FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[ka9q]

Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.

I think you meant that the lit hemisphere extended eastward from the landing site. E.g., during the Apollo 11 landing, which was at 23 degrees east, the moon was between first quarter and half full. Apollo 12 landed well to the west at 23 degrees west, so the moon was already past half full. No Apollo landings took place after full moon, since they were all in local morning on sites on the near side.

But regardless of mission the crews saw all sun phases plus a dark hemisphere as they orbited.

[onebigmonkey]

Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.

I think you meant that the lit hemisphere extended eastward from the landing site. E.g., during the Apollo 11 landing, which was at 23 degrees east, the moon was between first quarter and half full. Apollo 12 landed well to the west at 23 degrees west, so the moon was already past half full. No Apollo landings took place after full moon, since they were all in local morning on sites on the near side.

But regardless of mission the crews saw all sun phases plus a dark hemisphere as they orbited.

 

Two t-shirts!!

[JayUtah]

Yeah, I'm glad I don't have to pay for those. 

[LunarOrbit]

Never picked up a camera, have you?

Did you have sex ever?

You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:

STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions

If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.

[tarkus]

Did you have sex ever?

What prompted this blatantly personal attack?  The questions you're being asked are legitimate.  You clearly don't know how cameras work at even the basic level, and you seem to believe your level of ignorance is common or apropos.  You're being shown how to acquire a basic knowledge of photography in the hopes that you can see for yourself how your misconceptions have led you to faulty expectations.  When you reject those invitations in favor of hurling insults, you reduce the chances that anyone will think you have any actual claims.

You did not seem so angry when your friends are laughing at my language ... stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.

Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?

Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.  For sites near the center of the near side, this lit portion would include portions of the far side.

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.

[tarkus]

Never picked up a camera, have you?

Did you have sex ever?

You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:

STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions

If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.

You are not measured with the same yardstick your friends ... having fun making jokes how are you, in this thread:

[Sus_pilot]

Did you have sex ever?

What prompted this blatantly personal attack?  The questions you're being asked are legitimate.  You clearly don't know how cameras work at even the basic level, and you seem to believe your level of ignorance is common or apropos.  You're being shown how to acquire a basic knowledge of photography in the hopes that you can see for yourself how your misconceptions have led you to faulty expectations.  When you reject those invitations in favor of hurling insults, you reduce the chances that anyone will think you have any actual claims.

You did not seem so angry when your friends are laughing at my language ... stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.

Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?

Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.  For sites near the center of the near side, this lit portion would include portions of the far side.

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.

Ummm.  Those are awfully long shadows for the sun to be near zenith.  Could you explain how you came to your conclusion? 

[Allan F]

Tarkus - you are behaving exactly like any other hoax believer.

Making unsupported claims.
Won't answer questions about those clamis.
Won't acknowledge information which rebuts those claims.
Moving on to another unsupported claim
(repeat a few times just to be sure)
Starts personal attacks.
Gets banned.

Never ever having shown any evidence for your claims, which aren't in any way new claims, you are just another person who thinks your lack of knowledge trumps the knowledge of real experts and interested amateurs. You haven't even looked for the pictures you claim don't exist. Where have you taken those ideas from?

[raven]

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.

The moon is a ball, a sphere. Even if it's about quarter moon from Earth's perspective, as it was on that date, then a craft in lunar orbit would still see a fully lit hemisphere, half the side permanently facing Earth, and half the part permanently facing away from Earth, during part of its orbit.
Moreover, the sun is nowhere near zenith in Apollo 16 photos. Apollo 16 landed in the moon's tropical latitude wise. Now, the listed sun angles put Apollo 16's sun angle at most at less than 49 degrees. That's not even close to at zenith for the tropics.
Now, let's compare a picture of a child's shadow at zenith in the tropics with Apollo 16 photos. This was one of the last photos taken on the surface from Apollo 16. Compare that shadow to the child's shadow. Or find another picture of a noon shadow in the tropics.
Now, I'm not a scientist. I am not an engineer.
I am not even a photographer, but, as near as I can see, that's nowhere close to zenith.
If anyone has any corrections, please, inform me.

[JayUtah]

stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.

It's not a stupid question to ask whether you've ever used a camera before, especially considering the lack of understanding your comments imply.

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith...

No, it wasn't.  These are easily looked up figures.  Further, they are even easily computed figures, knowing the landing site location and date.

Being the case, the dark side should be dark...

There is no such thing as "the dark side" of the Moon.

...you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.

I'm not accusing you of being ignorant.  I'm noting that you are ignorant.  If you don't like it, stop being ignorant.  It's not everyone else's fault that you willfully ignore facts that others can discover easily.

[JayUtah]

Do you have any idea how inaccurate this illustration, and why?

[ka9q]

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it.

The sun at the Apollo 16 landing site was higher than for any other Apollo mission because the landing had been delayed six hours by a problem with the CSM. However, the sun was far from overhead; its elevation at the end of EVA-3 was still only 48.7 degrees.

