Camera work of Apollo 17

[JayUtah]

Is the photo below a paradigm of fake photos? It would have been rather nonsensical for the Lunar Module to climb above the Command Module only in order to take a picture.

I guess we can add orbital mechanics to the vast pile of stuff you know nothing about. It's not as if coelliptical orbits are difficult to understand. I have a friend who's studying economics, but recently got interested in Kerbal Space Program. In a couple of short weeks he's learned enough about orbital mechanics to understand something like a coelliptical rendezvous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is the photo below a paradigm of fake photos?

No.

Why do you bother pursuing this feeble stuff? Surely you don't even believe it yourself.

 

[threadworm]

Is the photo below a paradigm of fake photos? It would have been rather nonsensical for the Lunar Module to climb above the Command Module only in order to take a picture.

You have the cart before the horse.

The CSM was below the LM so it could take a picture. See if you can figure out why.

The image itself is one of a series taken of the CSM as it passed over Mare Fecunditatis towards the landing site, exactly in the correct orbital trajectory.

Immediately prior to that sequence of images they took photos of Earth, and those photos of Earth show time and date specific weather patterns exactly matching those taken by meteorological satellites.

They also filmed the CSM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4D-Dj1EsIU

You do not understand what is shown, you do not understand the context of what is shown. You are, to put it bluntly, woefully inadequate in your understanding of this subject and I would find a new hobby.

 

[abaddon]

I guess we can add orbital mechanics to the vast pile of stuff you know nothing about. It's not as if coelliptical orbits are difficult to understand. I have a friend who's studying economics, but recently got interested in Kerbal Space Program. In a couple of short weeks he's learned enough about orbital mechanics to understand something like a coelliptical rendezvous.

Umm... You don't suppose our protagonist thinks that all orbits are circular, and any change in altitude requires some thrust, perhaps? Could it be that wogoga is that poorly informed?

Let's put some numbers on it using A17 since that was the mission wogoga chose.

A17 CSM: Apolune 62.8 nm Perilune 62.5 nm. Still elliptical, but close to circular.

A17 Ascent Stage: Apolune 64.7 nm Perilune 48.5 nm. Very elliptical and the LM will at times be potentially up to 2 nm higher than the CSM above the moon's surface.

So what was the lunar altitude difference in the cited photo? 300 yards maybe?

In any event, the image is not from A17 but rather A11, specifically AS11-37-5445. Linky.

And it wasn't LOR, it was separation before landing.

One may only conclude that wogoga is opining through his hat.

 

[JayUtah]

...either one could be at a higher altitude than the other at any given time.

That's precisely how phasing orbits work in rendezvous, even if it's not an Apollo-style rendezvous. If you're above the target vehicle it means you're allowing it to catch up to you.

 

[abaddon]

That's precisely how phasing orbits work in rendezvous, even if it's not an Apollo-style rendezvous. If you're above the target vehicle it means you're allowing it to catch up to you.

You know that, I know that, we all know that. Sure, there are some that do not know that. That's OK. I don't know how to perform brain surgery. The difference is that I would not even attempt to hold forth as any sort of expert in brain surgery. However, those that do not know such things divide into two groups. Those that can learn and those that cannot.

In terms of Apollo, I would not classify myself as an expert. Nevertheless, I do have extensive knowledge of it, and always want to learn more. In fact, your contributions in that regard (and others) are a veritable cornucopia of knowledge which I have suitably filed away.

Go figure. I like to learn new things and you have copiously contributed to that.

Take a well deserved bow.

 

[John Nowak]

They also filmed the CSM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4D-Dj1EsIU

Great stuff!

I noticed that the clip starts with a color card and a note stating that the photographer was "Guynes." Did each film reel start with a brief calibration segment shot on the ground before the mission?

Just wondering why the photographer isn't "Armstrong" or "Collins."

 

[abaddon]

Great stuff!

I noticed that the clip starts with a color card and a note stating that the photographer was "Guynes." Did each film reel start with a brief calibration segment shot on the ground before the mission?

Just wondering why the photographer isn't "Armstrong" or "Collins."

Yup. It was SOP to shoot a calibration chart. The reasons should be fairly obvious.

 

[threadworm]

Yup. It was SOP to shoot a calibration chart. The reasons should be fairly obvious.

They also did it with the Haseslblad 70mm film

http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/apollo/AS11_Hasselblad (70 mm)/list#AS11-36-chart

 

[jadebox]

That photo was taken shortly after the LM undocked to descend to the moon. After undocking, the CSM fired it's motor to move into a lower, faster orbit separating it from the LM. In addition to the obvious purpose of getting out of the way of the LM, it allowed the inspection of the LM to be done against the blackness of space instead of the bright moon.

-- Roger

 

[John Nowak]

Yup. It was SOP to shoot a calibration chart. The reasons should be fairly obvious.

Oh, absolutely.

Has anyone heard of an Apollo CT that used this? Or would that involve actually looking at source material, which Apollo CTers never do?

 

[abaddon]

Oh, absolutely.

Has anyone heard of an Apollo CT that used this? Or would that involve actually looking at source material, which Apollo CTers never do?

Meh. The multifarious calibration shots are public domain for something like 60 years. Why on earth would one waste time chasing wingnuts?

 

[JayUtah]

Don't be too hasty to dismiss John. He has an arguable point. Bart Sibrel made his first splash on pretending to have uncovered footage no one else had and misrepresenting its metadata (i.e., the "not for public distribution" slug) for his own benefit. I can certainly see others trying that same approach. While I haven't yet seen the calibration frames used in this way, it's not out of the question.

The vast majority of the Apollo footage people see are the convenience clips on YouTube and elsewhere, which are of course brief and/or edited excerpts containing the interesting bits. While the raw footage is ridiculously easy to get (e.g., from spacecraftfilms.com or directly from NASA's photo contractor), most people just don't look for it. So for the masses it would be easy for someone to say, "I have the rare, unreleased raw footage from NASA!" That's exactly what Sibrel did, and it worked very well for him.

And it wouldn't take much of a leap of faith to show the calibration chart and say, "See, this is what they do in studios. This proves it was shot in a studio." You bracket your chosen Apollo footage with scenes taken from Hollywood screen tests where equipment like calibration charts and clapboards can be seen. Not hard to argue it "looks like" that sort of footage.

I haven't seen anyone use the calibration frames this way, but it would be easy to do, and similar stunts have been successful before.

 

[abaddon]

Don't be too hasty to dismiss John. He has an arguable point. Bart Sibrel made his first splash on pretending to have uncovered footage no one else had and misrepresenting its metadata (i.e., the "not for public distribution" slug) for his own benefit. I can certainly see others trying that same approach. While I haven't yet seen the calibration frames used in this way, it's not out of the question.

The vast majority of the Apollo footage people see are the convenience clips on YouTube and elsewhere, which are of course brief and/or edited excerpts containing the interesting bits. While the raw footage is ridiculously easy to get (e.g., from spacecraftfilms.com or directly from NASA's photo contractor), most people just don't look for it. So for the masses it would be easy for someone to say, "I have the rare, unreleased raw footage from NASA!" That's exactly what Sibrel did, and it worked very well for him.

And it wouldn't take much of a leap of faith to show the calibration chart and say, "See, this is what they do in studios. This proves it was shot in a studio." You bracket your chosen Apollo footage with scenes taken from Hollywood screen tests where equipment like calibration charts and clapboards can be seen. Not hard to argue it "looks like" that sort of footage.

I haven't seen anyone use the calibration frames this way, but it would be easy to do, and similar stunts have been successful before.

That's just depressing.

 

[wogoga]

Is the photo below a paradigm of fake photos? It would have been rather nonsensical for the Lunar Module to climb above the Command Module only in order to take a picture.

This statement, and in particular the usage of the word "climb," seems to suggest a misunderstanding of orbital dynamics. It seems to me that it would have been trivially easy to perform a very small alteration to the orbit of the LM so that it was able to take a photo of the CM against the backdrop of the lunar surface, and as such a very cost-effective piece of PR.

If we take into account the Lunar Landing Module LM was a prototype which never had been properly tested* then dealing primarily with PR instead of safety would have been grossly negligent.

