Apollo and Stars

[raven]

Oh, tarkus.
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.

But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...

I'm not even sure what you are asking. You want NASA to have sent, on a mission to the moon, the moon mind, with extremely tight mass tolerances, a camera to return video of the Earth in perpetuity, surviving indefinite day night cycles? Why?

They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

What is the exposure time and camera settings on that photo? Given that the Earth is properly exposed, I have strong doubts, even as not even a layman in photography, it would be enough to show stars. Still, I ask again, if NASA could add stars to other pictures, why not that, if there should be, as you claim? As you said, there is no excuse.

[Tedward]

The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language

Cobblers of the highest order. Weapons grade cobblers. Great big immense cobblers. Cobblers is a term that means rubbish basically. Whenever the wibblers bring this up in the usual conspiracy places I see it a glaring admission that they are clueless, without an idea. It is scary that this idea is adhered to. It really is.

I have seen people that are great in front of people, that is face to face and small groups, stick a camera on them and they go to pieces. I have seen reporters get it all wrong on occasion and that is their day job, speaking to the masses through a camera. I can type all this now knowing what I want to say but I would turn to jelly if there was a live camera on me and probably say "Thursday" and that is it.

This is the bit that gets me with this stance, about "body language". I am no expert and I can see there are differences and different people react in different ways. Then some person says "does not look right" scratches chin and adds "hmmmm" somewhere, that makes them an instant expert and the world must believe them. The back slapper union supporting this stance all chip in with "well spotted" and "its obvious" when they have no chuffin clue what they are on about.

To me, based on what I have seen and know, they look like people doing what people do, in real life, based on what I have observed, in real life.

Wibble on dude.

[Zakalwe]

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?

The list of things that you are evidencing that you know absolutely nothing about is growing. We can now add human eye sensitivity and dark-adaption to the list.

JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.

Of all the drivel that you have posted so far (and there has been a LOT), this piece almost caps it all. if you cannot work out why this claim is ridiculous then there isn't much hope for you being capable of learning anything.

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible

So now you are contradicting yourself? 

but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

Really? how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Do you know what ISO speed, aperture and exposure times were used when taking this image? Do you know the equivalent times needed to register star images? No, you don't. Again, we have someone that has almost certainly never pointed a camera at the night sky making all sorts of stupid claims in an area where he has zero knowledge, ability or experience.

Seeing as you have rediscovered that you can post in English Tarkus, I am still waiting for your response to these questions:

[darren r]

This is the bit that gets me with this stance, about "body language". I am no expert and I can see there are differences and different people react in different ways. Then some person says "does not look right" scratches chin and adds "hmmmm" somewhere, that makes them an instant expert and the world must believe them. The back slapper union supporting this stance all chip in with "well spotted" and "its obvious" when they have no chuffin clue what they are on about.

Well put. This attitude reminds me of the armchair Sherlocks who crawl out of the woodwork to accuse grieving relatives of murder on the basis that they 'are not crying enough' at a police press conference or get caught momentarily smiling in a paparazzi photo. Dangerous, wrong, and a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. It makes you wonder how much time these people have spent with other human beings.

[bknight]

Oh, tarkus.
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.

But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now

Lets examine this comment.  Firstly a TV camera would have required power?  where is the power?  Not from the LM or LRV as both were battery powered, and that power would deplete fairly rapidly.  A Camera? no one to develop the film nor send it back to the earth  this is a ridiculous statement.

, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission

They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

[bknight]

Many satellites with imaging capability orbit above the earth and take numerous images on a daily basis.

EDIT: spelling

[AtomicDog]

One of the LRV TV cameras left behind after the astronauts departed took numerous pans of the lunar landscape, AND THE EARTH, until it ran out of power.

[OhPulease]

I can only apologise that a question I thought valid regarding the astronauts giving a personal recollection of their time on the moon and what they actually saw, and what I thought Collins was joking about i.e. not being on the moon, whereas the others were, has now, it appears been hijacked by a ..well what can I say.

[JayUtah]

I can only apologise...

No need.  You raised a valid question.  You're not responsible for what others do or say.

[raven]

Well, there's a big difference, tarkus, between Bush and an actual Apollo Astronaut. One, the latter is wearing a helmet, t, and if he looked up like that, all he'd see would be the top of his helmet. Even standing straight up wasn't easy, as the limitations of freedom of movement, not to mention the PLSS backpack that massed half as much as the astronaut did, gave the astronauts a hunched over posture by default. Between the field of view problems and the range of motion problems, an astronaut would have to crane way back, in a shadow so as to minimise surface reflections, and then wait, wait mind, for his eyes to dark adapt. I'll have to find it, but it *was* done apparently on at least one of the later missions, but it would take time, time they really did not have on Apollo 11 especially.

[onebigmonkey]

Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.

Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html

[bknight]

Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.

Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html

I saw that and laughed.  The flat terrain http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_25.html

[AtomicDog]

Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.

Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html

I went and checked the main page.

Then I went and washed my eyes out with bleach.

Anti-Semitism AND woo. What a combination.

[bknight]

Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.

Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html

I went and checked the main page.

Then I went and washed my eyes out with bleach.

Anti-Semitism AND woo. What a combination.

I'll bet that hurt.

[JayUtah]

Yeah, Hufschmid is quite a piece of work.  I think he lasted a grand total of 3-4 posts at Bad Astronomy.