Author Topic: Apollo and Stars  (Read 72728 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2015, 07:07:20 PM »
I ran across a crow777 today with his drivel about the size/distance of the moon is wrong, why do they believe that thy are smarter than the collective group of scientists/engineers?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #76 on: October 18, 2015, 09:42:17 PM »
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.
Quote
Feeding a TV camera could be achieved with solar panels ... like these Surveyor III:



It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...



OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.


Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #77 on: October 18, 2015, 09:46:52 PM »
Send it back to Earth and be received by what, Tarkus?  We've explained at length what it takes to receive a live television signal from space.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #78 on: October 18, 2015, 09:48:41 PM »
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon",

Are you seriously claiming that the mockup should somehow look different than the real thing?  I'm sorry, but at this point you're just an idiot.  Seriously an idiot.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #79 on: October 18, 2015, 09:54:58 PM »
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.
Stupid are those who believe in the seriousness of images like this:



... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #80 on: October 18, 2015, 09:57:27 PM »
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!

For the last time, learn something about photographic exposure.  You're either a troll or an idiot.  There is no third option.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #81 on: October 18, 2015, 09:57:43 PM »
Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.

Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.

But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.

Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.

The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.

Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #82 on: October 18, 2015, 09:58:57 PM »
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon",

Are you seriously claiming that the mockup should somehow look different than the real thing?  I'm sorry, but at this point you're just an idiot.  Seriously an idiot.
Panels do not match, and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2015, 10:01:07 PM »
Panels do not match

Not expected to, for the reasons given.  Facts easily found.

Quote
and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.

No, we've suffered your colossal ignorance quite enough.  Seriously, read a book or something.  If you're serious about any of these claims, you are literally the stupidest person to grace this board in quite some time.  It's not an insult.  It's a statement of fact.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2015, 10:03:21 PM »
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!

For the last time, learn something about photographic exposure.  You're either a troll or an idiot.  There is no third option.
Clearly you lose patience and you exhaust the arguments sent to study in other is not an argument, answer why NASA keeps showing black backgrounds as black theater in Prague ... XXI century.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2015, 10:06:52 PM »
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2015, 10:08:10 PM »
Panels do not match, and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.
I just explained why they don't match. One is a solar panel and the other is an antenna.

Your inability to read demonstrates your incompetence.

Oh, in case you really want to take on an advanced challenge, determine which panel is the antenna. Hint: it would be pointed at the same earth as the deployable S-band dish antenna in the distance next to the Apollo 12 LM. NASA sure paid attention to such details, didn't they?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:10:08 PM by ka9q »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2015, 10:08:38 PM »
Clearly you lose patience and you exhaust the arguments...

No, you've been given the arguments.  This is at least the third time I've told you about photographic exposure -- a topic you are clearly ignorant of and have no intention whatsoever of learning.  You get a few tries to learn it.  Then after that you're either a troll or an idiot.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2015, 10:18:21 PM »
Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.

Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.

But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.

Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.

The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.

Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.
Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why. And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Apollo and Stars
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2015, 10:23:24 PM »
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.
Quote
Feeding a TV camera could be achieved with solar panels ... like these Surveyor III:



It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
then riddle me this bat man, why did the lander quit sending pictures after one lunar night?  Care for another guess?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...
Quote



OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.


Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan