Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

... I don't actually remember anyone asking how they got the position of the Moon right, but happy to be proved wrong. It certainly wasn't me.

Closest I can recall is Vixen implying NASA couldn't have planned in advance which stars to show in the sky and I pointed out that if NASA could perform the calculations to place a spacecraft on a particular spot on the moon at a particular time it was beyond ridiculous to suggest they would be incapable of calculating which constellations should then appear overhead.

 

[threadworm]

Please may I ask you do not quote me out of context. The thrust of my post was about the possibility of mining water ice for the purpose of refuelling. Changing the subject to do I know what a side is was typical distraction instead of acknowledging that the plans for refuelling stations using this 'water' was perfectly correct. People are so focused on yelling, 'wrong!' instead of contributing. Obviously I am not referring to those who do contribute positively to the thread, just the occasions people prefer to talk about typos, or hurling insults.

ETA As for geopositioned satellites the point being made there was that there wasn't a geopositioned (or geostationed) one in place as of the time of the 'live' TV broadcast. I went on to describe this as orbiting the said planet (Moon) at the same speed so that it was stationary to the fixed spot. Thus, your complaint of wrong word is just a distraction from the point being made that as well as having to plan successful landing and timing with Collins, still in orbit, they somehow also had the additional burden of organising a satellite that could beam film from the camera to earth at that exact spot.

But let's ignore that point - although someone did answer it - and focus on the word 'geopositioned' twenty pages later, instead.

Ignoring all the incorrect terminology, why would there need to be a satellite above the moon to broadcast anything? The location on moon itself is in a fixed spot. The only changing variable is the Earth's rotation, and that's accounted for by having receiving stations (and the microwave and geostationary satellites to distribute the signal).

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No wonder nobody could work out what you were talking about. It seems that by "geopositioned" you intended to mean a satellite which orbits the moon and appears at a stationary point in the sky when viewed from the moon. The lunar equivalent of a geostationary satellite above the earth.

As the earth rotates every 24 hours, a geostationary satellite has to orbit every 24 hours too. That fixes the height of its geosynchronous orbit, which works out at at a bit less than 36,000 km above the earth's equator.

As the moon only rotates once every month, your "geopositioned" satellite would have to orbit the moon every month too. That makes its lunar synchronised orbit a good deal larger. More than 380,000 km. There is in fact an object which already does this. It's the planet earth. The earth, you will note, appears to hover at a fixed point in the sky when viewed from the moon. Any artificial satellite trying to perform the same task would be the same distance from the moon.

So in a funny way, your "geopositioned" terminology works. It is a satellite which is in the same position as the Earth. Geo-positioned. There was indeed a direct line-of-sight radio link from Tranquility Base to the "geopositioned" satellite we call "Earth".

Look at it this way, a 'lunarstationary' artificial satellite would become geopostionable object (well, hole in the ground) within a month of launch.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You were doing what?

Please quote this post of mine you think your post was in response to.

Was it really that hard to get the position of the Moon right? The answer was 'Under their feet'.

 

[Vixen]

This isn't a debate...This is an area where there are facts or not, there isn't anything to "debate".

Ad hom coming from you is a bit rich when you have directly accused me of trolling (you must remember where and when, given your perfect memory), especially when I haven't ad hom'd you.

Pointing out things you haven't understood is not an ad hom. Accusing someone of trolling is. Sort out your motes and beams, please.

I don't recall that at all. I doubt I have ever called anyone a troll.

 

[Vixen]

Which of the settings had, at least in principle, any chance of capturing stars when they "had a bash"? Is it none of them?

Yep. It's none of them. The stars were far, far too faint.

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

 

[wollery]

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

How much brighter are they on the Moon than on the Earth?

 

[Vixen]

What you're saying is like "Big Mac is a brand name but then so is McDonalds".
Ektachrome is a product, and Kodak is the company which made it.

Pointless quibble. Eastman Kodak provided 64ASA Ektachrome film especially modified to the Hasselblads.. = Ektachrome for short.

If McDonald's were providing Big Macs it is perfectly acceptable to call the specialist called in 'the Big Mac bod'.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How much brighter are they on the Moon than on the Earth?

What, you've never heard of the inky brightness of space?

 

[Vixen]

How much brighter are they on the Moon than on the Earth?

Refer to previous answer. On Earth they twinkle on the Moon they appear 'crisp'.

 

[zooterkin]

Pointless quibble. Eastman Kodak provided 64ASA Ektachrome film especially modified to the Hasselblads.. = Ektachrome for short.

64ASA? Citation, please.


ETA: Though if true, would make it even less likely to see stars in the background with the available settings.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Apollo guys didn’t need to.

In the preceding Gemini and Mercury programs, extensive photography experiments were performed by astronauts inflight when NASA realised the full potential of the recording medium, including still and movie photography.
These formal experiments tested photographic equipment and methodology as well as testing the target subjects : the earth’s surface and weather as well as of astronauts inside the capsule and outside during EVAs.

Unsurprisingly during the formal photographic experiments spot meters were used when conditions were tricky or unknown.

Moon landers and Ranger, Surveyor, and the Lunar Orbiter, as early as 1964, took upwards 100,000 photos of the lunar surface. By the time Apollo came about, a lot was known about the sunlight strength at the moon as well as the moon’s own albedo.

Subsequently, nasa was not unfamiliar with the expected photographic environment in transit or on the lunar surface.
This is why their equipment and the setting parameters used worked.

If you are truly interested, here is the article outlining the above.
Here is the NASA Apollo Experience Report regarding how and why the photography program was developed for Apollo flights and astronauts as well as details of the photographic equipment used on all Apollo missions.

Frankly your entire “argument” can be debunked thoroughly by a single photo from the report.
(ironic, eh?)

This model was used by Apollo 11 astronauts.

View attachment 73574

Foul!

The rules say every bit of evidence has to be looked at independently from all the other evidence. Especially anything that came before it.

 

[zooterkin]

Refer to previous answer. On Earth they twinkle on the Moon they appear 'crisp'.

Which, as any fule kno, is nothing to do with brightness, and everything to do with atmosphere.

 

[wollery]

Refer to previous answer. On Earth they twinkle on the Moon they appear 'crisp'.

Give me a number.

How much brighter are they in percentage terms?

Maybe you’d prefer to use apparent magnitude, or maybe optical intensity?

 

[Andy_Ross]

This has been answered numerous times. The sceptics who say the TV broadcast was faked claim that would be the reason NASA left out the night sky view as - they propose - the filming/photography was shot in advance in Nevada or Arizona desert. The debunkers claim, it is not possible to photograph the stars, is based on how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome. But Kodak/Ektachrome has the technology to have added a setting for starry sky pics.

Added a setting to what?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I understand it, Kodak/Ektachrome set up the film, settings and mechanisms for the bespoke Hasselblads the astronauts were to use.

Then your understanding is lacking.

 

[Vixen]

You made a number of stupid errors and continually refuse to admit them. Grow up.

Do you mind?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wrong again! Ektachrome bods designing the specs were central to the Apollo photography programme.

You are just deliberately trolling now.

 

[Vixen]

Then your understanding is lacking.

My understanding tops yours because they did indeed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

Extremely bright? It has previously been suggested that, without the effects of Earth's atmosphere, the stars would appear perhaps half a stop brighter, in photographic terms. Does that sound about right to you? If not, feel free to tell us what figure you suggest.

And that brings us back around to how long a shutter speed you would need to successfully photograph the stars if your camera was loaded with 160 ASA film and the aperture of your lens was set to f5.6. You previously agreed this would be in the order of tens of seconds. A speed of 1/125 of a second would be hopeless. Do you now disagree?

It does seem as if you aren't saying anything more than the stars at night look bright because everything else is dark. But of course the astronauts were not on the moon at night. They were there in daylight. And everything around them was sunlit. You remember this, right? It's why their cameras were set for a range of exposures for sunlit objects.