Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

... the ludicrous idea you can take decent pics with a camera strapped to your chest

On this specific detail, 'point and shoot' is a familiar term for almost everyone with much experience with cameras.

I used to favour a 24mm lens for busy social events where brief photo opportunities might arise at any time. Zone focussed and with aperture priority exposure I would just hold the camera out to where it could probably best see what was going on and snap. Trying to look through the viewfinder to compose the shot would have been slow and pointless.

 

[steenkh]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest, so the fact the skies appear blacked over and the crew of three avoiding the question, is understandably seen by those interested, as a deliberate policy, to avoid star-spotters from identifying exactly where the photography was taken. So I am curious to understand this, too.

I gave you the factual argument that there is no way the dynamic range of a film then — and probably even now — is able to show stars at the same time as the sun-lit scenery, and your reply is that the astronauts should somehow think it was important to show the stars above them.

Well, we have plenty of pictures of the starry sky, and very few pictures of the moonscape, so why on earth should the astronauts waste film on photographing the stars, particularly in view of the fact that it is impossible to do so without overexposing the moonscape?

The sky on the Moon is pitch black during daylight, but stars are not any brighter. They are just not washed out by the blue sky.

 

[Vixen]

You're still stuck on this misconception that if the sky is black, you will see stars. Most of the time the astronauts were in either a lighted spacecraft, often with sunlight entering through one or more ports, or on the lunar surface. It's not enough to have a black sky, your eyes need to become dark adapted. If you leave a brightly lit building at night and walk outside you won't see any stars until your pupils open enough (which is pretty much fully open) to admit sufficient light, no matter how dark it is outside. Yet on the lunar surface the sun shone so brightly that the astronauts had to wear tinted visors to manage the glare.

But you don't really want to know how anything works. That would require admitting that you didn't already know something to begin with.

The only thing deep about the Apollo conspiracy theory is that it's a deep pile of ◊◊◊◊ invented by ignoramuses with a pathological need to pretend they're at the intellectual apex of humanity, or shameless grifters like Bart Sibrel and David Percy who know that people will happily pay money for complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ as long as it supports that same intellectual delusion.

I'm getting the sense that "people who think they're better than you" is something that concerns you to an inordinate degree.

The reality of Apollo isn't supported by patriotic fervor, it's supported by a global scientific consensus. But you don't want to talk about any of the science, because that has, presently and historically, gone very badly for you.

The reason you can't see stars coming out of a lighted building is because (a) your location (b) light pollution and (c) weather conditions.

It is largely patriotic fervour because people's entire value system would crumble were it ever admitted the photography was, shall we say, manipulated (albeit for honourable reasons, I'm sure). For example, the Apollo capsule found by the Russians now on display in Michigan IIRC, that is sealed and deemed 'classified'. Noone of this generation can be allowed to see inside. Why? What's the problem in letting the public see inside the capsule?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The reason you can't see stars coming out of a lighted building is because (a) your location (b) light pollution and (c) weather conditions.

I think you would lose the mark for that answer in a science O-level.

 

[JayUtah]

As I previously mentioned at least twice, at sea level, the earth's atmosphere blocks only about 2% of visible light.

No, I'm afraid that's not the right number. But let's let @Vixen tell us the right one and then we'll figure out how many f-stops that works out to.

While Vixen is counting on her fingers, I'll follow up on yesterday's discussion. The reason some astrophotographers want slow film is that slow film means smaller silver halide crystals. Smaller crystals mean tighter grain and more resolution. This is an advantage to some, but only if you're shooting through a substantially expensive telescope. If you're just shooting through a typical SLR lens, the grain advantage is swallowed up by the shortcomings in the optics.

Obviously you need a longer exposure for slower film. One bad side effect with that is sky fog. Even with clear air and good seeing, a long exposure will still give you some exposure in the non-star parts of your photo. This may make it hard to see very faint stars in your photo. For this reason some people use very high ISO film, as the expected subject brightness falls closer to the expected film response.

But the other problem with long exposures is reciprocity breakdown. Reciprocity is a subject we alluded to before when we were expressing star brightness in terms of f-stops. For those properties of photography that are linear, we know we can compensate for a change in one with a reciprocal change in another. So if we switch from ISO 100 to ISO 200 film (a linear doubling of its sensitivity) then for ordinary photography we can compensate by halving the exposure time: say, going from 1/250 second to 1/125 second—also a linear change. The factor by which we multiplied the film sensitivity is the same factor we use to divide the exposure time—the reciprocal.

But this relationship breaks down at long shutter speeds. That is, it stops working that way. It works only for short shutter speeds.

Here's why. Photographic film is a matrix of silver halide crystals arranged in as close to an even distribution as possible in as thin a plane as possible to approximate a 2D surface. When a photon strikes the crystal, it causes a chemical change. The actual reaction happens at the molecular level. The crystal is composed of many molecules. So at the crystal level it takes many photon hits for the crystal to fully decompose into metallic silver. I'm simplifying the process slightly to get to my main point. We can talk later about the nucleation of the latent image and all that.

To further simplify, imagine that film is a very large wall set up with cork to be a dartboard. A number of ballots are fastened in a regular pattern on the wall. You stand an appropriate distance away and throw darts. You're aiming at a target, but as with most of us your skill at darts is only average. The darts are photons and your inexpert aim is the slight scattering effect of passing through a lens. The balloons are the silver halide crystals. When you hit one with a dart, it pops.

Now your first dart is almost certain to hit some balloon and pop it. Your next dart has a slightly less chance, since one ballon is already popped. After 20 darts all hopefully aimed at the same spot on the dartboard, you're hitting the board but not any more balloons. In order for a dart to hit a new balloon—and thus change the state of the dartboard in terms of popped balloons—it has to be sadly and badly aimed and go way off target. After 50 darts you're simply not hitting the balloons any more. After a while it takes more and more darts to have any effect.

This is why reciprocity only works for a small number of darts photons = a short exposure. The lens can keep directing photons all it wants to that same spot on the film, but if all the balloons are popped silver valid crystals are reacted, the light has no more effect on the film.

To skip to the end, what this means is that stellar photography using low ISO film requires ridiculously long exposures—hours in some cases. You have to allow enough photons for their natural distribution to spread to outlying areas around the primary star exposure.

 

[Vixen]

The above paragraph is almost Yrreg-like in its attempt to be linguistically sophisticated.

Filming or photographing the stars during Apollo was not of keen interest to NASA, with one specific exception. The stars would not have been discernibly brighter on the moon, even under conditions in which they could be seen, than they would be from any earthbound observatory. Taking photos of them would require time to set up a tripod, among other things, and would have provided nothing of any scientific value that wasn't already done better from earth.

The one exception was the Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph carried by Apollo 16. Because earth's atmosphere is opaque to the far ultraviolet, this instrument was able to capture images and spectra in a wavelength never before seen, providing novel scientific data about various astronomical objects, including the earth.

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

 

[Vixen]

Still playing the victim. Pretending that criticism of your arguments isn't based on your demonstrable ignorance of photography and obvious lies about photographing stars with trivial ease, but rather an attack on your gender. Pathetic, but I understand why you do it. You can't admit, even to yourself, that you don't know what you're talking about, and pretending that you're being attacked as a woman is much easier to cope with than acknowledging that you're being criticized for your ignorance of the fundamentals of photography.

By the way, I'm friends with a woman who is a talented professional photographer. Like most in her field, she works with digital cameras now, but she still enjoys shooting and processing her own film, and collecting film cameras. I haven't seen it, but she has a Hasselblad 500 in her collection. Not the lunar camera commemorative model, but the standard commercial model. We've talked about the Apollo photography a bit, and she's never once blown the whistle on the hoax. Oh, and she's originally from Alberta, so she isn't simply so overwhelmed by patriotic fervor that she's blinded to the photographic anomalies that are so obvious to you. Next time I see her, I'll tell her a bit about this conversion. I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it.

I was commenting on your wont to make assumptions that aren't even accurate or are simply a way of avoiding an issue.

 

[Vixen]

Photographing stars involves very specific, very unusual settings and preparation. You'd remember. Hell, you even mentioned a tripod at one point, after obviously having Googled stellar photography. But you've probably realized that was a mistake, too, because you'd have to admit that the Apollo crews weren't carrying around tripods and cable releases, and you were trying to prove that they should have imaged stars just by pointing the camera at the sky.

No, I don't need to Google it. Here in Finland we have whole armies of people camping out taking pics of the Northern Lights and what have you. One of our leading night sky photographers comes from my area because there is very little light pollution. Once again you are making assumptions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250,000K trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Another example, as if it were needed, of Vixen refusing to back down even when her argument is patently daft. The Apollo programme did not spend all that money to put guys on the moon to gape at the stars. When you're standing on the frikkin' moon, you have a much more exciting experience to be gripped by than seeing who can be first to spot Pegasus or Cygnus.

 

[Vixen]

I think you would lose the mark for that answer in a science O-level.

Can we quit with the personal jibes?

 

[JayUtah]

It is largely patriotic fervour...

No, this has nothing to do with your imaginary pearl-clutching.