This is fully consistent with shadows in pictures taken at the time, e.g., https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18850.jpg, taken about an hour before the end of EVA3.

[bknight]

The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it.

The sun at the Apollo 16 landing site was higher than for any other Apollo mission because the landing had been delayed six hours by a problem with the CSM. However, the sun was far from overhead; its elevation at the end of EVA-3 was still only 48.7 degrees.

This is fully consistent with shadows in pictures taken at the time, e.g., https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18850.jpg, taken about an hour before the end of EVA3.

And the image of the backside of the moon was taken before TEI after a few orbits of the moon, which would allow more sunlit area on the far side.

[ka9q]

There is no such thing as "the dark side" of the Moon.

...matter of fact, it's all dark.

[Count Zero]

LO is gonna have my ass for burning bandwidth like a Saturn V, but here goes...

Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?

Why should anyone answer your questions?  You don’t answer any, why should we?

At any rate the question is wrong.  This isn’t the “opposite side” from the Apollo 16 landing site.  “Orion” landed at latitude 8° 58’ S, longitude 15° 30’ E.  AS16-M-3021 is centered at latitude 12° N, longitude 103° 42’ E which is just over a quarter of the way around the Moon from the landing site.
You were also wrong to compare AS15-M-3021 (centered at 12° N, 103° 42’ E )…



…with this image (centered at latitude 0°, longitude 180°)…



Because as you can see from the coordinates, the upper photo is 78° - or nearly a quarter of the way around the globe from the second image and (as you yourself pointed-out) the backside is mostly in shadow, so there is very little visible overlap (It also didn’t help that AS16-M-3021 is rotated over 130° so that north is to the lower-right.  Here it rotated so that north is up:



Incidentally, the second image is not a photograph at all (and it’s not from 2009).  It’s an orthographic map projection of a mosaic stitched together from over 15,000 LOR wide-angle camera images.  This was released in 2011.  This image was one of six – each 60° apart (the link has all six with links to zoomable versions).

In this image, I’ve annotated some conspicuous features:



Here is an illustration (also centered at latitude 0°, longitude 180°) showing how much of the far side was in shadow at the time AS16-M-3021 was taken.



On the left is an albedo map that shows the dark-bottomed craters like Tsiolkovsky and Mare Moscoviense.  On the right is a shaded relief map of the same area that shows the other craters better.  Note that the terminator is quite close to Tsiolkovsky

If you wanted a closer match to AS16-M-3021, you could have started with the orthographic map projection centered on latitude 0°, longitude 120°E):



Here are the diagrams showing the shading as before:



Here is the orthographic with features annotated, including (as before) Mare Moscoviense, Tsiolkovsky and Lomonsov:



From this angle, you can see many of the features in other images, such as this Soviet Luna 3 images from 1959…



…and this Chinese Chang’e 2 image from 2014…



… and, of course, AS16-M-3021:



Because the sun is setting on Tsiolkovsky, the sun is only shining on the rim and central peak, but not the crater floor.   As we’ve seen (above), Mare Moscoviense is already deep in shadow.

At this point, I can point-out another big problem with your two comparison images:  You are comparing an orthographic map projection that shows an entire 180° hemisphere with a photo taken at an altitude of only 1,200km above a sphere that is only 1,737km in radius.  From that altitude, the horizon is much closer, as shown in this diagram:



Thus, instead of a 180° hemisphere, we only see ~107.5° from one side of the Moon to the other in AS16-M-3021.

Here is the ~orthographic shade diagram of the Moon from the same angle as AS16-M-3021:



Here is the shade diagram from the same angle, but at the altitude that AS16-M-3021 was taken:



Notice that Mare Crisium and Mare Moscoviense are, from this low angle, much closer to the horizon to the left and right, and Tsiolkovsky is near the horizon to the lower right.

Compare it to AS16-M-3021:



So in summary, when  comparing these two images:
Tarkus did not correct for the almost 80° difference in center-point.
Tarkus did not account for the difference between an orthographic map projection and a point-of-view less than one radius above the surface of a sphere. 
Because of these two things, as others have pointed-out…
Tarkus did not account for limb-foreshortening when comparing the near-straight-down view of craters from the photograph to the nearly edge-on POV from the orthographic projection.
Also, because he had the center-point so far off,
Tarkus incorrectly stated that the area shown in AS16-M-3021should be in shadow, when it was not.
Tarkus did not correct for the ~130° rotation of the photograph.

If we plot these errors onto the Earth, using the same latitudes & longitudes and the proportional altitude for the close-up POV of the photograph, then Tarkus’ errors basically compared this…



…to this…



…and claiming NOT A SINGLE FEATURE MATCHES ANOTHER.

This brings us to the most serious error of all.  When Tarkus believed he saw a mismatch, he made no attempt whatsoever to try to understand it.  He didn’t try to find out anything about the images.  Hell, he didn’t even ask anyone if they saw something he didn’t.  He just assumed that if he doesn’t understand it, it must be fake.

That’s no way to go through life, kid.