* If somebody thinks that this is not true then he should be able to provide evidence for proper testing of the Lunar Landing Module.

By the way, isn't the blue, maybe ocean-reflected color on the sun-side of the Command Module strong evidence that the photo is a photomontage?

And this looks like a classic piece of misdirection, intended to suggest that (a) "below" was the position of the LM relative to the CM right up to the point where they separated, and (b) this usage of "below" is in some sense related to their relative heights in orbit above the moon.

My use of above and below (beneath) was both with respect to the CSM (Command and Service Module) and with respect to the moon.

(a) is, of course, nonsense, because everybody who knows anything about Apollo knows that the CM/SM had to turn around to dock to the LM as part of separation from the S-IVB, and (b) is the fallacy of equivocation.

If what you write is intended as more than pure disinformation then please provide some evidence. By the way, we are dealing with a photo having been taken shortly after undocking of 1969-07-20, 17:44 (see Apollo 11 timetable).

Lying by implication is not, in general, a good way to determine the truth.

In any case, future will show who is lying by naïveté, by implication or even by intention.

Cheers, Wolfgang

You want to convincingly mislead your enemies, yes? Mislead at first your friends and collaborators!
pandualism.com/d/apollo.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

If we take into account the Lunar Landing Module LM was a prototype which never had been properly tested* then dealing primarily with PR instead of safety would have been grossly negligent.

* If somebody thinks that this is not true then he should be able to provide evidence for proper testing of the Lunar Landing Module.

The LLM had been tested, short of the actual lunar landing, in the Apollo 9 and 10 missions, in which exactly this sort of manoevre could easily have been carried out, and most likely was given that it's effectively the only way of separating and re-connecting the two components. I think maybe you should read up on those missions, since you've clearly never heard of them.

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Apollo_Spacecraft_diagram.jpg[/qimg]

[...]

If what you write is intended as more than pure disinformation then please provide some evidence.

I am unable fully to appreciate the level of confusion that could prompt someone to post a diagram (see above) clearly demonstrating that the LM prior to stage separation was mounted such that the nose of the CM pointed away from it, then demand evidence that the CM/SM had to rotate to dock with the LM during stage separation.

Dave

 

[abaddon]

If we take into account the Lunar Landing Module LM was a prototype which never had been properly tested* then dealing primarily with PR instead of safety would have been grossly negligent.

Except if we take into account the actual testing that was carried out and of which you are unaware.

* If somebody thinks that this is not true then he should be able to provide evidence for proper testing of the Lunar Landing Module.

Aside from the ground tests, you have the actual flight tests which you foolishly claim to not know of.

By the way, isn't the blue, maybe ocean-reflected color on the sun-side of the Command Module strong evidence that the photo is a photomontage?

Nope. It is a tint in the window glass.

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Apollo_Spacecraft_diagram.jpg[/qimg]

My use of above and below (beneath) was both with respect to the CSM (Command and Service Module) and with respect to the moon.

We understand that. You clearly do not.

If what you write is intended as more than pure disinformation then please provide some evidence. By the way, we are dealing with a photo having been taken shortly after undocking of 1969-07-20, 17:44 (see Apollo 11 timetable).

We know what it is. And we know why it is. You are the only one who cannot figure it out.

In any case, future will show who is lying by naïveté, by implication or even by intention.

We already know who is doing that also.

 

[Wolrab]

IIRC, didn't the LM need to get in front (?) of the CM so it could be eyeballed for damage from the astronaut in the CM and visa versa?

 

[abaddon]

IIRC, didn't the LM need to get in front (?) of the CM so it could be eyeballed for damage from the astronaut in the CM and visa versa?

Yes. The visual inspection was SOP..

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Rogers]

IIRC, didn't the LM need to get in front (?) of the CM so it could be eyeballed for damage from the astronaut in the CM and visa versa?

Wolfgang seems to be suggesting that, even if this was done, it's impossible to believe that at some point in the process the LM was further from the lunar surface than the CM, and is backing this up by suggesting that putting the LM into an orbit that took it to a slightly higher altitude was such a dangerous manoevre that it's unthinkable that it should be even attempted. This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Dave