Author Topic: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON  (Read 146179 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3793
    • Clavius
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #375 on: October 27, 2015, 10:13:23 AM »
I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.

This is a debate forum to which you came voluntarily.  If you don't wish to debate your conclusions, go elsewhere.

Quote
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.

That's not any sort of an answer.  You don't tell the truth either and often say things that make no sense.  No one is arguing here because they worship NASA as their hero.  They're here because they know the facts and the associated sciences and are quite able to use them to show you how you are in error.  Maybe instead of projecting hero-worship onto your critics, you should take care of that irrational hatred you seem to have for NASA and the space program.

Quote
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.

The point was to show the progress of the spacecraft toward the planet.  If that doesn't make sense to you, too bad.

Quote
You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.

Lovers of astronomy know the limits of optics.  You obviously do not.  As to being blinded by hatred, take a day or so and try to figure out why so few smart people believe the way you do about missions to the Moon.  Then try to work out which, if either of us, is "blinded by hatred."

Quote
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?

No, it doesn't mean that.  The transearth trajectory is an orbit, one that presents the far side of the Moon to the spacecraft for some time after it is initiated.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #376 on: October 27, 2015, 11:45:16 AM »
Okay, let's assume for the moment that NASA lies a lot.  Now, that's a claim that requires evidence, but never mind.  Purposes of demonstration, here.

You know who lies a lot?  My little sister.  I think she's a sociopath, and at bare minimum, she's one of the least trustworthy people I've ever known.  I haven't spoken to her voluntarily in a little over twenty years now, because I don't want anything to do with her.  She's really a terrible person.

Still, when she presents me with something that can easily be checked, it does turn out that she's telling the truth sometimes.  Not always.  So I still do need to check individual statements (if they're important enough to matter and not just something I can ignore) before deciding that she's lying, because even the worst liar I know doesn't lie a hundred percent of the time.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #377 on: October 27, 2015, 12:33:47 PM »
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.

You are repeating the same fundamental mistake you made in your very first post on this thread - the same one which people have repeatedly and explicitly explained to you.  No, you cannot simply point to a picture taken with one camera and insist that a different exposure taken with an entirely different camera and lens should behave identically.  This is a very basic fact of photography, immediately obvious to anyone who has ever used different lenses, or even a single zoom lens.  It's astonishing you are unable to understand this. 

Worse, though, you aren't even answering the right question, which is a very simple trigonometric problem, set up repeatedly and in the simplest possible terms by Jason and others.  The question you are actually being asked is what the relative angular sizes are at different distances, and has nothing whatever to do with cameras.  Are you simply unable to comprehend the question?  Or are you deliberately ignoring it?

better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.


Pot, kettle, black.  Your very first post on this topic railed about "lies" and "half-wits", and you continually assert that people here simply accept the Apollo record on faith.  This is especially amusing, as you have steadfastly refused to do any of the work needed to actually investigate your own claims; you simply throw up random pictures and claim things should be different, based on nothing more than your manifestly ignorant opinion.

As far as "better late than never" - see above; you're stubbornly repeating almost every mistake you've made - and you've made many; yet, you never consider that you might simply be wrong about Apollo.  Why is that?  If I made so many glaring errors, I'd be embarrassed; I'd stop and think that maybe I needed to learn something before I ran my mouth again.  But you don't.  Why is that?

I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth and often says things that make no sense,

You have yet to demonstrate this; in every instance to date when you have claimed this, the fault was simply your lack of understanding.

...but do not be offended because NASA is not God.

Hilarious, coming from someone who refuses to put his own claims to the test.  The only one here displaying any kind of faith in any claims is you; everyone else is busy checking the record and doing the actual work of investigation. 

And, by the way, I have actual first-hand experience working with NASA personnel on multiple programs at multiple centers.  Exactly how many aerospace programs have you worked on, with NASA or any other agency?  I want a number.

If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.

Repeating your "If I ran the zoo" assertions do not make them any more relevant.  Bluntly speaking, with your track record of ignorance in this field, your opinion means nothing.

And, by the way, the instrument that took that picture is not NASA's; it was supplied by the Applied Physics Laboratory, which also manages the mission.  Minor point, really, but another indicator of how little you understand the things you're railing about.

You can believe what you want, but this is an inexplicable [expletive deleted], it is preferable to see a planet three times smaller and well defined that this crap blurred and out of focus.

Your preference for seeing a dot in a sequence of comparison photos arranged for public consumption is just that - your preference.  You can throw a tantrum and use bad words, but no one else is obliged to agree with you. 

You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.


First, you are the one who started out slinging pejoratives at NASA, and accusing everyone else of being dupes and stooges of the agency.  So your characterization is as hypocritical as it is inaccurate; the emotions associated with reading your extraordinarily obtuse missives are more correctly characterized as "exasperation" and perhaps "pity".

Second, I don't accept your self-characterization as a "lover of astronomy".  You clearly don't know anything about it, and seem unwilling to learn about even the most basic principles of photography behind the images you mention.   Nor are you willing to do any work to actually understand how the images are gathered, and by what missions. 

That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth,

As many people have explained to you, you don't simply point at the Earth and fire the rocket.  The trans-Earth injection trajectory takes the vehicle around the Moon.  That's not "travelling in the opposite direction to Earth"; you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?

Have you actually looked in an Apollo flight plan?   I have.  I don't believe you have.  Apollo flight plans, and many other analysis and planning documents, detail what Apollo repeatedly did - including the TEI maneuvers - on the far side of the Moon. 

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you didn't even do the most elementary research that could have told you that.

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by your ignorance on a topic you keep ranting about?  If not, why not?

And I reiterate my previous questions: 

Why don't you ever reconsider your beliefs, given your endless series of mistakes?

And if you won't, why should anyone waste time trying to educate you?

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #378 on: October 27, 2015, 01:24:36 PM »
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).

The main Apollo lunar surface cameras used 60 mm focal length lenses to produce square images on 70mm film. A few on later missions had 500 mm lenses.

Hardly anybody uses film anymore, and the most common digital sensor in semi-pro SLR cameras, APS-C, is about ~62% of the size of a 35mm film frame. So a 50 mm lens on a APS-C camera has a significantly narrower field of view than the same 50 mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Offline Paul

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #379 on: October 27, 2015, 01:30:59 PM »
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).
Ah yes true - I had a single camera in mind so "The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the lens for a specific camera" would have been better  :)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #380 on: October 27, 2015, 01:59:13 PM »
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).

The main Apollo lunar surface cameras used 60 mm focal length lenses to produce square images on 70mm film. A few on later missions had 500 mm lenses.

Hardly anybody uses film anymore, and the most common digital sensor in semi-pro SLR cameras, APS-C, is about ~62% of the size of a 35mm film frame. So a 50 mm lens on a APS-C camera has a significantly narrower field of view than the same 50 mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Indeed. I pointed this out earlier in the thread.
Focal length will determine image scale on the sensor.
Focal ratio will determine how quickly the sensor wells/film will be exposed. Decreasing the focal ratio by one f-stop will halve the exposure time, all other things being equal.
Sensor size/illuminated circle will determine the final size of the image.
Aperture is relatively insignificant when talking about astrophotography (which is contrary to "normal" daytime terrestrial photography) , except when imaging planets or the Moon, as resolution is linked to aperture (Dawes Limit).

In modern CCD imaging, the pixel size is also relevant, as larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller pixels. It is also important to match the pixel size to the imaging train to ensure that the final image is not under/oversampled.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Paul

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #381 on: October 27, 2015, 02:06:48 PM »
Here's the camera specs:
EPIC is a 10-channel spectroradiometer that uses aCassegrain type telescope, built by SSG Inc.,comprised two filterwheelswith six positions each (the open hole plus five spectral filters). It is a reflecting Ritchey-Chretien design with an aperture diameter of 30.5 cm, f 9.38, a FOV of 0.61° and an angular sampling resolution of 1.07 arcsec. (Once at L1, Earth varies from 0.45° to 0.53° full width.)

It images the irradiance from the sunlit face of Earth on a 2048x2048 pixel CCD (charge-coupled device)
in 10 narrowband channels: 317, 325, 340, 388, 443, 552, 680, 688, 764 and 779 nm. The wavelength
spans ultraviolet and near infrared, and the exposure time for each channel is about 40 ms.

Source: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf

Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #382 on: October 27, 2015, 02:32:08 PM »
The optics sounds like a typical mid-level amateur telescope, e.g., an 8" Meade. Lighter and more solidly built, I'm sure.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #383 on: October 27, 2015, 03:01:50 PM »



If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.

Dear oh dear, Tarkus. Did you not bother to read my earlier post about this???


For reference, that image was taken at a distance of 8 million kilometres by the LORRI imager on New Horizons.
LORRI uses a 208mm Ritchey Chrietien with a focal length of 2630mm. The imaging sensor is an array of 1025x1024 pixels using 13 micron square pixels. Pluto's diameter is 2372Km.
Now, given that information, you can calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8 million kilometres. Here's a hint- the necessary equations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
One you have the apparent diameter you can then calculate how many pixels that the image of Pluto will occupy on the LORRI sensor (lets assume that the image is taken using 1x1 binning and not the 4x4 binning that LORRI is capable of). Given that you know the pixel size (13 microns) then you will be able to work out the diameter that the image of Pluto took up on the LORRI sensor.

If you can calculate this, then you will have an understanding of why the image looks like it does. I'll give you another hint, especially as I know how many pixels the image covered. The diameter of Pluto's image took up less than a millimetre on the LORRI sensor- Lets see you work out exactly how much it was. I haven't dug into the post-processing techniques that the team used when processing the image, but I am willing to bet that they used a number of deconvolution techniques such as Lucy Richardson or van Cittert or to sharpen the images.
In fact, seeing as how you appear to be an expert, you could always pop over to the Unmanned Spaceflight forum. The guys there have been asked for help to process the raw data from various missions. Here's the link to the New Horizon forum:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=20


So, in summary, I have given you all the information that you will need to calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8M km. I have given you the specs of the imaging sensor and the LORRI optical characteristics. I am now asking you a few simple questions:
1) What is the angular diameter, in arc-seconds, of Pluto at a distance of 8M Km?
2) What was the diameter of Pluto's image on the LORRI sensor?
3) Assuming a 1x1 binning, how many pixels did the Pluto image cover?
And finally, a bonus question:
Given that you appear to be a bit of an expert in photography, let's see what you make of this set of LORRI raw data (of Ganymede). Please detail the post-processing steps that you undertook:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16366


« Last Edit: October 27, 2015, 04:01:16 PM by Zakalwe »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #384 on: October 27, 2015, 03:07:24 PM »
The optics sounds like a typical mid-level amateur telescope, e.g., an 8" Meade. Lighter and more solidly built, I'm sure.

Here's the specs on the New Horizon LORRI instrument:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjACahUKEwiyv6bWq-PIAhXGNhoKHdIKBlM&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0709.4278&usg=AFQjCNEx-b0AjQeFkDG8fVPQusG3eUMpEA&sig2=elcezzr4VImrKg2BW5U4fw&cad=rja

208mm R-C
2630mm focal length (f12.6)

Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!
Yikes. One of them at a time can be a bit of a PITA...I'd hate to try and use two. Taking flats would become a proper pain in the tonsils!
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #385 on: October 27, 2015, 03:12:28 PM »

It is growing in size. But if it starts out at 3 pixels wide, how many pixels wide will it have to be before it doesn't look blurry?



If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.

Dear oh dear, Tarkus. Did you not bother to read my earlier post about this???


