|
Post by echnaton on Dec 8, 2006 13:15:48 GMT -4
That photo highlights my points in asking 20469 to take a picture. First 20469 just hunted down some photo that really doesn’t meet any requirement for learning about shooting a brightly lit object at night. He would rather web search than go out and learn about the photography. This highlights a lack of inquisitiveness about the world.. He would just rather stick to a fantasy. The image also shows the shortcoming of his argument. The exposure time was several minutes, where as the Apollo cameras were hand held and long exposures would have been a blurry mess.
20469 go out and take some photos yourself and learn something about the world.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Dec 8, 2006 13:16:29 GMT -4
Remember the days when the arguments we used to get were fairly reasonable ones? You know, the ones we had to think about before answering? "Challenge" is a word that comes to mind. One day a worthy hoax believer with an actual high-school diploma will come to the board. He will ask questions that the regulars have not answered thousands of times before. And in that day, it is prophesied that Jay will return, and he will call the faithful to him.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 8, 2006 13:27:25 GMT -4
For 90210 or whatever... If you took a lunar camera, and put a substantial sunshield on it to eliminate any stray glare from the lunar surface, and if you pointed it straight up or nearly so, and held the shutter open for a while, you would get star pictures. Notice the star "trails" in the photo you linked...these are several minutes of exposure. Do you believe the scene in the foreground was "brightly lit"? I imagine it was quite dark, the time exposure simply greatly exaggerates the available local light (and that of the stars too). Star shots with a light white foreground? Nope... In the meantime, I hope you've learned a little something about Moon wobbling, the practically stationary Earth in the lunar sky (but not the stars or planets), and the difficulty of capturing stars on film. As for carrying such equipment to the Moon, they battled over ounces of payload for those missions...weight was totally critical.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 8, 2006 19:34:09 GMT -4
Remember you were positive about photographing the stars with a white object in the foreground. But were wrong. No, you didn't read Echnaton's post properly. Re-read it and study it long enough to understand it, then try what he says: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1164732130&page=11#1165587130You are wrong about the impossible exposure. If the forground objects are static and for the exposure the stars earth and sun are also static. It is possible.Then prove it to us by doing it yourself. Take a properly exposed picture of a man sized white object under a street light and get stars in the background. Doing that should be easy, right?It's simple enough. YOU WILL NOT GET STARS SHOWING IN YOUR PHOTO. Understand? Just prove it to yourself and you will learn something. Here's another simple experiment you could do, and again, learn something from: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1137632105&page=3#1137673400There is a very simple reason why stars cannot show in a photo of sunlit objects: The extreme difference in exposures required for the two subjects. Stars require between 30,000 and 130,000 times more exposure than a sunlit scene. But don't take our word for this -- prove it to yourself. Here are the figures as posted at BAUT: www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=102903&postcount=11Should anyone think the figure regarding stars requiring "at least 30,000 times more exposure…." sounds much too high, here's the maths. A typical down-sun exposure with 100 ISO film is 1/250 at f11. The shortest exposure that will register the brightest stars is about 8 seconds at f2.8, but because of film's reciprocity failure during long exposures, 20 to 30 seconds at f2.8 is a better exposure. Each step below doubles the exposure and the increase over the sunlight exposure is shown. 1/250 @ f11 1/250 @ f8 ======= 2x 1/250 @ f5.6 ====== 4x 1/250 @ f4 ======= 8x 1/250 @ f2.8 ===== 16x 1/125 @ f2.8 ===== 32x 1/60 @ f2.8 ====== 64x 1/30 @ f2.8 ===== 128x 1/15 @ f2.8 ===== 256x 1/8 @ f2.8 ====== 512x 1/4 @ f2.8 ===== 1,024x 1/2 @ f2.8 ===== 2,048x 1 sec @ f2.8 === 4,096x 2 sec @ f2.8 === 8,192x 4 sec @ f2.8 == 16,384x 8 sec @ f2.8 == 32,768x 16 sec @ f2.8 = 65,536x 32 sec @ f2.8 = 131,072x
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 8, 2006 20:11:42 GMT -4
As for carrying such equipment to the Moon, they battled over ounces of payload for those missions...weight was totally critical. How much did that car weigh?
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Dec 8, 2006 21:01:46 GMT -4
How much did that car weigh? 210 kg.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 8, 2006 21:04:32 GMT -4
It weighed as much as was budgeted for in the weight budget. You are aware that as the landing flights progressed, there were performance improvements and weight reductions made throughout the system that allowed for increased payloads, correct?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 8, 2006 23:18:23 GMT -4
As for carrying such equipment to the Moon, they battled over ounces of payload for those missions...weight was totally critical. How much did that car weigh? That car enabled them to perform their mission and meet their objectives. However much it weighed, it was deemed worth it. Would you have them leave it behind so they could take pictures of a wobble?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 8, 2006 23:33:17 GMT -4
And the "car" was not included for joyriding, any more than hammers were included just so Jack Schmitt could do his Mighty Thor impression. The rover made it possible to explore more than the geology within a short walk of the lander.
Just imagine, if you will, being dropped into my neighborhood, down around 880, and asked to study the geology. Hope you like salt flats. Although I've got rhyolite outcroppings, vesicular basalts, and other more interesting things those are all plumb out of range of a man, walking, with a limited air supply.
Honestly, the rover was a great science investment for studying the Moon. You want to study stars, get yourself a satellite and put a package on it. Much more bang for the buck that way.
|
|