|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 20:36:41 GMT -4
Hi everyone,
You can order the new DVDs from honeysucklecreek.net. The first DVD is the one which contains previously never before publicly seen footage of the Apollo 11 LM EVA closeout procedures which includes dumping of the two PLSS backpacks plus the dumping of some sort of other trash bag onto the lunar surface.
--GTP
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 19:39:45 GMT -4
Is the film from the 16 mm DAC cameras stored together with the other film material in the Film Archive? I would suspect it is since it is "Flight Film." If this is true, then all of us should petition NASA/ASU to also digitally scan the 16mm DAC films as well.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 19:18:47 GMT -4
That gets me wondering, was there a contingency plan for the CSM pilot becoming incapacitated when the LM was away? Now that is an interesting question. Hmm. Would the LM crew blow the incapacitated or dead CM pilot out the CM hatch so that the LM crew could then safely return to Earth? If it had to be put to a vote, would the LM crew would win the day?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 19:01:31 GMT -4
I can estimate whether a film can register stars by checking ASA, aperture, exposition, etc. But how should I translate a video camera's characteristics in these values? If it isn't practical, how else should I check this? Thanks. How do you do it with film? The other day I took a picture of Polaris with my digital camera manually set to ISO 2000. The properties say focal length 6mm, f/2.8. How do you calculate how long of an exposure is required to get an image of, say, Sirius? Polaris didn't show up just as I expected it wouldn't. For stars (pinpoint objects) it is aperture which matters, not F/ratio. Thus a 2" diameter lens, wide open (aperture not stopped down), will record stars 4X faster than a 1" diameter lens with its aperture wide open. As you can see, focal length doesn't even enter into the equation. To photograph Polaris, zoom your camera lens to its maximum focal length. Assuming that you shoot at maximum aperture, this causes the zoom lens to utilize the full aperture of the front focus group at the front of the lens. At ISO 2000, a 5 to 10 second exposure should easily capture Sirius if the lens is at full aperture, zoomed to its longest focal length, and is precisely focused at infinity. Focusing on a distant street lamp will get the lens focused for infinity, given whatever the ambient temperature is. A 5 to 10 second exposure is short enough that you can shoot Sirius with a tripod with very little star trailing (due to the Earth's rotation) showing up. Video though gets a lot more complicated. Simply assume that even 1/15 second frame rate video shot with a conventional video camera lens is not going to record any stars.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 18:36:38 GMT -4
Hi everyone, Here is a link to one of my web pages which indexes all LRO Narrow Angle Camera photographs of the Apollo Landing Sites which are available to date. Included are the latest images included in the recently released data volume #3. Here is the link: www.mem-tek.com/apollo/LRO_NAC_Image_Names.htmlYeah, I know. I need to add thumbnails which show you were to search in each image in order to see the Apollo landing site. It is on my to-do list.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 17:56:56 GMT -4
And if in this article they don't talk about the natural tendency of satellites to show the same side to the earth, it's because they think that people are familiarized with it, and don't need to be told this fact. ...The natural tendency of a spinning satellite is to transfer the rotational motion to the major axis -- the axis with the greatest moment of inertia. You were even shown, using basic physics, why this occurs. As we've laboriously pointed out, you've wrongly extended that special case to include all spacecraft. The notion that a spacecraft maintains its orientation relative to the local vertical and horizontal is not an uncommon misconception. Many beginning students have the same impression. But you only have to remind them gently that Newton's first law still applies, and they -- who generally have a sufficient grasp of physics -- will invariably say, "But of course, I had forgotten." ... In fact, Frederik Pohl described the most extreme scenario of tidal locking in his science fiction novel Gateway which was written way back in 1977. In his novel it was a Heechee spaceship trapped just above the event horizon of a black hole. Of course the long axis of the spaceship was tidally locked and as a result, the spaceship constantly pointed its tail end towards the black hole. Amazing that even a science fiction writer fully understood the basic orbital mechanics concept that tidal locking would eventually cause a roughly cylindrically shaped spaceship to always point either its nose or tail toward a black hole, depending on when end of the spaceship was heavier. Inquisitivemind also fails to understand why the Moon itself always presents the same face towards the Earth. The Moon's greatest moment of inertia towards the side of the Moon which constantly faces the Earth. In other words inquisitivemind, look up at the Moon and realize that the Apollo CSM would eventually point its longest axis of inertia and more specifically its SM engine bell towards the Moon, just as the Moon constantly points its major moment of inertia towards the Earth, keeping the same side of the Moon forever pointed towards the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 17:18:37 GMT -4
