|
Post by tedward on Oct 26, 2010 7:34:20 GMT -4
Failing to see the point here. There are still two pictures with different angles and distances. What is being suggested? The studio earth was swinging on its string in the studio?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:38:28 GMT -4
Where did I say rotate the Earth and mountain independently? I said rotate one of the images by 45 degrees, and place the Earths over each other so they are in the same spot. In your explanation, you are moving only the earth; but the hill will move as much, and the earth will still be above the same point of the hill. You are considering the hill as a decor which would always be at the same place on the photo, independently of the way you move the camera, but it also moves with the moves of the camera, not only the earth. You really have zero idea of image analysis do you? If you rotate an image 45 degrees, then the line of up and down moves 45 degrees so what you think the Earth is directly over in the first image is now 45 degrees off the vertical in the rotated one. The Earth is exactly where it should be, come back when you get a clue.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:44:16 GMT -4
Since it seems some are totally incapable of doing basic image rotatations, here is the resulting image. OK, with your photo, I understand much better; You should have told me around which axis you were making your rotation, I would have understood faster. Now, what you have shown makes sense. OK, what you show is a possibility...but the photographer should have had to turn his camera...but look in the visor: In order to take the photo this way, he would have to twist his body, and he is not, he is straight.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Oct 26, 2010 7:47:55 GMT -4
Yes, I am. How did you guess? I'd recognise your unique style anywhere my friend. I'm mercatormac on YouTube. I am pretty sure gonetoplaid would have recognised you if I hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:48:30 GMT -4
The LCM follows his trajectory around the moon; it is a at a distance of approximatively 100 km from the moon, and goes at a speed of 6000km.h to resist the lunar attraction; it is always parallel to the moon surface, and has no reason to get oerpendicular to it. The orientation is irrelevant to the orbit except when firing the engine. The CSM can point nose forward, up, down or sideways to the direction of travel. I am unsure what you mean by "reason." The orientation is the result of mission requirements, that is reason enough.. If the CSM were in the position shown in the photo and not rotating, it would be horizontal to the surface in about 30 minutes because its orbit would take it a quarter of the way around the moon. I'm an aeronautician engineer.... Good, that should lead to some interesting conversations when the engineers that post here wake up. I look forward to reading your insights. I have explained why the CSM has no reason to change its attitude: Because it doesn't help the LEM at all. The horizontal position is the most logical attitude for the CSM.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:53:45 GMT -4
In your explanation, you are moving only the earth; but the hill will move as much, and the earth will still be above the same point of the hill. You are considering the hill as a decor which would always be at the same place on the photo, independently of the way you move the camera, but it also moves with the moves of the camera, not only the earth. You really have zero idea of image analysis do you? If you rotate an image 45 degrees, then the line of up and down moves 45 degrees so what you think the Earth is directly over in the first image is now 45 degrees off the vertical in the rotated one. The Earth is exactly where it should be, come back when you get a clue. In fact, you have shown me something I had not paid attention to. Effectively, what you show is possible; and if the two photos don't prove that the earth has moved, they do prove that on the first photo the photographer has importantly turned his camera, and as his camera is attached to his body (this is what we see in the visor), he should have had to turn his body to take the photo, and we don't see it in the visor on AS17-134-20384. So, you exchange an incoherence for another one.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 26, 2010 8:01:51 GMT -4
I have explained why the CSM has no reason to change its attitude: Because it doesn't help the LEM at all. The horizontal position is the most logical attitude for the CSM. And the people who actually run these missions are obliged to share your view of this why, exactly? The CSM's orinetation with respect to the lunar surface will change anyway unless it moves deliberately because whichever way it points it still carries on merrily in its orbit. If it starts off 'nose down' to the Moon then half way round it will be nose up to the Moon. That's how orbital mechanics works. Helping the LM is not the prime consideration for the CSM anyway once the two are undocked. It might change its orientation because one of the tasks of the CMP was to photograph the LM after undocking, therefore it needed to have its windows aimed the right way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Oct 26, 2010 8:02:37 GMT -4
The cameras could be detached. Basic stuff, please try harder.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 26, 2010 8:03:50 GMT -4
In fact, you have shown me something I had not paid attention to. Effectively, what you show is possible; and if the two photos don't prove that the earth has moved, they do prove that on the first photo the photographer has importantly turned his camera, and as his camera is attached to his body (this is what we see in the visor), he should have had to turn his body to take the photo, and we don't see it in the visor on AS17-134-20384. Question: which way do you expect the photographer to be facing in a reflection of him in a photo he is taking? He will always be reflected facing the subject directly because that's how he had to be to get him in frame. Has he turned his body or moved his feet? He is in a completely different position in the two images. Furthermore, the cameras were not fixed on rigidly, they were slotted into a hook system, so they could be moved in relation to the astronaut's body even if still engaged.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 8:08:53 GMT -4
You really have zero idea of image analysis do you? If you rotate an image 45 degrees, then the line of up and down moves 45 degrees so what you think the Earth is directly over in the first image is now 45 degrees off the vertical in the rotated one. The Earth is exactly where it should be, come back when you get a clue. In fact, you have shown me something I had not paid attention to. Effectively, what you show is possible; and if the two photos don't prove that the earth has moved, they do prove that on the first photo the photographer has importantly turned his camera, and as his camera is attached to his body (this is what we see in the visor), he should have had to turn his body to take the photo, and we don't see it in the visor on AS17-134-20384. So, you exchange an incoherence for another one. Good grief, honestly... You can't do a simply rotation, you make claims that can be disproven in about 5 seconds with basic graphics software, you don't seem to understand reflections on spheres, and after all of that evidence that you are utterly inept at photo analysis you want us to just believe you on this? I'm sure there must be a word for it somewhere, but I don't think insanity covers it.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 26, 2010 8:13:39 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. Man, oh man... that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks very much for the good laugh this morning. If you really were an "aeronautical engineer", you would have called yourself an "aeronautical engineer" and not made up the word "aeronautician". Epic fail... Next time at least have the brains to use a spell check. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 26, 2010 8:14:26 GMT -4
It would require a long explanation. Are you implying that the members here would not understand it? Try us. What, pray, is an 'aeronautician'? Except you then demonstrate that you have no idea at all. Rubbish. To maintain a parallel attitude would require constant adjustment. It can be in any attitude whatsoever. It doesn't need to slowly move from horizontal to vertical at all. Ever heard the term 'pitchover'? No, you don't. You are applying your limited ideas to a real life situation which is a lot more complex than you are allowing for. Really? Then do please point them out, but do a better job than you have so far. Absolulte rubbish. It does not have to do calculations on the fly as it makes manoeuvres. To pitch itself rapidly 90 degrees it can calculate in advance what sequence of thruster firings are required, then execute them once it has figured it out.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 8:55:18 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. Man, oh man... that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks very much for the good laugh this morning. If you really were an "aeronautical engineer", you would have called yourself an "aeronautical engineer" and not made up the word "aeronautician". Epic fail... Next time at least have the brains to use a spell check. Cz I said "aeronautician because I'm french, not because I don't have competences in aeronics.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 26, 2010 8:57:00 GMT -4
Not that it matters: aeronautics plays very little part in space travel....
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 26, 2010 9:09:42 GMT -4
I have explained why the CSM has no reason to change its attitude: Because it doesn't help the LEM at all.The horizontal position is the most logical attitude for the CSM. When the LM is separating or docking the CSM has to be in this relative orientation, that is pointing its nose at the LM. I'd say that helps. When the two crafts are station keeping the orientation relative to the moon changes continually. Why is horizontal the "most logical" for this particular point in the mission?
|
|