Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

Vixen seems to think that the astronauts should have laid down on their back and marvelled at the stars.

But then they'd have been stuck like turtles on their backs, because of the relative weight of their backpacks to their bodies.

 

[Steve]

Vixen seems to think that the astronauts should have laid down on their back and marvelled at the stars.

Those heavy backpacks would have tipped them onto their backs, Then they would have no choice until Kubrick's film crew came along and stood them upright again.

ETA well said, zooterkin! Great minds, etc.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

All this talk of camera settings is really irrelevant. The basic fact is that the dynamic range possible on any film is just too low to be able to record sun-lit objects and stars at the same time. The camera settings are used to favour one or the other.

By dynamic range I mean the span between the darkest and the brightest amount of light that can be recorded. I don't know if modern digital media has the dynamic range that makes it possible to record faint starlight and a bright scene at the same time, but I doubt it.

You're right, but everyone but one already knew that. And the one that doesn't isn't listening.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's among your dumber arguments, don't you think?

You have to appreciate the strength of the competition in that particular contest.

 

[JayUtah]

You can even see in the first photo of it that it appears to be resting a bit off center. Whether that's do to the ballast position to get the CG right, or just some irregularity along the bottom or on the surface it's resting on, I can't say.

It's quite likely the ballast. The c.g. is up to 30 cm offset from the vertical geometrical axis. As such, a CM would lean a few degrees from vertical when resting on a flat surface. This is hard to see in some recovery photos not only because the lean isn't that noticeable from a distance, but also because the CMs were recovered and set down with the flotation collars still attached. It will only lean as far as the compression in the inflatable collar will allow.

There is a common ring fixture used when transporting a CM. You can fit it with wheels for rolling or towing. You can also fit it with additional fixtures for hoisting. These actually attach where the SM was attached and so minimize any direct or weight-bearing contact with the heat shield. This would hold the CM exactly upright regardless of imbalance.

By the time the top picture was taken, BP-1227 had led a very hard life. It also did not have a real heat shield. The real heat shields were labor-intensive (and thus very expensive) to make. BP-1227's simulated heat shield was mass-accurate and (initially) shape-accurate, but not necessary hardness-accurate. So during its rough handling it's not inconceivable that it was damaged and that may add to the visible lean.

ETA: more likely crushed heat shield. As I actually look at the picture, the lean is to the side. If the door was accurately placed, then the lean from ballast should be away from the camera. The shift in the c.g. was up to 30 cm away from the door, toward the lower equipment bay. That's where the massive guidance assembly was, which is what shifted the c.g.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There is literally nothing of interest inside a boilerplate command module. It's ballasted with steel ingots in the right places, but otherwise is completely empty.

Yeah, but you can use those ingots to upgrade your weapons and armor.

 

[JayUtah]

All this talk of camera settings is really irrelevant. The basic fact is that the dynamic range possible on any film is just too low to be able to record sun-lit objects and stars at the same time. The camera settings are used to favour one or the other.

We know. That's the basis for challenging Marcus Allen's claim that pictures of ordinary activity on the lunar surface should not be expected to show stars. It's also the basis of challenging @Vixen's initial claim that she had replicated herself what Allen said should be the case and can confirm it to be true.

She seems to be slowly coming around to the notion that the shutter speed required to expose stars is utterly incompatible with what is appropriate for photographing sunlit objects on the lunar surface.

By dynamic range I mean the span between the darkest and the brightest amount of light that can be recorded. I don't know if modern digital media has the dynamic range that makes it possible to record faint starlight and a bright scene at the same time, but I doubt it.

It doesn't. We want digital sensors to have roughly the same response as film so that photography still works as a familiar medium. My digital SLRS have maybe 2 or 3 stops more dynamic range than the film I still shoot on. Kodak Ektachrome E-3 has a fairly narrow dynamic range compared to modern negative film. It goes without saying that it's far too narrow to expose both stars and sunlit objects.

I mentioned before that LPI provides "flat" scans of selected Apollo still picture rolls. These are scans in which the scanner dynamic is specifically set to encompass the entire dynamic range of the subject film with room to spare. That means the darkest dark on the film is mapped to a very dark gray on the scanner. Ditto the other direction for brights. That means that even the most subtle differences in tone (which might contain detail) are preserved in the scan, although the resulting image looks somewhat flat. Thus for display, the flat scan has to be adjusted to provide a more expected visual contrast.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, but you can use those ingots to upgrade your weapons and armor.

Only if you can get it into a lab first, which is the only place you can generate heat greater than 700 °C.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Only if you can get it into a lab first, which is the only place you can generate heat greater than 700 °C.

You mean I crafted 200 iron daggers for nothing?!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

But then they'd have been stuck like turtles on their backs, because of the relative weight of their backpacks to their bodies.

