Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Carrot Flower King]

Fun fact: I once knew a bloke who positioned oil and gas rigs in the days before GPS and the like; there were not many who could do that, so he earned many pennies and retired before any of the rest of us had even begun to think about retiring, to the point that certain folk had only really just begun to think about having a career rather than a succession of daft jobs.

Anyway, back to your main programming...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As an aside, I visited a lifeboat museum yesterday and was fascinated by a 1960s Decca navigator. I was aware the system had operated for decades before GPS rendered it obsolete, but had never known how it worked. Remarkably clever.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As an aside, I visited a lifeboat museum yesterday and was fascinated by a 1960s Decca navigator. I was aware the system had operated for decades before GPS rendered it obsolete, but had never known how it worked. Remarkably clever.

The system was developed by Decca in the UK. It was first deployed by the Royal Navy during World War II for the vital task of clearing the minefields to enable the D-Day landings
more accurate than the similar LORAN system, it was in use up to 2000.

We had a Decca navigator on one of our boats many years ago, and the charts with the overlay grids to go with it

Decca Navigator System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[catsmate]

I understood the issue immediately. If you do not understand it you can find stuff at your library or online that explains it all.

A rather pathetic, but typical, attempt at evasion. You don't have a clue, do you?

 

[catsmate]

These days any paparazzi will tell you they might take 200 shots in quick succession - in this digital age - to capture a potentially profit-making shot.

It may surprise you to know it's no longer 1969....

 

[catsmate]

My perception from past experience is that you enjoy being obtuse, not because you really care one way or the other. Thus, I would be totally wasting my time explaining any issue, which predictably you will next claim not to understand, or insert your own 'opinion' as being authoritative.

More of your usual evasion, mixed with insult, to cover your inability to answer the question.

 

[GlennB]

I understood the issue immediately. If you do not understand it you can find stuff at your library or online that explains it all.

You were asked to explain your understanding of the term “geopositioning”, not whether you understood it.

Well? Please answer the question.

 

[catsmate]

Gimme a break. NASA sent up spacecraft especially to get close up shots of various parameters in respect of yesterday's solar eclipse.

Evidence.

Don't try to sell the line astrophysics experts aren't interested in what can be seen in the firmament from the Moon's surface.

This is nonsense.

 

[catsmate]

Then in that case, look up a source that you can follow.

Yet another attempt to cover over your ignorance and lack of understanding.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Gimme a break. NASA sent up spacecraft especially to get close up shots of various parameters in respect of yesterday's solar eclipse. Don't try to sell the line astrophysics experts aren't interested in what can be seen in the firmament from the Moon's surface.

What spacecraft did NASA send up to get close up shots in respect of yesterday's eclipse?

What various parameters were they interested in?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There were two issues here: obtaining water deep within Moon rock on a dark aspect of the Moon that has never had sunlight and thus water is frozen deep within the rocks where it was vaporised by falling meteorites breaking up on impact. This extraction could indeed entail a chemical process to produce water in the form as we know it on earth. The other issue was the planned process to utilise this mined Moon 'water' as a form of fueling station to cut short the journey required for this purpose. In rocket technology this water is split into hydrogen and oxygen. Somewhere along the way in the thread, these two separate issues became conflated leading to some confusion.

Yeah, somewhere they were conflated.

...it may need electrolysis or some other combustion technique to combine it with hydrogen in order to make it water...

As for the radioactivity issue, I merely remarked that instead of spraying the returning capsule with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs' they might have been better employed partaking in standard decontamination procedures...

We all saw what you wrote. You can't weasel your way out of it no matter how much you try.

...and I quipped they would be better off running a Geiger counter over it, rather than worrying about a non-existent ecosystem, any remainders of which would have been destroyed on reentry, and in any case, meteorites and rocks hit the earth all the time from outer space...

I would have thought that a "triple niner" might have realized that the astronauts themselves, and all of their returned samples, were not directly exposed to the heat of reentry. Scientists may have considered the risk to be extremely low, but I think it's a safe assumption that they understood the difference between walking around on the lunar surface and returning to earth, and making an atmospheric reentry in a spacecraft that had never touched the lunar surface.

because the astronauts HAD been in a highly hazardous environment, once on the Moon surface and secondly, the two to four hours passing through the highly hazardous Van Allen belts.

Still won't quantify how hazardous those environments were, I see. Jay has done so. Can you provide any data to contest his summary of the Apollo astronauts' radiation exposure?

Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.

If only there was some technology available, like some sort of gimbal mount, that could slew a radio telescope at roughly half the speed of the hour hand on a 12 hour clock, so that it could track an object like the moon.

By the way, you do realize that the earth rotates at ≈15°/hour, while the moon revolves around the earth at ≈0.5°/hour, yes? So can you explain how your "geopositioned" satellite would somehow make it possible to communicate between the two bodies, while line of sight antennae would not?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NASA had a near bottomless budget.

And commercial photographers did not. And commercial photographers had the opportunity to swap film backs on their studio cameras with ease, which astronauts did not. And commercial photographers did not want to run off a hundred shots before they could process the first few shots on a roll which was not a concern for the astronauts.

You appear to be arguing against yourself. The justifications for NASA opting for extra long film rolls on a very thin base material are entirely practical common sense.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Gimme a break. NASA sent up spacecraft especially to get close up shots of various parameters in respect of yesterday's solar eclipse.

And did this "spacecraft" use ASA 160 Ektachrome film? What do you think your point is here?

Don't try to sell the line astrophysics experts aren't interested in what can be seen in the firmament from the Moon's surface.

That is your straw man. The Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph was used during Apollo 16 to capture photos and spectra of astronomical subjects in wavelengths never seen before. Pictures of stars in visible light, even without trying to do something futile like image them in the same frame with objects on the lunar surface in direct sunlight, would be time consuming and of no scientific value, and therefore a colossal waste of time.

 

[Mojo]

If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale...

It was, in 1959.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale and how come it was not listed in the 'prize winners' marketing material?

High Speed Ektachrome, ASA 160, was available to the public in 1959.

Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.

This has been covered. The difference is small. Stars seen in space are not bright enough to show up on 160 film at f-5.6 and 1/125 sec.

 

[Mojo]

I understood the issue immediately. If you do not understand it you can find stuff at your library or online that explains it all.

You didn't even understand the question you were asked. It wasn't asking for the generally accepted meaning of the term, it was asking what you meant by it.

If you have published it somewhere, please give references so it can be looked up at a library or online. Otherwise you will need to post it here.

 

[Mojo]

Don't try to sell the line astrophysics experts aren't interested in what can be seen in the firmament from the Moon's surface.

I notice that Vixen is now invoking the prescientific concept of the firmament. Is she planning a move into Flat Earthism, or possibly YEC?

 

[Mojo]

Then in that case, look up a source that you can follow.

You're still not grasping what people are asking of you.

 

[Mojo]

Stop inventing tasks for the astronauts which everyone knows they were not given.

"Close up shots of various parameters" indeed. Good grief.

The Moon is much nearer the firmament, obvs.

 

[Mojo]

NASA had a near bottomless budget.

Let's see how we got to this:

Why would professional photographers want film magazines capable of 100s of images?

These days any paparazzi will tell you they might take 200 shots in quick succession - in this digital age - to capture a potentially profit-making shot.

These days are not those days. Space on a memory card is reusable, and thus essentially free. E6 film is expensive and, obviously, not reusable.

NASA had a near bottomless budget.

Believe it or not, professional photographers do not have access to NASA's budget. Unless, I suppose, they are employed as photographers by NASA.