For reference, that image was taken at a distance of 8 million kilometres by the LORRI imager on New Horizons.
LORRI uses a 208mm Ritchey Chrietien with a focal length of 2630mm. The imaging sensor is an array of 1025x1024 pixels using 13 micron square pixels. Pluto's diameter is 2372Km.
Now, given that information, you can calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8 million kilometres. Here's a hint- the necessary equations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
One you have the apparent diameter you can then calculate how many pixels that the image of Pluto will occupy on the LORRI sensor (lets assume that the image is taken using 1x1 binning and not the 4x4 binning that LORRI is capable of). Given that you know the pixel size (13 microns) then you will be able to work out the diameter that the image of Pluto took up on the LORRI sensor.

If you can calculate this, then you will have an understanding of why the image looks like it does. I'll give you another hint, especially as I know how many pixels the image covered. The diameter of Pluto's image took up less than a millimetre on the LORRI sensor- Lets see you work out exactly how much it was. I haven't dug into the post-processing techniques that the team used when processing the image, but I am willing to bet that they used a number of deconvolution techniques such as Lucy Richardson or van Cittert or to sharpen the images.
In fact, seeing as how you appear to be an expert, you could always pop over to the Unmanned Spaceflight forum. The guys there have been asked for help to process the raw data from various missions. Here's the link to the New Horizon forum:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=20


So, in summary, I have given you all the information that you will need to calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8M km. I have given you the specs of the imaging sensor and the LORRI optical characteristics. I am now asking you a few simple questions:
1) What is the angular diameter, in arc-seconds, of Pluto at a distance of 8M Km?
2) What was the diameter of Pluto's image on the LORRI sensor?
3) Assuming a 1x1 binning, how many pixels did the Pluto image cover?
And finally, a bonus question:
Given that you appear to be a bit of an expert in photography, let's see what you make of this set of LORRI raw data (of Ganymede). Please detail the post-processing steps that you undertook:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16366
[/quote]
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #386 on: October 27, 2015, 04:00:00 PM »
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.

I'm nothing if not an optimist!  ;D ;D ;D
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #387 on: October 27, 2015, 04:02:20 PM »
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.

I'm nothing if not an optimist!  ;D ;D ;D
Best of luck :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #388 on: October 27, 2015, 04:16:17 PM »
Tarkus, If you can't manage to work out the answers to my simple questions, then perhaps you'd care to pop on over to the John Hopkins University webpage where you can find 83 pages of images from the LORRI imaging system.
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php

Now these images are not the RAW data from the system, but are pretty high quality JPEG versions. Of course, being JPEGs then there will be some compression artefacts. i personally wouldn't want to stretch the data too much if I was going to process them, and I'd keep the sharpening and deconvolution levels fairly low. Plus the files haven't been calibrated, so the read-out and thermal noise along with any cosmic ray strikes or hot/dead pixels will still be in the images. The final calibrated and processed images will be much higher quality.

Still, I'd be interested to hear your views on them:
Are all 83 pages of images up to your standard?
Are they all fake?
Why would NASA create 83 pages of fakes?
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: FAR SIDE OF THE MOON
« Reply #389 on: October 27, 2015, 06:39:28 PM »
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.

No one is here looking for a fight, which is rich given the way you opened your first post.

Quote
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth...

So there we have it in a nutshell, the old NASA are liars argument. So, they told lies that fooled multiple space agencies, a huge number of scientists and journalists on the planet, every single person that worked on project Apollo, their families and friends. You really believe that they could have kept that lie alive for 45 years, yet the US government could not cover up the Iran-Contra affair, Watergate, the Lewinksy affair and numerous other scandals.
 
Quote
and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.

NASA has always made sense to me. Just because things don't make sense to you it does not mean they do not make sense to others.

For the record I do not think they are God. I think you may find that I and others at this board are quite critical of the events that led to Apollo 1 and the Challenger disaster.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch