Apollo and Stars

[Zakalwe]

Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth

Why is it?
How do you propose that the power requirements of such an observatory is managed?
What would it offer that a geo-synch satellite (for example) wouldn't?
How do you propose that it would be maintained, especially now that we know that the lunar dust causes many problems?

In reality, what you are doing is proposing a strawman argument, one which is based on nothing more than fanciful supposition.1

his face forever pointing to Earth

It's probably the language difference, but in English the Moon is normally referred to as feminine.

it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.

Rubbish

[ka9q]

... 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.

And what does it say then? link please ...

Magnitude of sun from earth: -26.74
Magnitude of sun at Pluto from 40 AU: -18.7
Magnitude of full moon at earth: -12.74

A difference of 5 magnitudes corresponds to a brightness ratio of 100:1, or 4 decibels/magnitude. Nope, not even close.

[Peter B]

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.

Are you claiming that the panels on Surveyor in the third picture look more like the mock-up in picture 2 than the actual spacecraft in picture 1?

Well, consider these factors:

1. Different lighting in the three photos. Photo 3 was taken in full sunlight, while the other two were taken inside.

2. Surveyor on the Moon was sprayed with dust blasted out by the rocket exhaust of the LM as it landed. It's not surprising that the panels looked lighter.

3. What information do you have about exposure times and f-stops for the three photos?

Once you've dealt with these three issues, then you can complain about how Surveyor 3 looked in photo 3.

[Peter B]

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 !!!

Do you understand what the term "exposure time" means? If so, do you know how much time would be needed to make stars appear in that image?

[Peter B]

...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.

The Moon is ~380,000 kilometres from the Earth. Geostationary orbit is ~36,000 kilometres from the Earth. Which is going to give a better image of the Earth?

Have you seen images of the Earth taken from meteorology satellites? If so, is there anything wrong with them?

[bknight]

As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.

Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.

Are you this stupid or just play acing like a troll.  why do the Chinese, Russians and NASA have large numbers of people running these missions?.  Secondly the infrastructure I mentioned is to receive transform, store and present the images produced. Many experiments that Apollo brought to the moon were still working when budgetary restraints shut them down

[tarkus]

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.

Are you claiming that the panels on Surveyor in the third picture look more like the mock-up in picture 2 than the actual spacecraft in picture 1?

Well, consider these factors:

1. Different lighting in the three photos. Photo 3 was taken in full sunlight, while the other two were taken inside.

2. Surveyor on the Moon was sprayed with dust blasted out by the rocket exhaust of the LM as it landed. It's not surprising that the panels looked lighter.

3. What information do you have about exposure times and f-stops for the three photos?

Once you've dealt with these three issues, then you can complain about how Surveyor 3 looked in photo 3.

There are more reasons, both panels show the same orientation on the moon than the picture of practice, is it only coincidence? with solar panel giving back to the sun ... just enough to look where the shadows point, this is not serious ...

[JayUtah]

There are more reasons...

Evasion.  You were asked to explain the factors identified in the post you quoted.  Please do so before moving on to new issues.

[JayUtah]

What is your point, Tarkus?  I am able to locate several photographs of the astronauts training with a mockup Surveyor, showing the mast assembly from various lines of sight.  Similarly I am able to locate several Apollo 12 photographs again from different points of view showing the mast assembly in various orientations due to different lines of sight.  You have selected two photographs that show the mast (but, ironically, not the spacecraft chassis itself) in similar orientations and, from what I discern from your incoherent babbling, trying to argue that the same object was used to stage fake landing photos that was used in training.

Neither logic nor the available data support this contention.

[bknight]

tarkus
Look at these groups of images one taken by the surveyor and one taken by A12 crew.
notice the field of rocks in both looks like an exact match to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3#/media/File:Surveyor_3_Fig_7-41b2.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7091HR.jpg

[Jason Thompson]

...

Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?

To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?

[bknight]

What is your point, Tarkus?  I am able to locate several photographs of the astronauts training with a mockup Surveyor, showing the mast assembly from various lines of sight.  Similarly I am able to locate several Apollo 12 photographs again from different points of view showing the mast assembly in various orientations due to different lines of sight.  You have selected two photographs that show the mast (but, ironically, not the spacecraft chassis itself) in similar orientations and, from what I discern from your incoherent babbling, trying to argue that the same object was used to stage fake landing photos that was used in training.

Neither logic nor the available data support this contention.

his revelations  sounds much like hunchbacked referring to his anomalies he "perceived"

[bknight]

...

Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?

To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?

I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.

[Sus_pilot]

Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky?  I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there.  Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.

Actually, I'm impressed that the mission planners appeared to have taken that into account in setting up the training scenarios.

[Abaddon]

...

Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?

To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?

I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.

This is an oddly common factor with HBs. I find it difficult to understand why it might be that all HBs are spatially unaware. It can't be a failure of education, since all of them must clearly operate in a 3D world in their daily lives, so what is it?