Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Nice tap dance ... but while you were practicing for your recital , you just debunked this nasa astronomer ...http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html and also your hero Phil Plait , the bad nasa astronomer . Phil Plaits BadAstronomy Website- NO STARS IN *PICTURES* - Moon hoax de-bunking section! " The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " I will post a more detailed rebuttal later when have more time . Ah..no I didn't "debunk" either of them. The POD site says it MIGHT look like the drawing. They did not say, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE STARS IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT! As for Phil, again not debunked at all. IF you could remove ALL of the ambient light you MIGHT be able to see stars. Simply standing in the bright sun and looking up...no way. Stars are far too dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 Ah..no I didn't "debunk" either of them. The POD site says it MIGHT look like the drawing. They did not say, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE STARS IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT! As for Phil, again not debunked at all. IF you could remove ALL of the ambient light you MIGHT be able to see stars. Simply standing in the bright sun and looking up...no way. Stars are far too dim. What an utterly ridiculous excuse . Ah..no I didn't "debunk" either of them. "The POD site says it MIGHT look like the drawing. They did not say, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE STARS IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT!" NO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO SAY THAT, THATS WHY THEY PUBLISHED THE PICTURE! The Astronomers didn't publish a picture with the Sun without any stars so I think its safe to assume they meant to include the stars. "As for Phil, again not debunked at all. IF you could remove ALL of the ambient light you MIGHT be able to see stars. Simply standing in the bright sun and looking up...no way. Stars are far too dim". Heres how you remove all the ambient light if you are an Apollo Astronot on the Moon. You face away from the Sun and lift your helmet away from the 12.5% average *at full moon* reflective dark grey surface, towards the lunar sky( that isn't full of atmospheric scattered sunlight because its a vacuum) and look at the millions of not twinkleling points of light. Perhaps you need to send Phil Plait an e-mail and correct him because your astronomical knowledge obviously far outweighs his! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Good grief Duane.... DId you LOOK at the POD picture? If you did, LOOK AGAIN! If earth had a black sky, and YOU WERE STANDING LOOKING AT THE SUN!, you would NOT SEE STARS! Sheesh. You STILL assume that you could block the ambient daylight on the moon my simply tipping your head backwards. Your position demads that it is a true statement. You cannot prove the statement. Try again next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 Perhaps you can't read ... So I will try this one more time . Phil Plaits BadAstronomy Website- NO STARS IN *PICTURES* - Moon hoax de-bunking section! " The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " NOW YOU DISPROVE HIM AND THE NASA ASTRONOMERS....THE LAST TIME I CHECKED , THE EARTHS ALBEDO WAS A LOT MORE THAN THE MOONS , SO I PRESUME THEY MAY WELL HAVE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY PUBLISHED THAT . Try again next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Perhaps you can't read ... So I will try this one more time .Phil Plaits BadAstronomy Website- NO STARS IN *PICTURES* - Moon hoax de-bunking section! " The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " NOW YOU DISPROVE HIM AND THE NASA ASTRONOMERS....THE LAST TIME I CHECKED , THE EARTHS ALBEDO WAS A LOT MORE THAN THE MOONS , SO I PRESUME THEY MAY WELL HAVE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY PUBLISHED THAT . Try again next time. Once again, for the fool hardy. YOU WOULD NEED TO BLOCK ALL THE AMBIENT LIGHT TO SEE STARS ON THE MOON! The NASA POD shows an image of the direct sun. Its impossible to view both the direct sun AND stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " This would be the case if you let your eyes adjust to the darkness. Some simple (and not so simple) things to try. - Pick a nice cloudless night, preferably with a full moon. After being inside your house, go outside and immediately see how many stars you can see. - Remain outside, do not look at any lights (they should be off), and just close your eyes. Every 5 minutes, have a look at the sky again and the stars that are visible; can you see more of them? Do this for about 20 minutes. Also note how your night vision of