|
Post by gwiz on Dec 9, 2011 5:14:32 GMT -4
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this; ...and if you also had a set of the right filters for the Sun. If he was flying at night, with just the dim instrument lights, his eyes must have been pretty dark adapted even before he switched off his lights. Rather a different situation from the well-lit Apollo capsule interior, yet the Apollo astronauts also reported seeing bright stars when they were on the night side of the Moon. Not just government facts, there were all the astronomers who observed the missions, the geologists who examined the samples, the non-US communications engineers involved, the scientists who used the Apollo data to come up with a new theory of the Moon's origin that has survived all the new data since...
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 2, 2011 10:21:17 GMT -4
Which suggests to me that he didn't, and the 'quote' is fanciful. You may well be right. The earliest mention I can find is a page by Eric Hufschmid, a conspiracist with a record on the star-viewing topic. He used a quote from a U-2 pilot to suggest that stars were easily visible from high altitude, but neglected to mention that the pilot was referring to a night flight. Edit to add. Found an earlier version, just after his second flight: "He said he could see stars above, once he departed Earth's atmosphere. There was enough of a pause at the top for him to take a break from piloting, peek out the windows, and take some snapshots with a little camera he'd stowed on board."Any betting that you could see stars in those photos?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 2, 2011 9:59:02 GMT -4
bob b chew asked me who made the remarks concerning seeing stars in daylight, in space. i posted it originally as NASA astronaut it is not, it is a civilian astronaut follow link to full article. www.aulis.com/stars.htmI asked you for your source of that claim back on 20th November. You would get more (you could hardly get less) respect here if you read and responded to other peoples posts. I would suggest that Melvill, in a vehicle that was accelerating pretty much straight up, would not see the earth and could well not see the sun either. In such a case, his vision could well adapt in the time he took to fly out of the atmosphere. The fact that his flight started in low-light conditions - "shortly after the last stars were quenched" - may be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 30, 2011 6:27:28 GMT -4
The version that launched Explorer 1 used several small solid-propellant motors as an upper stage(s), though I don't know the exact configuration. It was a spin-stabilised assembly of Scaled Sergeant solid motors, 11 in the second stage, three in the third and a single one as fourth stage that remained attached to the Explorer payload.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 29, 2011 5:52:11 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works Playdor, you are accusing a lot of people of lying about Apollo. That is, you are attempting to adopt a superior moral position. Don't you see that coming out with blatant lies about your own qualifications completely undermines your position?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 28, 2011 11:03:46 GMT -4
There is plenty of docking film about if you look. Recent examples are from the missions to the International Space Station and the Chinese Shenzhou 8 dockings with Tiangong 1.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2011 10:58:51 GMT -4
3000 rads over 3 years is about 2.74 rads/day or .685 rads/belt crossing, remarkably close to what the Apollo astronauts experienced on each of their belt crossings. A few years back I went to a talk by a guy from Surrey Satellite about their GIOVE-A satellite, which was in a high circular orbit within the belts, so spending more time actually in the belts than your satellite. At one point he put up a graph of the onboard radiation measurements. As far as I remember, it was similar to the level you mention, perhaps 10 rad per day.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2011 8:26:51 GMT -4
simply put, we could not get to the moon, we can't get thru the radiation belts and live, and even if we tried space if filled with radiation. You are aware that there are now hundreds of organisations operating satellites within and beyond the Van Allen belts? These include a worldwide variety of governments, commercial and academic organisations and even radio amateur groups. If the radiation environment wasn't as NASA claimed, don't you think someone might have noticed? In spite of no-one seeing them there, but plenty of astronomers, amateurs as well as professionals, seeing them on their lunar trajectory. Apollo in low orbit would have been as conspicuous as Skylab. In spite of the fact that no astronomer or geologist has found a single flaw in the Apollo record, despite decades of study? You can find web pages listing lots of flaws in Kubrick's 2001. In which case they made an astounding job of predicting the weather on earth during the mission.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 24, 2011 15:47:37 GMT -4
AS11-44-6661-rotate 180 is this orientation correct ? this is a picture of the moon as Apollo 11 is leaving orbit on return path to earth then the film 1122d was taken on the extreme eastern side correct? and maybe the area that the film was taken is not even in sun light portion seen in this image? or do i have it reversed and we are looking directly over the area where the cm and lm docked? This is mainly the eastern hemisphere of the moon, (west side as seen from earth) and some of the far side, not visible from earth, is included. The orientation is not mirror-reversed and north is to the right. The LM docking took place over the Mare Smythii, which I think is in the photo lower centre and which you could identify by comparing the photo with a lunar map.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 24, 2011 13:52:03 GMT -4
Here's the same crater from the Japanese Kaguya probe, confirmation that it isn't flipped:
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 24, 2011 13:26:13 GMT -4
not much of a description is it? that is his entire description of the experience. If you limit your research to one source, you may not find much. However, Armstrong is the co-author of a five-page report describing the crew experience, and the description of the time on the surface in the crew debrief, about equally shared between Armstrong and Aldrin, runs to 23 pages.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 24, 2011 13:15:31 GMT -4
Playdor, you've just given us the same picture rotated. Rotating a picture doesn't alter its validity.
Are you trying to say that because the moon is fully lit, no shadows, from one angle, there should be no shadows if you look at the moon from another angle? Or are you trying to say something else? I must confess that I find your posts a tad incoherent.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 21, 2011 11:59:27 GMT -4
No, I’m not familiar with that. Here's a place to start. It was successfully tested on the Swedish PRISMA satellite.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 20, 2011 15:14:31 GMT -4
just the fact that at least one shuttle astronaut commented on seeing stars as the blackness of space started to appear...while taking off in the day light negates this eye not being able to adjust argument. Even though the Shuttle takes some ten minutes to reach orbit? By the way, if you raised this earlier I missed it. Do you have a source for this astronaut quote? Who was it and which mission?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 20, 2011 13:31:52 GMT -4
Playdor, have you ever actually looked at the stars? I ask this because you seem to be wilfully ignorant of the circumstances of when you can and cannot see stars with the naked eye.
What is your experience? Do you live in the city where stars are pretty much never visible or out in a rural area where you can see plenty on a clear night? Have you ever looked at the stars for several minutes and noticed how the view changes as your eyes adapt?
|
|