Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

You are just deliberately trolling now.

Stop judging others by your own standards.

 

[Steve]

Sorry to disappoint you yet again. Just because you and Junkshop didn't know it really doesn't follow that I don't either.

Now we are up to 3:

 

[zooterkin]

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

No, that would be Morgan Spurlock.

 

[Vixen]

No, it both amuses and fascinates me. I suspect it would fascinate a fair few professionals as well.

Of which I am one.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Does 'crisp'mean brighter?

How much brighter?

 

[Steve]

That feeling will not go away even if accepting what she means instead of what she writes.

So in your world "The side of the moon that never receives sunlight" can be interpreted as "craters on the moon that never receive sunlight"? Your flexibility of language is similar to Vixen's. Remarkable!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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'.

160 ASA film. Not 64 ASA. Didn't you wonder why everyone keeps saying 160? Kodak's famous Kodachrome film was familiarly available in 64 ASA. Perhaps that's where you got that number from. Goodness knows.

You didn't call the Kodak staff "the Ektachrome bods" you referred to Ektachrome as supplier of expertise. The equivalent of "Big Mac modified the hamburgers". You try too hard to sound as if you understand stuff you don't, and it keeps tripping you up.

<edit to correct myself> Actually I see you did refer to "Ektachrome bods" when challenged over "Kodak/Ektachrome set up the film, settings and mechanism". So I take that back.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Previous answer (not yours) was about half a stop.

Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[Vixen]

64ASA? Citation, please.


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

Soz, 64 ASA was the Earth standard ATT. The lunar surface one was 160 ASA (now ISO).

 

[wollery]

Well, Vixen.

Do you know how much brighter stars are from the surface of the Moon than they are from the surface of the Earth?

Can you put a number on it?

 

[Vixen]

160 ASA film. Not 64 ASA. Didn't you wonder why everyone keeps saying 160? Kodak's famous Kodachrome film was familiarly available in 64 ASA. Perhaps that's where you got that number from. Goodness knows.

You didn't call the Kodak staff "the Ektachrome bods" you referred to Ektachrome as supplier of expertise. The equivalent of "Big Mac modified the hamburgers". You try too hard to sound as if you understand stuff you don't, and it keeps tripping you up.

I am not going to argue as to whether it was Eastman Kodak or Kodak Ektachrome or just Ektachrome for short. And it was especially modified for lunar photography so I am not sure what the salient point is. You say tomato I say tomato.

ETA and it was an Ektachrome bod as it was the Ektachrome film that was especially modified for the lunar Hasselblads.

 

[Vixen]

Well, Vixen.

Do you know how much brighter stars are from the surface of the Moon than they are from the surface of the Earth?

Can you put a number on it?

It would depend (a) where on the Moon, (b) time of day and (c) level of glare, together with the overall background brightness of the ground (or albedo).

 

[zooterkin]

Soz, 64 ASA was the Earth standard ATT. The lunar surface one was 160 ASA (now ISO).

Bollocks it was.

As already mentioned, Ektachrome was 160 ASA on Earth, and on the Moon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am not sure what the salient point is.

That's because you do such a thorough job of obfuscating the salient point.

The salient point is, how to photograph stars successfully with 160 ASA film, and a camera that only allows 1/125 second at f5.6 as its maximum exposure.

Answer: You can't. Somehow you can't bring yourself to say "you can't".

 

[Andy_Ross]

Soz, 64 ASA was the Earth standard ATT. The lunar surface one was 160 ASA (now ISO).

Kodachrome original speed was ISO 10. Later versions were ISO 25 and ISO 64. with the faster ISO 200 in 1986.

Ektachrome was originally ISO 8 with an ISO 10 version for artificial lighting.
ISO 160 was released in 1959 and at the time of Apollo was the fastest colour reversal film available.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It would depend (a) where on the Moon, (b) time of day and (c) level of glare, together with the overall background brightness of the ground (or albedo).

Those factors would affect the brightness of other things. But they would not change the brightness of the stars.

 

[wollery]

It would depend (a) where on the Moon, (b) time of day and (c) level of glare, together with the overall background brightness of the ground (or albedo).

Let's start by assuming it is night, that the Sun is on the opposite side of the Moon and Earth, so Insolation and glare are not an issue.

Let's also assume that the sky on Earth is clear and free from clouds, and that the air is still.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am not going to argue as to whether it was Eastman Kodak or Kodak Ektachrome or just Ektachrome for short. And it was especially modified for lunar photography so I am not sure what the salient point is. You say tomato I say tomato.

ETA and it was an Ektachrome bod as it was the Ektachrome film that was especially modified for the lunar Hasselblads.

How was it modified?

 

[EHocking]

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.

Oh, as expected facts have been ignored. requote for highlight

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.

 

[EHocking]

My understanding tops yours because they did indeed.

Nope. NASA specified requirements to equipment changes required from their contractors.
Hasselblad and Kodak supplied bespoke equipment to NASA specifications.