Apollo 12 Faked Photographs

[Kevin M. West]

I find this argument ludicrous. It's an apples and oranges comparison. It's like saying "Why isn't the image from the 640x480 pixel webcam on my cheap laptop as sharp as the pictures I can take with my Canon EOS 1-D with a 10.1 MB sensor?"

No, it's your twist on it the meaning of it that would be ludricrous.

Is that actually an argument you believe? Or is it just something you copied and pasted from an article without properly reading it?

It's an argument I believe and "properly" read also ... If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it .

Duane, even today, still cameras have much better resolution than video cameras. In the 60's, still camera technology was hundreds of years old, while video cameras were brand new. Plus, video transmission takes a large amount of bandwidth, which increases with picture quality. They were limited in what they could broadcast back to earth.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Kevin M. West

[Duane Daman]

The temperature of the moon is irrelevant, since the film NEVER came into contact with the moon. It was heated through conduction from the film magazine, which was only heated through radiative heating, which is controled by choice of materials and color. Why do you think white is such a popular color for spacecraft & suits? In terms of environmental temperature, the conditions were no different than they were for any camera taken into orbit. Are you disputing all film-based orbital photography?

The temperature of the Moon is irrelevant ? ... Now looks who's being ludricrous.... Of course it's relevant ...Regular Kodack film melts at temperatures well below that of those on the lunar surface .

But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees.

Painting the camera casing white might help to some extent , but not much, considering how high the heat and radiation levels are on the Moon .

I am not disputing all film based orbital photography.... Only the Apollo photography allegedly taken on the Moon .

"Yes, the truth "is" in the photographs, and there is enough photographic evidence of "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" to legitimize the argument that NASA is guilty of doctoring or re-creating Apollo photographs. While, individually, these "anomalies" may appear coincidental, as a whole they may point to something larger."

Unfortunately, photographic technology was not at its height and the original photos were disappointing at best. In order to accomplish their patriotic goal and ensure their continued survival, these lunar pictures needed resuscitation - with the only source of life being that of an Earth-based studio. "

[Kevin M. West]

So I'll ask again, when did they take out the film and lay it on the surface of the moon?

You know that the 250f number refers only to the actual surface, the dirt, the rocks, etc. If it's not actually touching the ground, it's not being heated by the moon in any significant way.

[Peter McKenna]

The temperature of the moon is irrelevant, since the film NEVER came into contact with the moon. It was heated through conduction from the film magazine, which was only heated through radiative heating, which is controled by choice of materials and color. Why do you think white is such a popular color for spacecraft & suits? In terms of environmental temperature, the conditions were no different than they were for any camera taken into orbit. Are you disputing all film-based orbital photography?

The temperature of the Moon is irrelevant ? ... Now looks who's being ludricrous.... Of course it's relevant ...Regular Kodack film melts at temperatures well below that of those on the lunar surface .

But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees.

Painting the camera casing white might help to some extent , but not much, considering how high the heat and radiation levels are on the Moon .

I am not disputing all film based orbital photography.... Only the Apollo photography allegedly taken on the Moon .

"Yes, the truth "is" in the photographs, and there is enough photographic evidence of "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" to legitimize the argument that NASA is guilty of doctoring or re-creating Apollo photographs. While, individually, these "anomalies" may appear coincidental, as a whole they may point to something larger."

Unfortunately, photographic technology was not at its height and the original photos were disappointing at best. In order to accomplish their patriotic goal and ensure their continued survival, these lunar pictures needed resuscitation - with the only source of life being that of an Earth-based studio. "

I couldn’t help but put in my two cents.

Duane,

Per “Heat Transfer” By J. P. Holman, the absorptivity of substances for Solar Radiation is as follows (coefficients, or percent of the energy absorbed): polished aluminum is 0.15, white substances (white paint various pigments) – 0.12 to 0.16, flat black lacquer – 0.96 (or 96% of the radiated heat is absorbed).

