• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Andy_Ross said:
Although there's no glow left in the radium/phospher paint on the hour markers now.
Click to expand...
...because radioisotopic decay is governed by an exponential process, unlike secondary radiation. Inherently radioactive materials (which is what @Vixen wrongly things lunar surface material is) will emit radiation as an effect of the decay process for as long as there is undecayed material, and according to a schedule dictated by the decay constant. See the Shroud of Turin thread for an example of someone who deeply misunderstands that principle.

Materials that radiofluoresce or exhibit other secondary emission behavior (which is what the lunar surface actually is) will keep doing so for as long as the primary influx persists, and to a proportional degree.

wollery said:
They are, in point of fact, the only stable baryon.
Click to expand...
That's their unique quark quirk.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
What was the bespoke part?
The film emulsions weren't bespoke.
Click to expand...
The emulsion wasn't bespoke.
The polyester base wasn't bespoke.
The thinbase format wasn't bespoke.
The sprocketing wasn't bespoke.
The longroll format wasn't bespoke.

In fact the newest part of the whole package was the thinbase, released in 1967. This had previously been used in the film-based spy satellites. As I said a while back, the cameras that came with our SR-71 and/or U-2 at the museum still had some of this film stock in them, but I couldn't grab any before they got sent off for refurb.

Granted the specific package was almost certainly a special order, specially negotiated between NASA and Kodak. But that doesn't many any part of the package was made specifically for Apollo and never used or found elsewhere. My company sells products that we make to order. They're manufactured only when specially ordered, but they're not in any way bespoke.

There is simply no point to NASA wanting some special kind of film that hadn't existed before. Such a thing would be an unknown, which is a risk. On the contrary, we generally only select something for use in space after it has accumulated a commercial usage record of about ten years. Only then do we have a sufficient knowledge base to determine what its likely behavior will be. By choosing a popular existing film stock, NASA is able to benefit from the vast collective experience of the relevant community.
 
JayUtah said:
The emulsion wasn't bespoke.
The polyester base wasn't bespoke.
The thinbase format wasn't bespoke.
The sprocketing wasn't bespoke.
The longroll format wasn't bespoke.

In fact the newest part of the whole package was the thinbase, released in 1967. This had previously been used in the film-based spy satellites. As I said a while back, the cameras that came with our SR-71 and/or U-2 at the museum still had some of this film stock in them, but I couldn't grab any before they got sent off for refurb.

Granted the specific package was almost certainly a special order, specially negotiated between NASA and Kodak. But that doesn't many any part of the package was made specifically for Apollo and never used or found elsewhere. My company sells products that we make to order. They're manufactured only when specially ordered, but they're not in any way bespoke.

There is simply no point to NASA wanting some special kind of film that hadn't existed before. Such a thing would be an unknown, which is a risk. On the contrary, we generally only select something for use in space after it has accumulated a commercial usage record of about ten years. Only then do we have a sufficient knowledge base to determine what its likely behavior will be. By choosing a popular existing film stock, NASA is able to benefit from the vast collective experience of the relevant community.
Click to expand...
You always answer before Vixen. 😂
Remember, in situations like this, only ask a question you know the answer to 😂
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, I quipped they'd be better off running a Geiger counter over the craft rather than spraying it with Dettol. A joke shouldn't need to be explained. If you don't get it, you don't get it. <shrug>
Click to expand...
It wasn't a joke. At least not one you intended to make. You seemed pretty serious when you were sharing illustrative accounts of someone dying young of bone cancer, and someone else having a child born with a birth defect that you suggested could have been a result of exposure to radioactive samples. Or are you in the habit of including such anecdotes in your jokes?
 
Hi Vixen, among all the nonsense about bespoke Ektachrome, you seem to have missed this question:
Mojo said:
What type of film do you think would be "optimal" for simultaneously exposing the sunlit lunar surface correctly and showing stars in the sky? Can you name one, just one, capable of doing this?
Click to expand...
Can you name one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom