Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

But you can apparently stop all those GCRs dead in their tracks with a small volume pressurized to .22 atmospheres.

Not even the Van Allen belts stop GCRs, which is why I have to use special error-correcting memory chips in my supercomputers that take up enough surface area on Earth to make passable GCR detectors. There’s some attenuation though. Several cosmic rays went through you in the time it took you to read this sentence.

What attenuates GCR is the heliopause, or rather the heliosphere in general. Paradoxically, during the solar max (which his when Apollo missions were flown) you get less GCR.

 

[zooterkin]

I didn't think the video was at all convincing. If, as the deniers claim, the Apollo pictures were filmed as a studio simulation

They weren't.

Have you really gone all-in on yet another conspiracy theory?

 

[JesseCuster]

Vixen, please address the following, which you've ignored so far.

The photos taken on the surface of the moon, during the day, set to expose for the extremely bright when sunlit lunar surface, used the following settings - an aperture of f/5.6 to f/11, a shutter speed of 1/250s, and the film speed was ISO 160.

You claim to be knowledgable about photography and in particular to be knowledgable about photography stars in the night sky.

Are you claiming that those settings would actually expose the stars? 1/250s shutter speed and ISO 160?

Night sky photography has never been my thing, but any usable photos I've achieved when trying it, has involved a tripod, a wide open lens, cranking the ISO up into the thousands, and exposure time of several seconds.

Please explain how the stars would actually be exposed, given the conditions and camera settings.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I didn't think the video was at all convincing...

When you post each of these, do you think to yourself "This one will be the gotcha. Finally this time..."?

All of this, absolutely every bit of it, has been flogged to death. Repeatedly. For decades. Yes, including the backpack weight. Yes, including the slow-motion notion. Yes, including the laser range finding. What are you hoping for here?

If you actually want to know about Apollo, the info is not secret. That doesn't appear to be your aim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

When you post each of these, do you think to yourself "This one will be the gotcha. Finally this time..."?

All of this, absolutely every bit of it, has been flogged to death. Repeatedly. For decades. Yes, including the backpack weight. Yes, including the slow-motion notion. Yes, including the laser range finding. What are you hoping for here?

If you actually want to know about Apollo, the info is not secret. That doesn't appear to be your aim.

Hell, if someone really wanted to to learn we have an actual expert who is very generous with his time here. But asking real questions doesn't make the asker the centre of attention, does it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Most laypeople vastly overestimate how much radiation there is in space.

Surely space is a searing radiation hell?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Missing rover tracks next?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Surely space is a searing radiation hell?

I saw a documentary with Sam Neil and Lawrence Fishburne that demonstrated experimentally that space is literal Hell.

 

[catsmate]

<Gibberish snipped>

This is utter nonsense, spouting random nonsense in a classic Gish Gallop

 

[catsmate]

I didn't think the video was at all convincing.

So? Smarter people than you can see why the material is correct.

 

[Thermal]

In addition, the astronauts backbacks were similar to their body weight (180lbs in the video). Imagine carrying your own weight on your back, or even, as in the 'Mythbusters' video evenly distributed around your body like a body vest. You'd be bent forward with the weight, yet they all appear perfectly upright (even with the Moon's gravity, it'd still be pro-rata-ed).

Just have to address this one- did you actually watch the video, or understand it? The MythBusters guys were fully buckling under that weight when they went on board the the ZeroG simulator. They weighed themselves down with 180 freaking pounds of weights, making them around 360-380 lbs total. The guys were struggling to stand at all. The moons gravity is 1/6 ours, so they weighed... what? Can you do that math? ABOUT 60 POUNDS TOTAL. And you think they would be bent forward?

Did you see how they hit the deck when the ZeroG plane ascended? That's because their weight then doubled the initial weight, which was freaking crushing. That's why they all fell flat on the floor.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

When you post each of these, do you think to yourself "This one will be the gotcha. Finally this time..."?

