Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

It has nothing to do with them being in the thermosphere, either.

It was pointed out that images of the recent spacewalk didn't show stars, and you claimed that it had something to do with them being in "the atmosphere".

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Did you miss where I said it was related to how fast they were orbiting?

What's "it" in that sentence? Which thing is related to how fast someone was orbiting, and in what way is it related?

 

[wollery]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

Then what point was being made?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

Tell us what you know about the atmosphere at the altitude of ISS, and how it can be expected to affect the visibility of stars.

For example: What is the temperature of the atmosphere there?

 

[JayUtah]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere)

Equivocation.

"Still in Earth's atmosphere" is true only in the most negligibly technical sense. The gas density at the ISS altitude is on the order of 10^-13 kg/m³, or one trillionth the density at sea level. It is effectively hard vacuum. Air at that density has a negligible effect on light transmission.

You were told this many times.

You were also shown the computation that even at sea level atmospheric attenuation is only 20-30% and that you still need at least 7 seconds of shutter speed to expose stars on ISO 160 film. There still exists no film or sensor with the dynamic range to simultaneously expose stars and sunlit objects.

These are easily discovered facts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

Why?
The lighting conditions are the same, the subject is in direct sunlight.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

So, pray tell, what is the difference between stellar photography (or the lack thereof) on the moon, and within the thermosphere? Keep in mind that the thermosphere is, as already mentioned, about one trillionth the density of sea level atmosphere, and that the moon is also, technically, within the earth's atmosphere, in what's known as the exosphere.

In both cases, the cameras are recording images in direct sunlight, of highly reflective objects. The simple fact, which you once inadvertently acknowledged, is that the dynamic range between the brightness of stars and the brightness of an object in direct sunlight, especially an object designed to reflect said sunlight for thermodynamic reasons, is far too great to image both at the same time.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

(still in Earth's atmosphere)

(not in any meaningful way)
(you get this now, right?)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Equivocation.

"Still in Earth's atmosphere" is true only in the most negligibly technical sense. The gas density at the ISS altitude is on the order of 10^-13 kg/m³, or one trillionth the density at sea level. It is effectively hard vacuum. Air at that density has a negligible effect on light transmission.

You were told this many times.

You were also shown the computation that even at sea level atmospheric attenuation is only 20-30% and that you still need at least 7 seconds of shutter speed to expose stars on ISO 160 film. There still exists no film or sensor with the dynamic range to simultaneously expose stars and sunlit objects.

These are easily discovered facts.

My memory may be flawed, but I think the lunar exosphere isn't much more rarified than the thermosphere, maybe 10 to 100 times. I don't think it's more than 1,000. At any rate, the difference is miniscule compared to the difference of either to sea level density.

 

[JayUtah]

My memory may be flawed, but I think the lunar exosphere isn't much more rarified than the thermosphere, maybe 10 to 100 times. I don't think it's more than 1,000. At any rate, the difference is miniscule compared to the difference of either to sea level density.

It's not going to give you three orders of magnitude difference in the photometry solution.

 

[catsmate]

I said, together with being in a low-pressured environment IIRC.

This is nonsensical rubbish.
As you've already been told the internal pressure in the ISS is one atmosphere.

 

[catsmate]

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

Another pathetic attempt at distraction.

 

[steenkh]

The point being made about their being 250 miles above Earth in LEO (still in Earth's atmosphere) doing a space walk from ISS, has little to do with photography of stars from the surface of the Moon.

Nope. It is not in the Earth's atmosphere in the sense of the word that you use it. The atmosphere at that distance is what in normal terms is called a "vacuum". It has no effect on light.

ETA: Photography of stars from LEO is exactly the same as photography of stars from the Moon.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Does anyone watch Professor Dave?

He's got a two part debunk of Bart.

First part age restricted because of sweary words so won't embed.
Strange because the second part is also sweary in places.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Does anyone watch Professor Dave?

Only in small doses. His anger and exasperation, while understandable, make his critique videos unfun for me to watch.

He has other, more positive and educational videos that I sometimes enjoy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

First, I am the one who taught you that word. Until I did, you were using "geopositioned," which means something entirely different than what you intended. @JesseCuster —along with many other people—have been trying to get you to explain what you mean by "geopositioned." It's not a matter of paying attention. Only you know what you were trying to say when you misused the word.

Oh, I very much doubt whether she knows what she meant when she misused that word.

She's spent almost three months convincing us she can't explain what she meant when she wrote this:

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like. When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only. Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact', with every school kid in America inculcated with it, the 'oh-oh' problem came because NASA didn't realise there'd be a near sixty-year gap up to today's date of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover or photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor. Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'. As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy. As from NASA's POV, it'd be disastrous to come clean, so instead, we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working. NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops! The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

 

[JesseCuster]

I said, together with being in a low-pressured environment IIRC.

The inside of the ISS is pressurised to 1 atm. You are clueless.

 

[JesseCuster]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' ….

Jesus wept. You’re trying to blame the inaccurate/pseudoscientific use of the term “geopositioned” on me?

If you had paid attention you would have understood that YOU introduced the term geopositioned/geopositioning into the thread. YOU repeatedly were asked what you meant by the phrase and if you meant geostationary/selenostationary. YOU repeatedly refused to explain what you meant by the term “geopositioned”. YOU told the rest of us to search it on Google or in our local library. You were repeatedly told the term doesn’t make any sense in the context you’re trying to use it, so we’re asked REPEATEDLY to explain what YOU meant by it.

Your attempts to gaslight me and others isn’t working. edit: i don’t know if this is an attempt to gaslight me or if your memory is just that bad..

Can you please just answer the question? What do YOU mean by the phrase “geopositioned”? Do you mean “selenostationary’?

 

[Steve]

The inside of the ISS is pressurised to 1 atm. You are clueless.

Yeah! But outside where the astronauts are....... oh, wait.....

 

[Steve]

Jesus wept.

YOU introduced the term geopositioned/geopositioning into the thread. YOU repeatedly were asked what you meant by the phrase and if you meant geostationary/selenostationary. YOU repeatedly refused to explain what you meant by the term “geopositioned”. YOU told the rest of us to search it on Google or in our local library. You were repeatedly told the term doesn’t make any sense in the context you’re trying to use it, so we’re asked REPEATEDLY to explain what YOU meant by it.

Your attempts to gaslight me and others isn’t working.

Can you please just answer the question? What do YOU mean by the phrase “geopositioned”? Do you mean “selenostationary’?

I'm quite sure that Vixen had never encountered the term before introducing it into this thread. She found it on "the web" (and "the web" is full of truths).