The reason you can't see stars in Apollo photos is plainly evident to anyone who understands photography. That does not include you. You tried to co-opt Marcus Allen's sensational claims to make yourself seem smart. You got caught. This has nothing to do with your critics' "value system," although your unwillingness to admit error does tell us something about yours.

What's the problem in letting the public see inside the capsule?

You can't really see much of the interior looking through the hatch. Besides, what would a typical museum viewer learn about the authenticity of
Apollo by looking through the door? What would you expect to see or not see?

An Apollo command module hatch weighs 350 lbs. If you leave it open it's hanging on those hinges, not for the hour or so that the engineers contemplated would be needed to load and unload the crew, but for decades. Those hinges will fatigue, crack, and eventually fail. So you either have to shut the hatch or remove it if you want to preserve it as a viable museum specimen. Some like the National Air and Space Museum have opted to remove the hatch and display it separately. Millions of visitors get to see through the open hatch, since the ship is displayed tiled to allow for easier viewing.

Because of the deterioration we've seen over time, and because the burnt parts of the heat shield are toxic, most command modules are now displayed in a clear sealed enclosure. This is true of most other non-Apollo spaceships. The one on display in San Diego (Apollo 9 Gumdrop, enclosed in plastic) used to be in Michigan and was there displayed unenclosed with its hatch open. Because I was an engineer with special expertise in Apollo, I was allowed to climb into it and the curator allowed me to carefully flip one switch. (Anyone who knows their Apollo 12 history knows which switch that was.) It was very cramped and I had to be careful not to touch the couches. That's all that an expert was allowed to do. Now imagine generations of school kids spilling their ice cream, picking their noses and wiping it on the walls, and generally misbehaving. How long do you think those artifacts would last?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can we quit with the personal jibes?

Nothing personal.

Your answer did not mention that on leaving a lit building, your eyes would not yet have adapted to the dark so you would not immediately be able to see the stars. Sure, if it was cloudy, you wouldn't be able to see the stars anyway. Likewise if you had a bag on your head. But the question presumes the student can infer that is not the reason being asked about.

 

[JayUtah]

Can we quit with the personal jibes?

You're welcome to report any posts you feel are personal attacks. But as long as you keep putting your purported knowledge out there as the basis for your arguments, it will be challenged. If you declare that the physical world behaves a certain way, and we know that it does not, that is ripe for a challenge. In short, if you don't want your ignorance commented upon, do not expose it.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut.

"Because I say so."

The idea you'd go on a 250,000K trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Not at all. The astronauts went 384,000 km (not "250,000K" which is a temperature) to the Moon to look at the Moon, touch it, photograph it at close range, and bring parts of it home. There's plenty of time to look at the stars on the trip out and back, which they did. And they were keenly interested in constellations because that's how they navigated. They spent quite a lot of time in planetariums learning how to find their guide stars under all kinds of conditions.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I don't need to Google it.

But you do need to say it. You claim you photographed stars with a film SLR. What was your shutter speed?

 

[Vixen]

Nothing personal.

Your answer did not mention that on leaving a lit building, your eyes would not yet have adapted to the dark so you would not immediately be able to see the stars. Sure, if it was cloudy, you wouldn't be able to see the stars anyway. Likewise if you had a bag on your head. But the question presumes the student can infer that is not the reason being asked about.

I already mentioned rods and cones.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the Apollo capsule found by the Russians now on display in Michigan IIRC, that is sealed and deemed 'classified'. Noone of this generation can be allowed to see inside. Why? What's the problem in letting the public see inside the capsule?

What do you mean by "deemed classified"? Deemed classified by whom?

A quick Google tells me there's a capsule outside a museum in Grand Rapids, which is on loan from the Smithsonian. It wasn't a flown capsule but rather a dummy used for training purposes. This one was lost at sea while practicing recovery operations, but was picked up by the Russians and later handed back. My source tells me it's full of everyday stuff deposited by local school children in 1976 and is a time capsule to be opened in 2076. What does your source tell you?

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry it upset you but I had no idea you would be upset re the OP.

 

[Vixen]

"Because I say so."


Not at all. The astronauts went 384,000 km (not "250,000K" which is a temperature) to the Moon to look at the Moon, touch it, photograph it at close range, and bring parts of it home. There's plenty of time to look at the stars on the trip out and back, which they did. And they were keenly interested in constellations because that's how they navigated. They spent quite a lot of time in planetariums learning how to find their guide stars under all kinds of conditions.

Whoops, erratum now corrected.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I already mentioned rods and cones.

Alas, not in that answer you didn't. Nor pupil dilation. No marks. Sorry.