That would be true for a plane, but not in space. Of course, the orbital body can lose altitude without losing its horizontal velocity; the attraction will slightly increase, so there will be a little vertical acceleration if the horizontal speed remains the same.Of course, it's not an helicopter; it doesn't behave as such, but still for the helicopter too there is an optimal trajectory for landing. I have used this analogy, knowing it was not exact, because the lem does not behave like an helicopter, but to help people to understand. Bolded statement is utterly false and discredits any further analysis of your theory. Inquisitivemind, I direct you to Kepler's three Laws of planetary motion. Those laws apply to satellites as well. Kepler's laws are: 1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci. 2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I direct your attention to Kepler's Second Law. If an orbiting satellite is either losing or gaining altitude, then the satellite's orbit has to be in an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, and the satellite's velocity has to be constantly changing in order to satisfy Kepler's Second Law. Why? Because by implication there are only two ways for a satellite to sweep out equal areas of space during equal periods of time... The first way is if the satellite is in a circular orbit. A satellite in a circular orbit maintains a constant altitude and therefore maintains a constant velocity in order to sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time. Yet you stated that a satellite can lose altitude without changing velocity. The fact that the satellite is losing altitude means that the satellite obviously is not in a circular orbit which has a constant orbital altitude. The second way is if the satellite is in an elliptical orbit. For a satellite in an elliptical orbit to satisfy Kepler's Second Law of sweeping out equal areas during equal intervals of time, the satellite's velocity has to be continually changing. Likewise the satellite's altitude, since it is in an elliptical orbit, also is continuously changing. Again, for a satellite which is losing or gaining altitude, its orbit must be elliptical. And for a satellite in an elliptical orbit, the satellite's velocity must be continually changing so that its orbit sweeps out equal areas during equal periods of time. Thus an orbiting satellite which is losing altitude is: 1. In an elliptical orbit and 2. the satellite is gaining forward velocity rather than maintaining a constant velocity. Inquisitivemind, you can not even begin to hope to understand orbital mechanics if you can not understand Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Apr 22, 2010 15:14:19 GMT -4
Well that's a slight improvement. Impressive, but not earth-shattering. Certainly not up to the standard we were led to expect. Again, it is widely agreed among the relevant experts that the LRO images we have seen are consistent with the expected capabilities of that system. You are the one trying to establish a different standard. You have been asked to substantiate that standard, but so far you are unable to. Hence you have yet to supply any meaningful reason to dismiss the LRO images; you simply don't want to believe them. hagbardceline, once you fully process and then deconvolve a LRO Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) photo taken from the LRO's nominal 50km orbital altitude, it is readily apparent that the LRO's camera and optics actually are achieving 0.5 meter resolution, just as designed. Here is a link to one of my recent videos which proves that the LRO's NAC is performing as designed and to spec: www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_sRJcr8hxo
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Apr 22, 2010 15:03:20 GMT -4
As far as I know, the mission films were developed, and then immediately contact dupes were made of the original mission films. Then the original mission films went back into the cold storage freezer since they are worth far more than their weight in gold. The contact dupes were immediately distributed to various NASA subdivisions and research institutions around the world so that even if the cold storage freezer burned to the ground, then duplicate photographic records of the original films would exist at several locations. As far as I am aware, all of the early published photos of the Apollo missions were created from the contact dupes. I could be wrong about this, but this seems to be the case. All of the mission film canisters are marked with labels which have a red background which usually means "mission critical" or some such. I'm not sure when the first digital scans were made of the contact dupes of the original Apollo mission films. Obviously it was sometime in the 1990's when digital scanners reached a sufficient stage of development. Anything previous to the 1990's would have been drum scanned from a print made from a contact dupe. Arizona State University currently is involved in a project to digitally scan and archive all of the original Apollo mission films. This is the first time that the actual Apollo mission films will have been digitally scanned, and this project started in 2007. Here is a neat link about the start of the project: www.physorg.com/news105190869.htmlAnd here is a really neat link which explains the full digital scanning and image processing techniques which ASU is using: apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.htmlMark Robinson at ASU is rather busy orchestrating the LRO mission. It seems that the Apollo mission film scanning project has temporarily taken a back seat. But in any event the ASU team will get around to scanning the much higher resolution Apollo panorama camera photos and then all of the Apollo Hasselblad photos taken by the Apollo astronauts. Have fun looking at some of the digitally scanned metric (mapping) camera photos. Link: wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/browseIt is absolutely amazing with regards to the amount of detail which was recorded on film from the A15 through A17 mapping cameras, especially considering that the mapping cameras had only a 3 inch focal length! Well what would you expect? After all, the metric cameras were designed for the US Air Force, adapted for use in the Apollo program, and were classified technology. The panorama cameras in particular were heavily classified technology at the time. Everyone assumes that Kaguya (Selene) and the LRO's Narrow Angle Cameras (NOCs) were the first to photograph the Apollo landing sites. This is not the case. The mapping and panorama cameras aboard the later Apollo missions did capture some of the Apollo landing sites in enough detail to reveal sunlight glints off of the landers (either entire landers or the descent stages of previous missions). For example, mapping camera photos AS15-M-2555 and AS16-M-1388 through AS16-M-1390 appear to show sunlight glints off of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage. So, technically and historically speaking, these photos are some of the first to actually record Apollo hardware on the lunar surface. I will be making a YouTube video using these original mapping camera photos which have been digitally scanned by ASU, but at the moment this video is a project which is on the "back burner" so to speak. Needless to say, the Apollo 15 command module's mapping camera also photographed the Apollo 15 LM's halo created by the LM's descent engine. I can't remember if I saw a sunlight glint off of the LM itself in any of the Apollo 15 mapping camera photos, but once the much higher resolution Apollo 15 panorama camera photos are scanned, I will bet that those photos will show sunlight glints of the Apollo 15 LM on the lunar surface. But of course the moon landing hoax believers will claim that Mark Robinson and all of the other scientists, professors and researchers at ASU now are "in" on the Apollo moon landing hoax -- 40 years later! Tee Hee.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Feb 28, 2010 9:12:09 GMT -4
"...The only thing I wasn't sure about was what the "flag" actually was. It certainly didn't have any stripes or stars on it. It could have been a checklist page that is seen taped above the commander's circuit breaker panel in a post-EVA picture of Armstrong. It could have been the shade for the overhead rendezvous window. Or it could have been the rendezvous window itself." My best guess is that the flag is the aluminized Mylar shade covering the rendezvous window since it has the correct roll angle, matching the angle of the cylindrical cabin wall where the rendezvous window is located. The shade would have been unfurled and covering the docking window prior to descent and landing.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 8, 2009 3:39:05 GMT -4
I'm 100% sure the photo is a fake since the flag in the background obviously is rippling in a breeze, yet their hair isn't getting blown by the breeze.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 8, 2009 3:31:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 8, 2009 3:23:27 GMT -4
Don't ya'all get it? Randy Reid obviously is a fictitious co-author name dreamed up by Kaysing. Randy Reid = "It (the book) is a randy read!" In other words, I think that Kaysing was basically admitting that he made up the entire hoax thing.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 8, 2009 3:10:56 GMT -4
Flat area (final attempt to demonstrate the flatness between the LM and the ridge)We had several discussions about flatness: overall flatness and local flatness. Specifically the general statements of flatness were difficult to quantify. So let us focus on the area between the LM and the ridge... Hi andreas, Check this high res jpeg topo map (file is 32MB in size) of the Apollo 11 landing site terrain: history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11_descent.jpgLooking at the topo map, you can see that the terrain slopes upwards towards the north and west.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 26, 2009 20:12:01 GMT -4
Ed Whitey... but unfortunately he never got to walk on the moon so the video is inaccurate. Hmm...so the video is a hoax since Whitey never landed on the moon.
|
|