Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

It is not 'sun lit' as in the sense of a midday or afternoon sun. It is more of a breaking dawn sun coming over the horizon. Thus, still reasonably dark.

No, as has already been posted the sun was at 15 degrees.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

The sun was15 degrees above the horizon as has been posted several times.
Exactly what was at the temperatures you quote and what does it have to do with the light?

 

[Andy_Ross]

15° fully risen, max, but that's not at its zenith, it is still low.

but still full sunlight

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not at all. I have no problem with people having a different opinion from myself.

it's a matter of fact, not opinion.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed, if only I could out my finger on it...

Or two, on your side of the Atlantic.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is not 'sun lit' as in the sense of a midday or afternoon sun. It is more of a breaking dawn sun coming over the horizon. Thus, still reasonably dark.

No.

The sun was entirely above the horizon. Indeed 15 degrees as mentioned is about 30 times its own apparent diameter, of half a degree.

Also, as the moon has no atmosphere to speak of, the rising sun is not shining obliquely through a thick later of air as it is on earth. As soon as you are in sunlight on the moon, you are in full, undiminished sunlight.

You have had this pointed out before.

 

[Andy_Ross]

When the weather man says it'll be 18°C today at 9:00am, what do you think it means?

It means the air temperature will be 18 degrees.
Do you know why that doesn't apply to the moon?

Also it has nothing to do with the brightness of the sun

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

No, you're still stuck in thinking in Earth terms where the sun is hottest at its zenith. On the moon, with no atmosphere, the sun is at full strength all the time it's visible.

The reason to land early in the lunar day was to avoid the period when the surface has been baked hotter and hotter for many (earth) days. Nothing to do with the sunlight being weaker.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

15° fully risen, max, but that's not at its zenith, it is still low.

As above, you are making the mistake of thinking Earth conditions apply on the moon.

With no atmosphere, sunlight is undiminished all day.

 

[threadworm]

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

They did. There was some other bright thing there.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here is one of the panoramas taken directly in the sun, see the details?
\https://apollojournals.org/alsj/a12/a12pan1183310HR.jpg

I'd love to see that in VR.

 

[JayUtah]

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select.

Yes. The astronauts had access to the customary controls for aperture, shutter speed, and focus. These controls were fitted with aids to allow manipulation while wearing space gloves.

It is only sunlight on the horizon.

No, that's not how the sun works.

It is not 'harsh' at 27 °F

Asked and answered.

During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250 °F...

Temperature is not relevant to the optical illumination problem. But since you're plunging headlong into yet another one of the common ignorant misconceptions that we'll eventually have to deal with, I'll ask the same question that others have: The temperature of what, exactly?

So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

Asked and answered. The question is not whether the astronauts could have taken pictures of the stars. The question is whether stars should have incidentally appeared in photographs taken of sunlit scenes.

 

[JayUtah]

I was referring to the sun rays as an example of causing glare in the camera lens.

You don't seem to have a consistent understanding of what you intend by "glare." There is no problem with shooting directly into the sun. The entire picture will not be overexposed.

Not at all. I have no problem with people having a different opinion from myself.

Photometry is not a matter of opinion. Radiometry is not a matter of opinion. Determinate statics is not a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong.

When the weather man says it'll be 18°C today at 9:00am, what do you think it means?

What material object or substance does the weatherman mean by "it" when he says "it" will be 18 °C? Only material objects or substances can have temperature.

 

[Mojo]

The question is not whether the astronauts could have taken pictures of the stars. The question is whether stars should have incidentally appeared in photographs taken of sunlit scenes.

...and whether the stars would have appeared in photos taken with the settings used.

 

[JayUtah]

The sun was15 degrees above the horizon as has been posted several times.

On Earth, 15° corresponds to an entire hour after full sunrise. If the sun is scheduled to come up at 7:00 am, is it still dark at 8:00 am?

No, you're still stuck in thinking in Earth terms where the sun is hottest at its zenith.

The sun is at full strength any time it is in the sky and fully unobscured. The sun's elevation may affect what parts of objects are shaded and where shadows fall. This has some application in photography, and we discussed how the astronauts were trained to photograph in shadow. But if a surface is sunlit at 9:00 am, it remains equally sunlit at 12:00 noon. At a certain point we'll have to talk about Lambert's law, but that's not really relevant in this part of the discussion. When you set your exposure for the 9:00 am photo shoot, you don't have to change it much (if at all) for your noon photo shoot. Sunlit means sunlit.

...and whether the stars would have appeared in photos taken with the settings used.

That kind of goes without saying, of course. But @Vixen has desperately tried to rewrite her claim. Marcus Allen claimed there should be stars in the sky incidentally in photos that were taken of sunlit scenes. Since she's already conceded the elemental facts that show Allen's claim to be completely untenable, she has to cobble up some new scenario. On the one hand she's trying to say that daylight somehow isn't daylight. On the other hand she's trying to rewrite the claim to say that the Apollo 11 astronauts could have taken photos of the stars by setting up the appropriate conditions, but (suspiciously) didn't. This is not the same as the original claim. She moved the goalpost.

ISO 160, f/11, 1/250 are not settings in which stars will be incidentally exposed. This is not a matter of opinion. It's something every competent photographer knows. It was demonstrated empirically in our video. It's quite appropriate to say the debate is over on that point.

 

[Mojo]

On Earth, 15° corresponds to an entire hour after full sunrise. If the sun is scheduled to come up at 7:00 am, is it still dark at 8:00 am?


The sun is at full strength any time it is in the sky and fully unobscured. The sun's elevation may affect what parts of objects are shaded and where shadows fall. This has some application in photography, and we discussed how the astronauts were trained to photograph in shadow. But if a surface is sunlit at 9:00 am, it remains equally sunlit at 12:00 noon. At a certain point we'll have to talk about Lambert's law, but that's not really relevant in this part of the discussion. When you set your exposure for the 9:00 am photo shoot, you don't have to change it much (if at all) for your noon photo shoot. Sunlit means sunlit.


That kind of goes without saying, of course. But @Vixen has desperately tried to rewrite her claim. Marcus Allen claimed there should be stars in the sky incidentally in photos that were taken of sunlit scenes. Since she's already conceded the elemental facts that show Allen's claim to be completely untenable, she has to cobble up some new scenario. On the one hand she's trying to say that daylight somehow isn't daylight. On the other hand she's trying to rewrite the claim to say that the Apollo 11 astronauts could have taken photos of the stars by setting up the appropriate conditions, but (suspiciously) didn't. This is not the same as the original claim. She moved the goalpost.

ISO 160, f/11, 1/250 are not settings in which stars will be incidentally exposed. This is not a matter of opinion. It's something every competent photographer knows. It was demonstrated empirically in our video. It's quite appropriate to say the debate is over on that point.

Were the cameras used on the Moon's surface actually capable of settings that would have allowed photographing stars?

 

[zooterkin]

Were the cameras used on the Moon's surface actually capable of settings that would have allowed photographing stars?

Given the film speed, probably only if the astronauts were able to select the bulb setting to hold the shutter open for several seconds. And then they'd also. need a tripod.

 

[Mojo]

Given the film speed, probably only if the astronauts were able to select the bulb setting to hold the shutter open for several seconds. And then they'd also. need a tripod.

Would the bulb setting have been available? I'd got the impression from somewhere that the camera settings were limited to those needed for photographs of the lunar surface in sunlight.

 

[JayUtah]

Were the cameras used on the Moon's surface actually capable of settings that would have allowed photographing stars?

Given the film speed, probably only if the astronauts were able to select the bulb setting to hold the shutter open for several seconds. And then they'd also. need a tripod.

The stock Zeiss Biogon lens had a bulb setting. The Apollo-modified 60 mm Zeiss Biogon did not. Zeiss removed all the slow shutter speeds and the bulb mechanism to save on mechanical complexity and eliminate the possibility of operator error. NASA did not expect the Hasselblad 500 EL to be used for stellar photography.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, are you evading the question as to how one would see stars in a photo and determine whether they were photographed on the earth or moon, or even a specific location, like the Arizona desert?

If you can identify the planets' positions relative to each other, including the Moon and Earth (might be useful to note the Sun's aspect [which we presume we know anyway]). These aspects can then be timed and dated quite precisely. One would hope it matches the date and time of the Moon landing.