They would have been floating on their superstructure.

 

[Vixen]

Well, actually, because the Earth is "protected" sunlight on the Moon is marginally brighter than sunlight on Earth.

Do you understand why this doesn't help you?

The astronauts were there at a time it was at its most suitable for humans, i.e., circa 28°C, in other words, when the sun was very low. No different from sunset or sunrise, when one can often see the Moon in the sky even both Sun and Moon nearby each other. If there is glare, turn your back on the sun to take the pic.

 

[Vixen]

Is that why you thought that you should use a zoom lens to photograph stars?

If quality is key, then generally speaking, the more telescopic the lens, the lower the quality but OTOH you can get perfectly good pics however.

 

[JayUtah]

You mean I crafted 200 iron daggers for nothing?!

Maybe Khajiit can take them off your hands.

They would have been floating on their superstructure.

For the Apollo command module, a position known as Stable 2.

 

[JayUtah]

If quality is key, then generally speaking, the more telescopic the lens, the lower the quality but OTOH you can get perfectly good pics however.

You said a zoom lens. A zoom lens is not the same as a telephoto lens. There is no such thing as a telescopic lens. The difference between zoom and prime is important for exposure purposes. Please tell us why you chose a zoom lens instead of a prime lens.

 

[Vixen]

My point was that the length of the lunar day, which you deem the important factor, is not significant when it comes to which star we cannot see as they are too close to the sun from our point of view. Nor is there any significant difference whether the observer is on the Earth or Moon. Compared to the distance to the sun, Earth and Moon are in much the same place. What point did you think you were making when you condescendingly suggested looking up the length of the lunar day?

On your shifted point, about the stars and planets positions being a way to confirm date and location, how would a shift of just 240,000 miles change the alignment of the planets against background stars? Do you really think this would be detectable on a photograph? The idea is of course moot, since there was no chance the lunar surface photos could have shown objects as faint as stars. As we have belaboured for far too long and you have yet to accept for no good reason.

On the other hand, are you aware that Apollo photographs do indeed include information which confirms when they were taken? Photographs taken of the Earth include cloud patterns which, years later, were independently matched up to weather satellite info for the appropriate dates.

The lunar day is relevant because if you are planning a trip to the moon, you don't want to turn up when it is exceedingly cold or dangerously boiling hot. So, if you have an ETA you can be ready with the right equipment to take pics of the stars. Nobody wants to see a cheap nylon catalogue flag being saluted at.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The astronauts were there at a time it was at its most suitable for humans, i.e., circa 28°C, in other words, when the sun was very low. No different from sunset or sunrise, when one can often see the Moon in the sky even both Sun and Moon nearby each other. If there is glare, turn your back on the sun to take the pic.

That's a lot of words to say "no, I don't get it".

It might be worth pointing out that since the moon lacks an atmosphere, there is no diminution in the sunlight coming at an oblique angle. On earth the light from a low morning sun has to pass through a lot of atmosphere to get to you, compared to noonday sun which is more intense as it has less atmosphere to penetrate. On the moon, as soon as you are in sunlight, you are in full sunlight.

 

[Vixen]

You should know, You spend a lot of time there before coming here to pretend that you already knew stuff.

I don't spend any time there. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[JayUtah]

The astronauts were there at a time it was at its most suitable for humans, i.e., circa 28°C

Temperature is not a factor in the lighting equation.

...when the sun was very low.

It is no less bright when it is low on the horizon.

The lunar day is relevant because if you are planning a trip to the moon, you don't want to turn up when it is exceedingly cold or dangerously boiling hot.

That is true. However it is not relevant to the brightness of the sun for photographic purposes.

Nobody wants to see a cheap nylon catalogue flag being saluted at.

That's actually what everyone wanted to see.

 

[Vixen]

The maximum parallax angle is about 0.15º, enough to measure but not enough to notice with the naked eye. The Apollo missions happened during the waxing crescent phase so the phase angle was small. That means the parallax angle was small.

This affects only the parallax between the sun and the starfield. It does not affect the parallax between stars, which is negligible.


Further, when rescanned specifically to look for it, Venus was faintly apparent in some of the photos exactly where it should have been. Venus is very much brighter than stars and doesn't take a several-second exposure to show up to a barely detectable level.

It's kind of sweet Venus is the only 'star' mentioned!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The lunar day is relevant because if you are planning a trip to the moon, you don't want to turn up when it is exceedingly cold or dangerously boiling hot. So, if you have an ETA you can be ready with the right equipment to take pics of the stars. Nobody wants to see a cheap nylon catalogue flag being saluted at.

In space, no-one can hear the squeaky wheel on your goalposts.