|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 10:12:50 GMT -4
Fattydash, do you recognize that there is a difference between "in space" and "on the surface of the moon"?
Saying one can see stars in space (a general situation) does not necessarily imply that one can easily see them on the day side of the moon. I'd expect that, when shielded from the sun (say, by being in the Earth's shadow or on the night side of the moon), you can see stars easily, but those conditions do not always apply.
Just as we can see stars on Earth. But just sometimes, do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 10:17:46 GMT -4
I would imagine if one were on the surface of the moon and shielded from the sun's glare, one would see stars under a variety of circumstances regardless of the side one were on and regardless of the shielding mechanism. Apparently, many professional astronomers, including NASA'a own Eric Christian agree with that point. I have already given my reference for the Christian quote/statement. So yes I agree and others with greater knowledge than I have as regards such matters of star visibility agree as well.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 10:34:39 GMT -4
And why should people who have been sent to the Moon at the cost of untold dollars, spend their time trying to shield their eyes, get into shadow, etc., to see something that is more easily visible from orbit?
If NASA was interested in making a study of the stars from space, they had cheaper and more effective ways to do it. Does the name "Hubble" mean anything to you? Do you understand why it was not built on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 11:01:43 GMT -4
I would imagine if one were on the surface of the moon and shielded from the sun's glare, one would see stars under a variety of circumstances regardless of the side one were on and regardless of the shielding mechanism. Apparently, many professional astronomers, including NASA'a own Eric Christian agree with that point. I have already given my reference for the Christian quote/statement. So yes I agree and others with greater knowledge than I have as regards such matters of star visibility agree as well. Define "sun's glare". I would assume this would include any light from the bright lunar surface as well. You are cherrypicking quotes. You find a statement, which, when taken alone and out of context, appears to somehow contradict some "official" line. Have you spoken to any of your sources...Lick, Christian, et al and specifically asked them if they thing the missions were faked, based on your interpretation of their statements? If not, why not? This is clearly your agenda, why hide behind a pretense of objectivity? Just look at your thread titles here and at BAUT, this speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 11:20:36 GMT -4
How important is all this really? I mean that quite seriously. It had nothing whatsoever to do with why they were there, so what reason would they have to go into detail on the subject? Isn't having been on the Moon what people actually want to hear them talk about? You reject the idea of "but it's a popular science book!" It's true, however. It is also a popular science book on a subject having really very little to do with how the eyes work. Yes, but the pathetic history of the "stars" claim has been one of diminishing importance. Remember, the initial claim was (1) stars would be so bright on the Moon that the astronauts would have been forced to stand in amazement and rhapsodize on their beauty, and (2) they would have been bright enough to show up easily in photographs taken of bright surfaces with short exposure times. Gradually, that has been whittled down to, "Yeah, but, if you really tried, you could probably have seen a few stars. I mean, if you went into shadow, and shaded your eyes, and waited a few minutes. And if you had a tripod, and the right film, and a long exposure, you could have caught a few star trails in photographs." At which point the question becomes, "Yes, probably, but why would you bother to do it?" But by getting some sort of acknowledgment that a star or two might have possibly been visible under those conditions, proponents somehow believe they have validated points (1) and (2). So, to proponents, minor quibbles about dark adaption and the physiology of the eye become VERY important, even though they advance the argument not one millimeter further.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 11:22:10 GMT -4
For scooter, They shot the lasers right away. There were reporters at Lick Observatory on 07/20/1969 ready to report the Eagle had been found, and found most precisely. But alas, it was not until August after trying many times each day for many days that they "found" Tranquility Base. What a drag to have been given that asignment as a journalist, go hang out at Lick Observatory and the thing never happened. Oh well. ...and so it goes. Mike Collins never saw them either, through his magnifying optics from his 60 mile high orbit. just a clarification...I was speaking of Collins locating the Tranquility Base landing site from lunar orbit, not any laser shots (which are very brief as I understand it, small fractions of a second...which would be tough to photograph from the Moon even if you could see them).
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 7, 2011 11:23:58 GMT -4
And why should people who have been sent to the Moon at the cost of untold dollars, spend their time trying to shield their eyes, get into shadow, etc., to see something that is more easily visible from orbit? Expressing the cost of Project Apollo in modern currency each man on the Moon cost more then 10 billion dollars. During EVA they were literally Six-million-dollar-per-minute-men, and then some.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 7, 2011 11:43:57 GMT -4
For Bob B. the context has to do with hoax debunking. This is from a section of the book dedicated to that. Slayton/Shepard want to point out to those HBs that cannot understand why stars are not in the moonscape photos that the stars were visible, only not photographed due to limitations having to do with shutter speed, film speed and so forth. Slayton/Shepard are agruing, the stars were there, easily seen, just not photographed. This is the context. This is their point. I make no claims as regards this point except that at face value, it contradicts the statement by Armstrong that he did not see stars, the statement that the only ojects visible in the lunar sky are the sun and the Earth. First off, I think there is some license being taken in the writing of the book. I'm convinced Shepard and/or Slayton are not suggesting that stars were easily seen all over the place because that goes against all that we know should be the case and what the record shows to be true. Second, the context is most assuredly missing. We don't know what the exact conditions were under which it is claimed that stars were seen. Was Shepard outside in the bright sunlight? Was he standing in the shadow of the LM? Was he inside the LM looking out the window? Without knowing the precise circumstances it is impossible to say whether or not the comment contradicts what we expect to be true. Furthermore, I don't think Armstrong said he didn't see stars, I believe his comment was that he didn't remember seeing stars. The man was busy and I'm sure it was something he wasn't thinking about or paying much attention to. The bottom line is that under some circumstances stars could be seen and under others stars couldn't be seen. It is not a contradiction for one astronaut to say he saw stars and another to say he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 7, 2011 12:12:53 GMT -4
Maybe the problem is that our "doctor" friend doesn't know what the word "context" means.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 12:15:01 GMT -4
Good points Bob. I would encourage reading that relatively brief section of the book for oneself. There is not all that much there, not long.
To reiterate, the context is debunking. This is the focus of that section, this is the context. Interpret the statement anyway you like, but the authors are addressing their concerns with regard to hoax myths here and in particular, the myth about the absence of stars.
Read the book. The context itself is in no way ambiguous, however one may view the authors' effectiveness in addressing the myth of no stars in the moonscape photos.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 7, 2011 12:25:28 GMT -4
I would imagine if one were on the surface of the moon and shielded from the sun's glare, one would see stars under a variety of circumstances regardless of the side one were on and regardless of the shielding mechanism. And how long would one need to shield their eyes to become dark adapted enough to see even the brightest stars after spending any appreciable amount of time surrounded by a landscape with approximately the albedo of aged asphalt? As Scooter points out, this involves shielding from one's view the relatively reflective lunar surface itself (even moreso when facing te downsun direction), in an EVA suit and PLSS backpack which already force the individual to lean forward to maintain balance, and a helmet with limited vertical visibility. So imagine if you will an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, holding their forearm Dracula-style across their visor to shade their eyes from the surface for, at best, several minutes, in order to catch a glimpse of whatever stars fall in the limited field between the horizon and top edge of his helmet visor. Is this the scenario you're proposing?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:34:46 GMT -4
Good points Bob. I would encourage reading that relatively brief section of the book for oneself. There is not all that much there, not long. To reiterate, the context is debunking. This is the focus of that section, this is the context. Interpret the statement anyway you like, but the authors are addressing their concerns with regard to hoax myths here and in particular, the myth about the absence of stars. Read the book. The context itself is in no way ambiguous, however one may view the authors' effectiveness in addressing the myth of no stars in the moonscape photos. It is not a technical reconstruction of what happened. It is not an official account of events. FD, you are taking this book as some sort of gospel...which is just silly. I have "Lost Moon" here...(aka "Apollo 13"). Co-authored by Lovell. I am finding errors, so I can automatically discount the reality of the flight? I don't think so...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:37:28 GMT -4
FattyDash...what is the difference in magnitude of a given star between an earthbound observation and one taken in space?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 12:42:48 GMT -4
I most decidedly do not believe these books to be gospel. As one would expect given my position, I view them as rubbish, the Slayton book, the Lovell book and the rest of the pop books. I could not agree more, junk. the point is the books contain contradictions. why would one astronaut say one thing and another one say something else altogether?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 12:53:06 GMT -4
I most decidedly do not believe these books to be gospel. As one would expect given my position, I view them as rubbish, the Slayton book, the Lovell book and the rest of the pop books. I could not agree more, junk. the point is the books contain contradictions. why would one astronaut say one thing and another one say something else altogether? Err, because that's kind of the way when history is written? Complete consistancy is never achievable. When the Titanic sunk, about half the eyewitnesses said it split in two first. The other half didn't report that at all. Does this mean that the Titanic never sank, or that it never existed in the first place? Please, identify at least one significant incident in the history of the world, where all written accounts are completely in accord with each other, so we can compare that to the Apollo record.
|
|