|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 7, 2011 1:53:20 GMT -4
I find it odd that Armstrong would so strongly endorse such a book just written on the fly by a writer without oversight. He didn't. He endorsed the 1994 edition that did not have this quote, and was published with Shepard's blessing. The introduction was reprinted in the new edition, and Armstrong had no say over that. Furthermore, I doubt seriously that he cares. He knows better than most how much inaccurate information about space is out there. He also knows that if people really want to find out the facts, they can do so without his help. He did his time as a teacher. He's got better ways to spend his twilight years.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 7, 2011 1:42:14 GMT -4
...the point is, one would expect to see lots of stars. If they had such an expectation, it would be wrong. Simple relative and imperical measurements prove that they would not. Not the ones who have done the math. I remember my dad explaining to me at the time of the Apollo missions why paintings that depicted stars above the sunlit Moon were wrong. I told you before: "Easier" and "more easily" do not mean "easy". They are not even close to the same meaning. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? Such expectation is not valid. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 7, 2011 1:30:03 GMT -4
" "Where were the stars?" the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers' white spacesuits. Stars' images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station. " You say that this quote is "Per astronaut Shepard and Slayton, Head of Astronaut Selection;" but this cannot be correct. Slayton died in 1993, and Shepard in 1998 four months before the first ISS module was launched. Furthermore, "Moonshot" was published in 1994, and has only been re-released this year. Thus the quote mentioning the ISS must therefore be from the 2011 edition, and thus written by Barbree without any possible oversight or correction by men who had died in the previous century. It is as I suspected: The professional writer who had never flown in space created this quote from "artistic licence". We can tell that this is artistic licence because we can tell from direct, personal experience how much light the atmosphere blocks, and therefore know that stars would not be seen by astronauts whose eyes were not dark-adapted.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 6, 2011 23:55:32 GMT -4
The exposure times for those photographs ranged from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 6, 2011 23:45:52 GMT -4
Think about AIDS, back in 1980. No one knew what was going on. we assumed it to be related to an infectious agent and behaved accordingly. Well, no. Here, you're showing that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the AIDS epidemic, either. For starters, in 1980, essentially no one knew there was one. At least in the United States, the epidemic is dated to 1981. What's more, many precautions weren't taken which ought to have been, because other priorities took the fore. (Politics and money, mostly.) Certain people in the medical profession did make that assumption and did behave accordingly, but to be blunt, that only had so much scientific merit. Assuming anything is unscientific. More to the point, the initial identification of "GRID" took months. The Apollo 8 & 13 astronauts were back on Earth in less than a week. In Borman's case, the "patient" was already feeling better when the report reached Earth. Haise didn't get sick until just a day or two before landing, and there was nothing that could be done for him until then.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 6, 2011 23:31:49 GMT -4
For Count Zero. Why is it that in their book "Moon Shot" Deke Slayton and Alan Shepard state clearly that it was easy for moonwalkers to see stars from the surface of the moon? The book had a coauthor as well. Citation, please. Specifically, the page number where it says it was "easy" to see stars. Now then, you said this book had three authors. Usually, for a book like this the astronauts tell their stories to the professional writer, who writes them up and shows them to the guys for approval. So if the book says it was "easy" (a contention yet to be proven), who wrote that? Slayton did not go to the Moon. Shepard we know photographed Venus. However, he had been standing in the shadow of the LM, facing the lander for several minutes. He had time and the conditions to get at least partially dark-adapted. If the writer asked Shepard if he could see stars, He could have truthfully answered, "Sure, I took pictures!" and the writer could assume that Shepard meant it was "easy" and wrote it that way. Shepard, for whatever reason, might not have bothered to correct or clarify the text. Now then, once again, if direct, personal experience shows us that it can be difficult (if not impossible) to see stars when looking out the window of a lighted room, or standing in a well-lighted area such as a parking lot or a stadium, or if sun-lit objects are in the field of view, then why would you expect astronauts in space to see stars unless they deliberately took time and actions to dark-adapt their eyes?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 6, 2011 22:58:34 GMT -4
My dad was a professional astronomer. I grew-up around professional astronomers. I spent many a night on Kitt Peak during his observing runs. I am an amateur astronomer with several telescopes. Don't tell me what astronomers discuss.
