|
|
Post by showtime on Mar 5, 2007 22:52:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 5, 2007 23:05:32 GMT -4
Since the same side of the moon always faces the Earth and the Earth appears above the lunar horizon at the same point when orbiting the moon, I don't see why the view of the moon would change all that much.
Maybe the photographers, who just happened to be floating around in zero-g, were the ones who were misaligned.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 5, 2007 23:12:00 GMT -4
The sunlight looks like it's hitting the earth straight on in one photo & coming from above it in the other
Huh? The Earth is just in a slightly different phase because they were different missions, just as the moon goes through different phases to viewers on Earth based on the moon's position in its orbit. In both cases the sun is to the left side of the image.
The horizon angles are wonky because the photographer wasn't on a solid platform to take the shot.
Finally, it is quite possible that the lunar surface is similar because the first 3 missions all used the same flight path. Photos from 8 were used to locate a landing site. 10 practiced a LM descent over the choosen landing site, 11 landed on it. Thus all 3 would have had Earthrises in very similar positions over the lunar surface in their lunar orbits.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 5, 2007 23:15:05 GMT -4
I'll just note one more thing. Due to libration effects, the Earth isn't entirely stationary in the lunar sky. It acutally describes a figure 8 shape over the course of a month. So to expect the Earth to be in exactly the same position on two missions is also wrong (apart from the fact that the photos are taken from slightly different positions anyway.)
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 5, 2007 23:28:27 GMT -4
...they both seem to show the roughly the same part of the moon ..ie craters match up
I disagree. Can you show which specific craters are the same in each photo? In my opinion they show two completely different portions of the lunar surface. I cannot find any pattern of craters that is reasonably congruent between them.
The sunlight looks like it's hitting the earth straight on in one photo & coming from above it in the other
I'm not sure what you mean by the terms straight on and above it. But I agree that the illumination angle is aligned differently with the frame boundaries in each photo.
Is it possible that the earth moved out of the ecliptic plane that day..
Not really, no. What conclusion do you draw from your comparison of these photos?
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Mar 5, 2007 23:37:45 GMT -4
The lunar surface in those two photographs doesn't looking any where near alike. The Moon is the Moon, basically a dead rock, but still... I could tell those were different parts of the Moon in about ten seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 0:27:48 GMT -4
I think I see where there might be some confusion. I'll offer this at the risk of putting words in showtime's mouth.
Draw a line segment connecting the two points where the terminator intersects the edge of the Earth's disk. Then draw a line perpendicular to it through its midpoint. That represents the line along which the sun will lie in the photo -- a projection of the illumination angle into the image plane. However this line does not represent the ecliptic plane. You cannot derive the orientation of the optical axis with the ecliptic plane analytically from the photo; there is not enough information.
The Moon's orbit is inclined some 5 degrees to the ecliptic. The ascending node precesses, but the precession would not be significant between Apollo 8 and Apollo 11. The inclination itself supplies high-frequency (i.e., monthly) variation in perspectives to Earth with respect to the ecliptic.
None of the Apollo translunar trajectories or lunar orbits was aligned with the ecliptic, terrestrial equator, lunar equator, or lunar orbital plane. Even if it were possible to orient the photo frame relative to the theoretical lunar horizon, that would not provide enough information to falsify the photos. And the physical horizon is too uneven to make even that possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 6, 2007 0:46:14 GMT -4
Showtime/HolyHell, have your questions been sufficiently answered yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Mar 6, 2007 1:29:11 GMT -4
I moved some post over here for greater input  LOL ;D ;D ;D Anyhow , do you need short answer or long one??? You AB seem to be contradicting each other at times ;D ;D ;D It can be very hard to visualize the relationship of the earth , moon & sun with respect to each other... A few of you have some good explanations that might pan out but then you proceed on to say it can't be determined from said evidence.. LOL one person says using lines on photos to help point things out isn't valid, then wants me to put lines on another photo pointing out craters The short answer is- NO not yet ;D & a photo from orbit can be taken from satellite & wouldn't be proof that of men landing on the moon anyhow. I posted it because it just looked odd & in hopes you AB could debunk it 100%.. ---I got start somewhere ;D ;D ;D-- ------------------------ :)I have not yet begun to post ---------------- |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 1:38:31 GMT -4
A few of you have some good explanations that might pan out but then you proceed on to say it can't be determined from said evidence.Handwaving. You seem to be grasping at straws to create the appearance of division. Are you here to have your questions answered, or to try to generate ammunition to defend a predetermined belief? LOL one person says using lines on photos to help point things out isn't validMisrepresentation. I asked why you believe drawing arbitrary lines on photographs is a valid method of reasoning about illumination. That's a very specific question. It is not the same as saying "using lines on photos to help point things out" isn't valid. ...then wants me to put lines on another photo pointing out craters I asked for no such thing. You claim the photos show roughly the same part of the Moon. Apparently in defense of that comparison, you said the craters match up. I asked you to identify which craters you claim match up. Will you do that please? The short answer is- NO not yet ;DWhat is the conclusion you draw from your comparison of these photos?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 6, 2007 2:10:56 GMT -4
 Do you, really? |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Mar 6, 2007 2:11:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 2:18:12 GMT -4
The craters and features you identify as matches don't look anything alike. Further, there are many features that are clearly different between the two sections of terrain.
What is the conclusion you drew from your comparison of these photos?
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 6, 2007 2:23:25 GMT -4
I see two craters that are roughly the same distance apart in the images, but the horizon detail looks different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 6, 2007 2:26:18 GMT -4
It's best if you look at the original nasa photos & zoom in ;D  ;D I have... there's no similarity between the two lunar regions at all. |
|
Is it possible that the earth moved out of the ecliptic plane that day 
