Watts are units of power, not energy.

Yeah, I was trying to find a way to convey the notion of the Romulus' measurement being an undifferentiated aggregation of dissimilar photon values.  Flux in watts per unit area wasn't getting the idea across.  But in retrospect I shouldn't have tried to introduce another concept without explaining integrating the rate etc.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

These X-ray bursts, when severe, can cause HF radio blackouts on the day side of the earth. The easily observable fact that HF radio works is proof the sun is not a continuous strong X-ray source.

During last night's debate with Romulus, the sunnier side of the Earth had just finished up a "measurable x-ray event" in the 1.5-12 keV band which peaked at C2.2.  It didn't show on his graph because that data had already fallen off.  Total fluence of 0.000551 J m^-2.  The initial spike was a thousand-fold increase in flux over the quiescent value.

ETA:  10 keV x-rays are much less energetic than medical diagnostic x-rays.  They don't even penetrate beyond the the outer layer of human skin, and don't even propagate substantially in air.  Thus for biological effects from solar x-rays, it doesn't even make sense to talk about whole-body or blood-forming-organ dosage because there simply isn't any.  Since the attenuation coefficient for skin at this energy level is practically total, the biological dosage for the 5 kg and 0.8 m² of bare-naked human skin facing the sun for the whole duration of the event would be 0.000441 J in 5 kg, or 0.0000882 Gy @ Q = 1, or 0.0882 millisieverts -- about 1/100 the dose you'd get from a chest x-ray.

I asked Romulus several questions about the solar x-ray spectrum.  David Groves says he used 8 MeV photon energies, which are so energetic that they used to be considered gamma rays under the old classification!  The composite x-ray/gamma fluence spectrum for a solar flare lasting a couple minutes accumulates something like 10⁵ photons at 10 keV and may 5 photons total at 8 MeV.  So if you consider the average flux, that's a 10⁴ difference in solar x-ray flux at those energies.  That's the "gradual" decrease Romulus described.

[JayUtah]

Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.

And all the Corona satellites, which operated only in an x-ray environment and used the same film base as for Apollo, although a different emulsion.  Originally fast emulsions had to be used in order to account for speed-over-ground effects.  Shutter speeds had to be particularly short.  Fast emulsions are more sensitive to x-rays.

Romulus started to allude to factors such as this, when he said the success would depend on the design of the camera, etc.  But he was unable to cite any examples or work through any quantitative comparisons -- just fell back to his black-or-white "x-rays fog film!" assertion.

The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

And long before it.  Sounding rockets from the 1940s onward photographed Earth from space using ordinary photographic film.

[frenat]

Comments?

VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Thank you for proving you know nothing about perspective and have likely never even looked at shadows while outside.

[frenat]

Well, time to start a list, I guess...

Things Romulus does not understand.
1. Radiation
2. Perspective

User 74444 over at GLP did this before. IDW did not much like it there. He won't much like it here either.

Contributions welcome.

Nevertheless, you all must admit he is amusing.

Ah yes, IDW.  What an amusing example of pompous bluster.  I've got a word copy of that list saved for humor value.

[JayUtah]

Actually, that's just a partly fogged frame because it was the last one on the magazine when it was removed from the camera.

Correct; that's a sunstruck frame.  When I worked with Discovery and National Geographic on their documentary, I introduced some deliberate sunstrikes (well, moonstrikes because this was done at night) into the roll to demonstrate what they might look like.  The results were mixed since the magazine I used for this was a normal Hasselblad mag, not the longroll without the darkslide.  I did get to inspect the hardened longroll mag though.  It was heavy.  The 500/EL body weighs only a couple pounds.  The longroll mag seemed like it weighed maybe twice that.

[JayUtah]

Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.

Still waiting on the explanation for how those frames were "undeveloped."  Do you know what "develop" means in the context of Ektachrome transparency emulsion?

[ka9q]

Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series. 

Lunar orbiter did use a very slow speed film specifically to avoid fogging from radiation. However, each spacecraft would be in orbit for months, unprotected from any solar coronal mass ejections (X-radiation simply wasn't a problem). That made LO much more vulnerable than a pair of Apollo astronauts visiting the surface for only a couple of days, and who were well protected inside the CSM in transit and in lunar orbit. The CSM hull was much more massive than the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft.

[Luke Pemberton]

The sun releases significant Crays only in brief bursts associated with solar flares. The ejected material is somehow heated in the corona to extremely high temperatures (millions of kelvins) by mechanisms that are still not fully understood. Only these temperatures are high enough to produce significant Crays by black body (thermal) radiation.

You are correct, the mechanism is not fully understood. It is believed that magnetic loops extend out into the corona from active regions on the sun's surface and these loops blossom over time. This allows transport of plasma into the corona along magnetic field lines. The thermal energies of particles on the sun's surface are not substantial to reach into the corona as they will pulled back by the sun's huge gravitational force. The outward magnetic flux density increases as the loops blossom and this causes them to snap back. There is a point known as a Y connection point where there is a connection of opposing field lines. Above this you get a pocket of plasma caught in fields line. When the loops snap back the trapped plasma is accelerated back to the sun and produces x-rays by bremstrahlung. These are soft x-rays. There are essentially four phases to flare formation and the x-ray production phase is very short. This is the point where Jay and others pulled Jarrah apart at the IMDb where Jarrah was multiplying the time of H-alpha prominences by proton flux.

Firstly there is no correlation between H-alpha flares and SPEs and secondly the duration of the prominence is just that, the time duration of the developing fields lines and outward movement of the plasma. The radiation produced during the prominence does not endure for the length of the prominence.

I am now waiting for Andromeda to correct me on this

[smartcooky]

Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.  The film was automatically processed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and then the scanned images were transmitted back to Earth.  The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

Now there you go, see? This is why I love this forum. I never knew that; despite being in the photographic trade in one way or another over over a quarter of a century, and a space enthusiast since my teens.

I have learned something new today.

And this is why hoax believing and conspiracy theorist nutjobs will always be just that. They have no ability to learn. In fact, they reject learning, in favour of the BS they make up themselves out of whole cloth.

[Luke Pemberton]

David Groves says he used 8 MeV photon energies, which are so energetic that they used to be considered gamma rays under the old classification!

Glad you made this comment as I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I didn't give it much thought this morning through my conjunctivitis infected eyes, but 8 MeV is associated with gamma. What was his photon source, a synchrotron?

[JayUtah]

...produces crays by bremstrahlung. These are soft x-rays.

This is what I cannot seem to lead Romulus to research and see for himself -- Even during a flare, the sun does not produce x-rays in the energy band around 8 MeV in any significant amount.  Thus Groves' 8 MeV test source is absurdly too energetic as a stand-in for natural x-rays.

There are essentially four phases to flare formation and the x-ray production phase is very short.

Last I checked, we normalized x-ray measurements for this type of event to 100 seconds.  Is that the case?  Groves based his test on a nominal 4-hour EVA, not the short amount of time the sun produces x-rays from a flare.  And as we saw from yesterday's C2.2 event, the quiescent flux in the soft x-ray band is approximately 1/1,000 the value of the flux from an event, and would be the prevailing flux over that 4-hour period.  Thus Groves exposes his film to x-rays for far too long.