objects around you improves as time goes on. - Repeat the experiment, but this time on a night where there is no moon. How many more stars can you see initially? Do you see more stars in a shorter length of time than in the first experiment? - The ultimate, and known to most anyone who has been bridge crew of a ship at night, or sailed a ship far at sea at night. You are away from all ambient light, and have let your eyes become night-adjusted (normally takes about 30 minutes). The ship is dark except for navigation lights. You look into the sky and there are a multitude of stars visible, more than you normally ever see. It really drives home the differences. Now, what I am driving at is that there are a number of factors involved. First, there is letting your eyes become accustomed to the light levels. It normally takes a few minutes, and normally up to 30 minutes from brightness to total dark. Next is the amount of ambient light around you. This effects just how much your eyes will open (i.e. how much light it will let in). Even relatively small amounts of light will have an effect. Lastly, the brightness of the objects you are looking at plays a part. Naturally, the brighter they are, the easier they will be to see - but the brighter they are, they tend to "drown out" dimmer objects around them. The light levels on the moon were roughly equivalent to that you'd experience on the Earth. Without an atmosphere, however, there are no minute particles to 'scatter' the light. This is why the lunar sky appears black whereas the sky from Earth is blue (let's not bring Raleigh Scattering right now). This means the stars do not have to compete against a "light" background to be seen on the moon - but your eyes still have to adjust in order to see them. The astronauts were normally focused firmly on the lunar surface, both because they were interested in the geology (seneology?) and they were watching where they were walking. If they took the time, they could move to a shadowed area (to help reduce ambient light), look up into the lunar sky (again, reducing the light), allow their eyes to 'dark adapt', and stars would become more and more visible. They didn't though, and for a very good reason - time. Every minute counted. They had limited time and lots to do. Read through the voice transcripts; they were always being reminded of their timeline. They couldn't afford the time to just stay still and let themselves dark adapt. Perhaps the sight may have been spectacular, but it would not have been significantly different to what some of them had already seen and there was simply no good scientific reason for them to do so. The Apollo CSM in orbit could do that; it couldn't collect samples from the lunar surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Author Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) Okay , so now both you and Craig have claimed that stars can not be seen from the Lunar surface .... You have also claimed that no Apollo astronauts ever saw any stars from the Lunar surface ... and even the Apollo 11 astronauts claimed they never saw any stars . Yet astronomer Phil Plait clearly stated that stars can be seen from the Lunar surface during the daytime ... I also found this article which appears to refute the claims of not seeing any stars by the Apollo 11 crew including navagator Mike Collins . " Stars, what stars? Dr. Neville Jones Copyright © 2005 Dr. N.T. Jones. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce this page on condition that the content is not changed in any way. From the 1970 book, "First On The Moon: A Voyage With Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.," by Gene Farmer and Dora Hamblin, published by Michael Joseph Ltd., London, we read that, "[Michael] Collin's job was flying the command and service module, and handling the celestial navigation. He navigated Apollo 11 out there, and he navigated it home again. Buzz Aldrin also had a few thoughts on that subject … 'The stars are, as Jim Lovell said, your best friends. They sit there and you line up on them and you know where you are. … For spacecraft navigation - getting there and back - we use thirty-seven stars - plus the earth, the sun and the moon. We don't use Venus, but we do use Polaris, Rigel, Capella, Canopus, Sirius, Antares, Vega, Arcturus, Altair and a big one called Fomalhaut which is less widely known. You sight a pair of stars and mark on each one. Then the computer will calculate spacecraft attitude.' " That's very interesting, because when Patrick Moore asked the three astronauts a direct question, during the post-flight interview, about the visibility of the stars during the period of time that they were allegedly photographing the solar corona (a small ring of light around the Sun), they all denied seeing any. This could