So, in very simple terms, if the camera is polished aluminum, only 15% of the radiated energy is absorbed by the camera, much less for items within the camera, such as film. Without doing a calculation (which would be too time consuming), it would be safe to say the film would never get close to its maximum temperature limit. Also the camera vendor would have built it for the specifications of the lunar environment, and ensured the body would effectively protect the film, that would be standard operating procedure.

Dave is correct in saying the surface of the moon is irrelevant, as the radiated heat will not be significant. Conduction (heat transfer through contact) and convection (heat transfer by forced contact, such as by a fan moving air, or other cooling medium, hot air rising, a pump, etc.) can be neglected on the moon as it is in a nominal vacuum. The only heat transfer will be via radiation.

Heat transfer on Earth is facilitated mainly through conduction and/or convection, which are usually much more efficient than radiative heat transfer.

Any decent Heat Transfer or thermodynamics textbook will have the information you seek.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Dave Greer]

I find this argument ludicrous. It's an apples and oranges comparison. It's like saying "Why isn't the image from the 640x480 pixel webcam on my cheap laptop as sharp as the pictures I can take with my Canon EOS 1-D with a 10.1 MB sensor?"

No, it's your twist on it the meaning of it that would be ludricrous.

Is that actually an argument you believe? Or is it just something you copied and pasted from an article without properly reading it?

It's an argument I believe and "properly" read also ... If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it .

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why in 1969, the resolution of a TV camera, broadcasting live from the lunar surface, should have been the equivalent resolution of a Hasselbald 500EL.

Good luck with that.

[Jack White]

"But the film was not exposed to the heat of a full lunar day. While the heat of mid-day is around +250 degrees F, the lunar night is about -250 degrees F. The Apollo landings were timed so that they occured within a day or two of local sunrise and the ambient temperatures were quite moderate. Also, the film was in containers that offered some degree of protection, even in direct sunlight." ---NASA

THIS IS CLEARLY A NASA LIE. The moon has NO ATMOSPHERE. On earth temperatures are MORE MODERATE

AT SUNRISE AND SUNSET because sunlight has to penetrate the atmosphere OBLIQUELY instead of directly.

THIS EFFECT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE MOON. There is no atmosphere to filter sun rays! All sunlight on the

moon is unfiltered and of equal intensity. There are no "moderate temperatures" on the moon in sunlight.

So sunlight from directly overhead is the same as when the sun is low in the lunar sky.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

"But the film was not exposed to the heat of a full lunar day. While the heat of mid-day is around +250 degrees F, the lunar night is about -250 degrees F. The Apollo landings were timed so that they occured within a day or two of local sunrise and the ambient temperatures were quite moderate. Also, the film was in containers that offered some degree of protection, even in direct sunlight." ---NASA

THIS IS CLEARLY A NASA LIE. The moon has NO ATMOSPHERE. On earth temperatures are MORE MODERATE

AT SUNRISE AND SUNSET because sunlight has to penetrate the atmosphere OBLIQUELY instead of directly.

THIS EFFECT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE MOON. There is no atmosphere to filter sun rays! All sunlight on the

moon is unfiltered and of equal intensity. There are no "moderate temperatures" on the moon in sunlight.

So sunlight from directly overhead is the same as when the sun is low in the lunar sky.

Jack

Clearly you missed this IMPORTANT word in this important statement.

"The Apollo landings were timed so that they occured within a day or two of local sunrise and the ambient temperatures were quite moderate. "

Since the only thing on the the moon prior to the landing of the LM was the surface of he moon itself, the AMBIENT temp of the moon would be quite moderate due the the fact that in the area in question had just moved from shadow to sunlight.

Please try agani next time

[Dave Greer]

"But the film was not exposed to the heat of a full lunar day. While the heat of mid-day is around +250 degrees F, the lunar night is about -250 degrees F. The Apollo landings were timed so that they occured within a day or two of local sunrise and the ambient temperatures were quite moderate. Also, the film was in containers that offered some degree of protection, even in direct sunlight." ---NASA

THIS IS CLEARLY A NASA LIE. The moon has NO ATMOSPHERE. On earth temperatures are MORE MODERATE

AT SUNRISE AND SUNSET because sunlight has to penetrate the atmosphere OBLIQUELY instead of directly.

Jack

What is your source for this quote? The article I found it in was written in 2000 by an astronomer called Jim Scotti, as part of a critique of an article by James Collier. His webpage is hosted at the Lunar Planetary Laboratory website, Arizona Univeristy.

Here's what Collier said in the critique:-

"But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees."

This is completey wrong. No Apollo missions were on the lunar surface with the "sun at high noon", so the 250F temperature becomes irrelevant. The sun angles were anywhere between 8 and 45 degrees approximately. Source.

Collier is saying that because the surface of the moon, at lunar midday, reaches a maximum temperature of 250F, after being exposed to the sun's rays for 7 Earth days, the temperature of film inside an aluminium cartridge exposed to the sun for a maximum of 8 hours should also be 250F. I'm being very generous with the 8 hours exposure, since the film cartridge wasn't always in direct sunlight: sometimes the astronauts would have their back to the sun and the film .cartridge wouldn't be getting exposed anyway

The sorts of questions he should be asking are, how hot would the film cartridge get during a typical EVA on the lunar surface? How would the construction and design of the camera/film cartridges affect how hot that would make the film itself?

It makes no sense to me to make the assumption that "when lunar soil is exposed to direct sunlight for 160+ hours it reaches a temperature of 250F, therefore film inside a protective cartridge which is exposed for a maximum of 8 hours would also reach 250F". That's what Collier is expecting people to believe.

THIS EFFECT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE MOON. There is no atmosphere to filter sun rays! All sunlight on the

moon is unfiltered and of equal intensity. There are no "moderate temperatures" on the moon in sunlight.

So sunlight from directly overhead is the same as when the sun is low in the lunar sky.

Jack

The sun's rays are still striking the surface of the moon obliquely at sunrise, hence the heating effect will be much lower than when the sun is directly overhead, regardless of the presence of an atmosphere. On top of that, when the sun is directly overhead, it has been heating the lunar surface continuously for about 7 Earth days.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Craig Lamson]

Craig ... I'm beginning to think that you don't like me .

Oh its quite the opposite Duane, you are by far my very favorite person on the entire internet. No on can post stuff like you. You have even surpassed Jack White. Thats quite an honor Duane give that Jack is infamous.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

From NASA SP-5099: Photography Equipment and Techniques

[Duane Daman]

Oh its quite the opposite Duane, you are by far my very favorite person on the entire internet

Awww ... What a sweet message from my buddy Craig ... And I got it on Valentines Day too !

No on can post stuff like you. You have even surpassed Jack White. Thats quite an honor Duane give that Jack is infamous.

Well, like I've always said ... If you can't be famous, you can always be infamous !

Wow .. Evan copied and pasted a load of crap from a NASA site ... What a pleasant surprise .

[Duane Daman]

Peter ... Thanks for your information .

Dave is correct in saying the surface of the moon is irrelevant, as the radiated heat will not be significant. Conduction (heat transfer through contact) and convection (heat transfer by forced contact, such as by a fan moving air, or other cooling medium, hot air rising, a pump, etc.) can be neglected on the moon as it is in a nominal vacuum. The only heat transfer will be via radiation.

Heat transfer on Earth is facilitated mainly through conduction and/or convection, which are usually much more efficient than radiative heat transfer.

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ?

[Dave Greer]

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?

No, it refers to the vacuum itself, which by definition does not contain any matter, therefore cannot contain any heat.

The lunar surface itself can either be hot or cold, depending on whether it's night/day, in permanent shadow etc.

... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ?

Because physical exertion creates body heat. Usually the body cools itself by producing sweat which evaporates and cools the body.

and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ?

Have you got the source for this quote?

[Peter McKenna]

Peter ... Thanks for your information .

Dave is correct in saying the surface of the moon is irrelevant, as the radiated heat will not be significant. Conduction (heat transfer through contact) and convection (heat transfer by forced contact, such as by a fan moving air, or other cooling medium, hot air rising, a pump, etc.) can be neglected on the moon as it is in a nominal vacuum. The only heat transfer will be via radiation.

Heat transfer on Earth is facilitated mainly through conduction and/or convection, which are usually much more efficient than radiative heat transfer.

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ?

Duane,

Heat transfer by thermal radiation would result in the camera body reflecting 85% of the energy that strikes it. The camera body would heat up to a temperature where the emission rate (the radiation of the camera body emitting heat) would equal the absorption rate, causing temperature equilibrium.

The same effect would occur at a lower temperature within the camera for the film cartridge.

My experience with polished metal surfaces would indicate that the temperature at the film would not be extravagant. It can be calculated.

Dave is correct. The astronaut’s body temperatures are 98.6 degrees F. Their spacesuits have a much larger surface area than a camera (surface area plays a large factor) and a shape adjustment would also have to be assumed (a calculation for the astronauts in their suits would be very complicated). If no heat is added, the inside of their suits would reach a very uncomfortable (very humid) 98.6 degrees F. I would guess even though the suits were white that without air conditioning the internal temperature could exceed 110 degrees F in direct sunlight on the lunar surface, but this is intuitive for me (a guess). If the temperature inside the suits were >110 degrees F and relative humidity were > 75% (which is likely a low assumed humidity), I would think the environment would be considered dangerous.

I would think that low temperatures were of a much greater concern. Again the surface area plays a very large role in the heat transfer.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Peter McKenna]

Peter ... Thanks for your information .

Dave is correct in saying the surface of the moon is irrelevant, as the radiated heat will not be significant. Conduction (heat transfer through contact) and convection (heat transfer by forced contact, such as by a fan moving air, or other cooling medium, hot air rising, a pump, etc.) can be neglected on the moon as it is in a nominal vacuum. The only heat transfer will be via radiation.

Heat transfer on Earth is facilitated mainly through conduction and/or convection, which are usually much more efficient than radiative heat transfer.

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ?

Some interesting information from the Textbook “Heat Transfer” by J.P. Holman (note this is pretty much a standard College textbook for Heat Transfer, several Engineers I know have it and used it in school): From the Section Titled “Solar Radiation”;

“The maximum solar energy reaches the surface of the earth when the rays are directly incident on the surface since 1) a larger view area is presented to the incoming solar flux, and 2) the solar rays travel less distance through the atmosphere so there is less absorption than there would be for an incident angle tilted from the normal.”

“To determine an equivalent blackbody temperature for the solar radiation, we might employ the wavelength at which the maximum in the spectrum occurs. (about 0.5 micro-meters according to figure 8-63) …”

Figure 8-63 provides a spectral distribution of Solar radiation at various wavelengths. The heat is measured in BTU/hour-square feet - micrometers. The comparison of solar radiation between a spot outside of the earth’s atmosphere and a spot at sea level with an incident angle of zero degrees at 0.6 micro meters is 570 BTU/hour- square foot compared to 450 BTU/hour – square foot.

At 1 micrometer the comparison is about 230/220 BTU/hour – square foot.

Of course the proper way to compare the two effects, however, would be to integrate the total area under the curve for each location, assuming that the total heat energy reached a spot at both locations. But the difference in energy isn’t that big, maybe 70% of the heat energy in space ends up at the earth’s surface at sea level per this figure. At least that is what this book says.

If you want I’ll take a snapshot of the graph and post it.

Trying to understand how the surface of the moon can get to 250 degrees F, I guess it may be due to the lack of cooling provided by the atmosphere on earth. Then the temperature at the moon would be entirely dependent upon the absorption coefficient of the material struck by the solar radiation.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Peter McKenna