Stars are easier to see in space and on the Moon. That does not mean that stars are easy to see in space or on the Moon.
Again, Direct, personal experience shows us that seeing stars can be difficult (if not impossible) to see stars when looking out the window of a lighted room, or standing in a well-lighted area such as a parking lot or a stadium, or if sub-lit objects are in the field of view.
Based on direct, personal experience, I would not expect astronauts in space to see stars unless they deliberately took time and actions to dark-adapt their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 6, 2011 22:35:40 GMT -4
Why do you think that the stars should be substantially more visible in space or on the Moon?
Direct, personal experience shows us that the atmosphere blocks less than 50% of the light passing though it.
Direct, personal experience shows us that seeing stars can be difficult (if not impossible) to see stars when looking out the window of a lighted room, or standing in a well-lighted area such as a parking lot or a stadium, or if sub-lit objects are in the field of view.
Based on direct, personal experience, I would not expect astronauts in space to see stars unless they deliberately took time and actions to dark-adapt their eyes.
What makes you think otherwise? Be specific.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 2, 2011 20:35:07 GMT -4
My DVDs of the first season of "Saturday Night Live" show ghosting every time something bright (such as a stage light) moves across the image.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jun 13, 2011 23:03:47 GMT -4
Wow, when I tried to click on that link, the mouse jumped out of my hand, wrapped the cord around my neck and tried to strangle me until I Alt+F4'ed the window. I think I will use my valuable web-surfing time elsewhere, thank you...
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jun 8, 2011 9:24:27 GMT -4
Yes, that really covered ground that a lot of astronaut bios gloss over. Those passages were very human.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 24, 2011 6:19:25 GMT -4
Thank you Captain Spoiler! <facepalm>
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 24, 2011 5:16:52 GMT -4
Good book! I also liked the candor with which he describes the program's effect on his marriage. Throughout his career you see how his cockyness gets him into trouble. It's pretty clear that, in retrospect, he would never have given his younger self the breaks that he got.
I really like how he ended the book.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 23, 2011 22:22:22 GMT -4
That's awesome! I wish we'd thought to try this on Rocky/DavidC: "No plane hit the Pentagon." "What Pentagon? Prove that any such place exists. No, those pictures could have been faked. People who say they've seen it or been their could be lying or hypnotized. Construction records can be faked. Satellite pictures could be faked. People could be threatened or bribed to go along with "the official story" that the Pentagon exists... Etc, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc..." As an extra added bonus, I just spent a week in the D.C. area and never once laid eyes on this so-called "Pentagon", which is supposed to be one of the worlds largest buildings! Just don't ask me to prove I was there. He's currently getting spanked on JREF if you really want to deal with him. < checks> No thanks. I'd rather pick my nose with a soldering iron.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 16, 2011 20:52:50 GMT -4
I also got lost in the Pentagon once, in the early '90s. After much wandering on a lower level, I came to a very long, very wide hallway. There was no one around. The hall was lit by flourescent lights and painted in that awful frog-spit green institutional shade that was inexplicably popular before I was born.
However, at the very end of the hall I saw a splash of very bright colors. Curious, I walked down the hall - and walked, and walked, and walked. The color pattern became more vibrant and complex as I got closer, but I still could not comprehend what it was. Suddenly I realized that it was spray-painted graffitti! How in Hell did it get here?!
Finally, I got to the end of the hall and found myself in an exhibit area; and here - in its well-lit place of honor - was the Pentagon's Cold War victory trophy: A 10' x 10' section of the Berlin Wall.
|
|