not have been put down to any sort of glare on the lunar surface, since Collins was not on the lunar surface (just as Armstrong and Aldrin weren't), nor would Collins have been wearing a visor. The stars all around the Sun, even quite close to it in angular extent, would be very bright indeed. You can verify this for yourselves if you pick a time and day when Venus is above your horizon, just hold your thumb up to obscure the immense glare of the Sun (never look directly at the Sun at any time other than sunrise or sunset) and, lo and behold, you can see Venus very easily. So it would have been for the astronots; by looking at the heavens in all directions other than directly towards the Sun, they would have seen the stars very easily. It would have been impossible to miss them. Unless the astronots were blind. Or unless, of course, they were not where we are told that they were. The visors could not have been so dark that the stars became invisible, since the astronots were able to see without difficulty in the shadows of the "landing module." Here is the actual response and they certainly do not sound like men who are speaking with any authority on the issue (in this clip you will hear Patrick Moore ask the question, Neil Armstrong reply and then Michael Collins come in at the end with, "I don't remember seeing any.") : So, a few days after returning, their navigator, who needed to mark the brightest stars in various constellations in order to rendezvous with the Moon in one direction, and the World in the other, "[could not] remember seeing any." Hmmm, I see, said the blind man. Did he spend his time looking directly at the Sun? Notice, also, that Neil Armstrong clearly implied that they could see them "through the optics." Whatever these "optics" were, they obviously did not include the best medium-format cameras available either then or now - Hasselblad - because no stars were ever photographed on any "Apollo mission." http://geocentricperspective.com/page53.htm Edited October 1, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) Okay , so now both you and Craig have claimed that stars can not be seen from the Lunar surface .... You have also claimed that no Apollo astronauts ever saw any stars from the Lunar surface ... and even the Apollo 11 astronauts claimed they never saw any stars . No, that is NOT what I have said. I have said it is possible to see stars from the lunar surface if the time and conditions are taken for the eyes to adjust. I also said that I thought (that is, when I used the term "IIRC") there were transmissions of the astronauts saying they could see the stars during EVAs but I was wrong. They did mention seeing stars through the AOT, and there was a quote that said Gener Cernan said he did see stars from the surface during an EVA, but he did not actually say this in a voice transmission to Houston during the moonwalk. I'll pull up the relevant quotes - again - shortly. Edited October 1, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 This is the quote, from here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120609 Turns out I was wrong; no-one specifically mentions seeing the stars from the lunar surface. There are examples of mentioning the Earth, though, which I have included in the list below.The list below are various discussions and quotes where the astronauts mention what stars they could see. Mostly they talk about seeing stars through the AOT (Alignment Optical Telescope)- a sextant like in the CM, but in the LM. It is taken from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. APOLLO 11 [buzz is at the end of the top paragraph on Sur-3. Houston will look over the proposed alignment before it is loaded.] [Aldrin - "You've got the previous alignment in the AGS and you've just re-aligned the PGNS and, if that (new PGNS alignment) isn't very good, you don't want to screw up the one in the AGS. If it is (good), you store it in the AGS."] [Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "The ideal was to get a gravity direction and then to do a two-star alignment and look at the torquing angles after the two-star check which would then give an indication as to what the drift had been since the last alignment. The initial gravity alignment, combined with the two-star alignment, would produce a new location of the landing site. (See below.) Had we landed straight ahead (instead of being yawed left 13 degrees), my intent was to use Rigel in the left detent number 6 and Capella in the right detent. The 13-degree yaw moved Capella out of the right-rear detent, but Rigel was in good shape there. That's the one I used first. I then selected Navi in number 4 detent, the right rear, and that wasn't particularly satisfactory. It was quite dim and it took a good bit longer than I had hoped to get the marks on that."] [Contrary to Buzz's statement here, the alignment procedures gave no information about landing site location. Frank O'Brien adds, " The gravity alignment and stellar alignments performed the same function, namely, to align the IMU to a known attitude. In both cases, the attitude was determined with respect to two vectors: either two stars (a stellar alignment) or one star and the local vertical as indicated by gravity (a gravity alignment). Neither procedure was used to determine position, which was the purpose of the state vector."] (snip) 103:22:04 Duke: Tranquility Base, Houston. If you have not done so, please close both Fuel and Ox vents now. Over. 103:22:17 Armstrong: They're closed. 103:22:18 Duke: Thank you, sir. (Long Pause) 103:22:30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful. Buzz is going to give a try at seeing some stars through the optics. 103:22:54 Duke: Roger, Tranquility. We understand. Must be a beautiful sight. Over. [Comm Break] [buzz is about to do a platform alignment using the Alignment Optical Telescope ( AOT) to do star sightings. Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside. I asked the 11 crew if they had made any such experiment.] [Armstrong - "I don't recall doing it on the surface. We tried a good bit inside."] [Aldrin - "I guess I wouldn't have given it any hope at all."] [Armstrong - "There was a thought that, if you could look through a tube, you would probably be able to see stars. I don't remember that we tried anything like that."] [Aldrin - "You could see them in the AOT, which was sort of like that."] [Armstrong - "Which was just one power (meaning a telescope with no magnification)."] [A related question is whether or not stellar images could have been captured in any of the lunar surface photography. A discussion from Sky and Telescope Editor Dennis di Ciccio is linked here. (snip) APOLLO 16 125:56:33 Young: Because I can't make it. (Hearing Tony) Okay, Reset; Mark. 258, 64. 125:56:40 England: Rog. (Long Pause) 125:57:11 Duke: Man, that (UV camera) is some contraption, John. (Long Pause) 125:57:34 Young: 258 and 64, Houston. 125:57:37 England: Okay, fine. We'd like you to get on in then. 125:57:42 Young: Okay. That's not looking at anything that I recognize. (Long Pause) [AZ258 and EL64 do not correspond to any of the targets listed on the UV camera decal. Because the lunar surface is so bright, he is probably not able to see any stars and, therefore, would not be commenting on his aim relative to the constellations.] (snip) [Jones - "Could you see stars out in the shadow?"] [Duke - "No. The only thing that was visible was the Sun and the Earth. The UV camera was just looking up into the heavens all the time, to me; and I don't know what they were looking at. We didn't take the time to dark adapt."] (snip) My additional bolding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Author Share Posted October 1, 2007 Quoting dialoge from the ALSJ proves nothing , as it was all staged on moonsets . Here's the bottom line about the ability to see stars from the real Lunar surface . According to nasa shill Jay Windley ... "Because the sky on the moon is black, we tend to believe the viewing conditions are the same as night on earth. Not true. The sun shines just as brightly (slightly brighter, in fact) on the lunar surface, and so the astronauts' eyes (and camera apertures) were set for photographing in daylight conditions. Neil Armstrong reported not seeing any stars from the lunar surface, except through the navigation scopes (where the eyepiece screened out the other lights). Ed Mitchell reported seeing stars only when he specifically shut out extraneous light. " And according to nasa's bad astronomer Phil Plait ... "The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " Do you see the contradiction there ? ... So who are you gonna believe ? ... A nasa disinformation agent like Jay , or an astronomer who didn't realize he was refutting nasa and the Apollo astronot's claims of not being able to see stars on the Moon , with that one honest scientific statement ? This time , I'm going with Phil .. and trust me , that's something I thought I would never say ! Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. " YEP . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't see a contradiction. You'd have to move into shadow and let your eyes adjust to see stars. Some of the brightest may be visible almost immediately, or without having to move into shadow. I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make is, though. Gene Cernan says he saw them after moving into shadow. Duke mentions he didn't take time to dark adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I've been given permission to post this copy of a letter from Jerry Lodriguss, who actually made the image that the thread is about. "Anyone with a basic knowledge of photography will realize that stars were not recorded on the Apollo photos because the correct exposure was for the sun-lit foreground and these exposures were too short to record stars. "My illustration, which was not a "real" scene, of the location of the Sun against the starry background on the Summer Solstice, was a composite image made of several exposures - one very long 15 minute exposure at night for the stars, and a much shorter composite in the daytime for the Sun. "Had the Apollo astronauts put their cameras on a tripod and used long exposures, they definitely would have recorded stars in the black sky during daytime on the Moon, but then the foreground in the sunshine, the astronauts and rocks on the lunar surface, would have been so overexposed no detail would have been recorded there. "Even on Earth, if you use a daytime exposure at night, say 1/100th second at f/16 at ISO 100 (probably similar to what the Astronauts used on the Moon) you will not record any stars either. And this is not proof that man has not walked on the surface of the Earth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Anyone with a basic knowledge of photography will realize that stars were not recorded on the Apollo photos because the correct exposure was for the sun-lit foreground and these exposures were too short to record stars. First off you appear to have presented an edited format of the reply you received. Whats missing? ... I understand COMPLETELY about the correct exposure for the sun-lit foreground Astro-not lunar scenes and why they were too short too record stars. My illustration, which was not a "real" scene, of the location of the Sun against the starry background on the Summer Solstice, was a composite image made of several exposures - one very long 15 minute exposure at night for the stars, and a much shorter composite in the daytime for the Sun. I also understand it wasn't a "real" scene and was a "composite" image made of several exposures... It was a composite image with the following description " If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini." ... and Mr Lodigrus doesn't appear to be disputing Mr Plait either... "Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day." Had the Apollo astronauts put their cameras on a tripod and used long exposures, they definitely would have recorded stars in the black sky during daytime on the Moon, but then the foreground in the sunshine, the astronauts and rocks on the lunar surface, would have been so overexposed no detail would have been recorded there. I am very well aware of that.... In fact if you had checked Greenmagoos description out at the following video , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCopNZzy3fw "No reasonable excuse has ever been given why a tripod stand ( STANDARD for any other photographic assignment) wasn't taken and the Hassleblad set for a longer exposure to take pictures of stars above an overexposed moonset ." The lack of tripod stand and NO change of exposure setting has been noticed by conspiracy researchers.. . I would presume that the information Burton presented from the ALSJ regarding STARS is the sum total of discussion ( all post flight) about STARS and therefore NOT ONCE during any mission did CAPCOM ask the Astro-nots to visually describe what they were experiencing above there heads. .. Very unusual! ... Its not as if NASA wouldn't have been interested in what the view was like.... In fact Apollo astronot John Young was quite a keen advocate of setting up a permanent observatory on the Moon. QUESTION ... Did NASA not have any Astronomers employed during Apollo? Even on Earth, if you use a daytime exposure at night, say 1/100th second at f/16 at ISO 100 (probably similar to what the Astronauts used on the Moon) you will not record any stars either. And this is not proof that man has not walked on the surface of the Earth. No its not proof.... But not taking a tripod stand, or changing the exposure setting to fill a magazine of stars above an overexposed LM on the lunar surface and not asking Apollo Astro-nots to describe for the watching viewers what it was like to experience THOUSANDS of not twinkleing point of light without a thick Earth atmosphere in the way IS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Dude, its time to put on your thinking cap, if you even have one so you can get to the "AH" moment...which must come BEFORE you can have an "AH HA" Regardless of what you want to think about the POD composite or any words written about it, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to see both the sun and the stars at the same time....period. The "AH" moment is the one where you figure out that the sun would stop the eyes down