All of this, absolutely every bit of it, has been flogged to death. Repeatedly. For decades. Yes, including the backpack weight. Yes, including the slow-motion notion. Yes, including the laser range finding. What are you hoping for here?

If you actually want to know about Apollo, the info is not secret. That doesn't appear to be your aim.

"Slow Motion Notion" sounds like a band name.

 

[JayUtah]

They weighed themselves down with 180 freaking pounds of weights, making them around 360-380 lbs total.

And this is important because while you don't have as much weight on the Moon, you have all the momentum/inertia. You can see the astronauts struggle with this. They get bounding along just fine, but then changing direction or stopping immediately incurs 140 kg of mass really wanting to continue along that straight line. This is exacerbated by having little friction with the surface owing to so little downforce. The astronauts trained for this not only in the airplane but slung sideways in various contraptions.

It's reasonable to wonder whether the PLSS/OPS (backpack) would shift your center of gravity rearward to an alarming extent. Normally your center of gravity is over your feet, at around belly-button height. Putting on a backpack shifts it upward and rearward. Without adjusting your posture, you would have a center of gravity at roughly chest height and just behind your feet. This sets up a force-vector problem that results in a rearward pitch moment.

But the weight gives you the magnitude of those forces. What's important to remember about the physics solution is that the geometry of the problem doesn't change, but the force magnitude does. The PLSS averaged 45 kg, which is 7 or 8 kgf in lunar gravity. That's less than a small toddler riding piggyback. Working through the pitch moment problem, the 1/6 proportion propagates through; you have only 1/6 the pitch moment and therefore much less need to lean forward to zero out the moment arm to a tolerable quantity. The astronaut's strength and vestibular capacity remain unchanged.

 

[Thermal]

Nvm

 

[Mojo]

As for retroreflectors, Dr Tony Cook in the OP video glibly claims you get back a signal by return thanks to the retroreflectors but in reality scanning the moon's surface can take up to eight hours before anything comes back... It simply isn't true you get a signal almost by return whilst you sit there with your Go Pro camera. It takes eight hours to get 3,000 protons back, not fifteen minutes.

Since no one else is taking this painful flub (out of embarrassment, possibly), I'll take it:

You are aware that light moves at about 186,000 miles per second, yes? And that the moon is around 255,000 miles away, sí? They said it took 2 1/2 seconds to round trip that laser beam. Seems about right to me, without breaking out the old calculator. Now, you have calculated 8 hours for that round trip. Would you mind walking me through the math you did to arrive at 8 hours? Go slow... I'm a bit dense, you see.

Ah, but Vixen isn't talking about light.

 

[Thermal]

Ah, but Vixen isn't talking about light.

She is making me so angry that I'm not thinking straight either. It's like it's catching.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?

Allen also queries how come the Ektachrome film didn't get damaged, as the equipment was not kept in a pressurised unit ? The film consists of silver halide grains in a [organic] gelatin layer, which means it would be susceptible to Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) and, except for the silver chloride, would be subject to turbity. But there appears to be no radiation damage such as fogging, as might be expected and why other space missions use pressurised units. As you know, GCR makes organic matter susceptible to degradation. There is no magnetic field on the moon to protect from this.

Does the math work? Seriously, why are you asking this question? Can't you just do the math?

151 X 60 = 9,060 seconds
9,060 ÷ 123 = 73.66

So they averaged one photo every 73⅔ seconds. If the motor drive takes 1.5 seconds to advance the film and reset the shutter... well, you tell us. Do you think that's a fast enough reset time to take a photo every 73⅔ seconds, or do you still need help with the math?


And maybe someone should ask Allen how we have film photographs of the 'Elephant's Foot' in the ruins of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant?

 

[JesseCuster]

Does the math work? Seriously, why are you asking this question? Can't you just do the math?

Vixen has previously assured us that she is very much a "numbers person". She doesn't make these kind of elementary mistakes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Slow Motion Notion" sounds like a band name.

I liked their early stuff.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I liked their early stuff.

Their Peel session was ace