way too much to see the stars. On BA's comment, he is correct you SHOULD be able to see statrs onthe moon IF...and this is a BIG IF (and also your "AH" moment) you could block the rays of the sun, AND ALL EXTRANOUS LIGHT from entering your eyes. In other words your eyes would need to dark adapt. And that ain't gonna happen by just throwing your head back in your spacesuit helmet. Why did they not spend valuable time on the moon, and use up valuable payload capacity to take a tripod? Why should they? (you know your next "AH" moment is coming...right?) The view of the stars from the moon would not be any much more impressive that the view from a high, darksky spot here on earth on a perfect night. Study Seeing and Transparency for another "AH" moment. Much more important matters were at hand. After all why travel 250,000 miles to view the same stars you can see on Earth? And finally, you suggest they should have filled a magazine with star photos by...how did you say it?..."changing the exposure setting" shows you REALLY NEED and "AH" moment here. The 'changed exposure setting would have needed to be in the area of 30 SECONDS at f2.8! With those facts your "AH HA" moment just fell flat on it face. Edited October 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Dude, its time to put on your thinking cap, if you even have one so you can get to the "AH" moment...which must come BEFORE you can have an "AH HA HERE COMES YOUR AH MOMENT LAMSON Regardless of what you want to think about the POD composite or any words written about it, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to see both the sun and the stars at the same time....period. The "AH" moment is the one where you figure out that the sun would stop the eyes down way too much to see the stars. FIRST OFF, ALL THE APOLLO MISSIONS ALLEGEDLY LANDED ON THE MOON DURING THE LUNAR MORNING! ... THEREFORE THE SUN WAS LOW IN ONLY ONE PART OF THE SKY! .... SO YOU ONLY HAVE TO SHIFT YOUR GAZE IN ANY DIRECTION AWAY FROM THE INCOMING SUNLIGHT TO SEE THE STARS ! On BA's comment, he is correct you SHOULD be able to see statrs onthe moon IF...and this is a BIG IF (and also your "AH" moment) you could block the rays of the sun, AND ALL EXTRANOUS LIGHT from entering your eyes. In other words your eyes would need to dark adapt. And that ain't gonna happen by just throwing your head back in your spacesuit helmet. ANOTHER AH MOMENT FOR YOU LAMSON. THE LUNAR SURFACE IS PRONE TO A PECUILAR PROPERTY CALLED BACKSCATTER WHERE IT TENDS TO REFLECT INCOMING LIGHT BACK TOWARDS THE DIRECTION IT CAME FROM ... SUN LOW ANGLE IN LUNAR SKY, LIGHT REFLECTING FROM SURFACE BACK IN THAT DIRECTION.... LOOKING TOWARDS AN UNFLITERED SUN IS DUMB IN THE FIRST PLACE .. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO TURN AWAY FROM THE SUN TO SHIELD MOST OF THE LIGHT AND LOOK UP AT THE GLORIOUS VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE. Why did they not spend valuable time on the moon, and use up valuable payload capacity to take a tripod? Why should they? (you know your next "AH" moment is coming...right?) The view of the stars from the moon would not be any much more impressive that the view from a high, darksky spot here on earth on a perfect night. Study Seeing and Transparency for another "AH" moment. Much more important matters were at hand. After all why travel 250,000 miles to view the same stars you can see on Earth? Why not? ... Are you seriously suggesting time lapse images of stars above an overexposed Moon setting wouldn't have been of any interest to an agency that concentrates on star photography? valuable payload capacity to take a tripod Your best BS yet! .... How much exactly does a simple camera tripod stand weigh more or less? .. More than a golf club head? ... A lunar rover? ... Smuggled Apollo 15 envelopes? And finally, you suggest they should have filled a magazine with star photos by...how did you say it?..."changing the exposure setting shows you REALLY NEED and "AH" moment here. The 'changed exposure setting would have needed to be in the area of 30 SECONDS at f2.8! With those facts your "AH HA" moment just fell flat on it face. WOW 30 SECS! A TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY THEN! After all why travel 250,000 miles to view the same stars you can see on Earth? Wasn't astro-not John Young keen on setting a permanent observatory on the Moon ?? .. Being outside the Earths thick atmosphere is generally considered to be better conditions for star gazeing . But here's the real kicker ... Why is it that a discussion about SEEING STARS has now turned into one about PHOTOGRAPHING STARS ??? Answer : .. Because it's the typical tap dancing distraction tactics used by ALL defenders of the Apollo lie . Edited October 3, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now