|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 17, 2010 16:00:29 GMT -4
I gotta admit, I don't either.  |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Apr 17, 2010 19:23:37 GMT -4
I think I got it!
It's the reflections in the visors. Scott looks tiny in Irwin's visor. In Nicollier's visor, the "astronaut" taking the photograph looks big. "Astronaut" is in quotes because the reflected image doesn't look like an astronaut to me but the author of the website may be assuming it is an astronaut.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 17, 2010 20:48:05 GMT -4
The main reflection in Nicollier's visor appears to be the open payload bay of the space shuttle. Above that is the reflection of the earth, and on top of that is the shuttle's robotic arm holding the HST.
The camera taking the picture should be at the closest point on the visor, and at that point I see what appears to be the windows looking out from the orbiter's aft flight deck onto the payload bay. So I presume this picture was taken by one of the astronauts on the aft flight deck out through those windows; he or she is too small to see as the distance is too great.
Another difference is that Nicollier doesn't have a gold visor down. I presume he has one available, but it's up in this picture because he's working in earthshine without any direct sunlight.
|
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 18, 2010 3:59:18 GMT -4
You could summarise his point (if he actually had one) in your own words. He lists six comparative points between the two photographs, these include differences in the nature of the sunlight and the nature of the spacesuits in the two photographs. He does state though that the exercise is just a bit of fun. I will refrain from quoting directly from Prof. Rourke's email until he has given me permission to do so which I think is only right and proper. I should have really done so before I started running off at the mouth. Hopefully he'll be amenable to his theories being discussed in an open manner what with being a Professor and all! |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 18, 2010 4:44:50 GMT -4
I assume you mean "nature of the illumination" because I see no sunlight at all in the Shuttle/Hubble picture. The scene is entirely illuminated by light reflected from the earth above the picture.
If a scene in space can be entirely illuminated by earth light, then it seems reasonable to posit that a scene on the lunar surface can be partially lit by light reflected off the moon...
Since there's about 30 years between the two photographs, one might expect the suits to look just a bit different.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 18, 2010 11:35:57 GMT -4
With a little work, I think I was able to represent more clearly what Mr. Rourke was trying to do. This project took me many weeks of digital manipulation and research to achieve these results. Hopefully this will clear up any ambiguities.... ;D ;D  I see now! There's a reticule on the Apollo astronaut. Definetly fake; the reticule should be wrinkled like his suit. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 19, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -4
I will refrain from quoting directly from Prof. Rourke's email until he has given me permission to do so which I think is only right and proper. I should have really done so before I started running off at the mouth. Yep. Of course, you could still paraphrase what the point is. |
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 19, 2010 14:04:33 GMT -4
I will refrain from quoting directly from Prof. Rourke's email until he has given me permission to do so which I think is only right and proper. I should have really done so before I started running off at the mouth. Yep. Of course, you could still paraphrase what the point is. OK, I would like to reply to Professor Rourke and rebut his theories regarding these two photographs. In order to do so I would like to ask for some assistance and clarification from the members of this forum by asking the following questions: 1) Why is Nicollier's visor clear, compared to Irwin's mirrored visor? 2) Why is the light in the photo of Nicollier clear and yellowish, compared to the blueish hazy light in Irwin's photo, and what accounts for the different shades of grey in the background of Irwin's photo? 3) What is the ragged looking item beneath Irwin's right elbow? Nicollier's suit looks much more streamlined by comparison. 4) Is Nicollier's suit only partially inflated, and if so, would this be due to any kind of loss of pressure, say from an inner suit? By comparison, do Apollo suits always have a more rumpled appearance than Nicollier's? 5) What might account for the sharp lines dividing the differing shades of grey in the background of the Apollo photo, and are there any reasons to suspect that these sharp lines are in any way artificial? I would like to stress that it is my personal belief that these are two perfectly normal (but nonetheless spectacular) NASA photographs. I am simply asking for some help in replying to an email from Professor Rourke. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 19, 2010 14:36:32 GMT -4
By comparison, do Apollo suits always have a more rumpled appearance than Nicollier's?
Depends on what you mean by rumpled. Both suits have folds and seams. Irwin's suit however is dirty as should be expected. How could Nicollier's suit have become soiled in earth orbit?
What might account for the sharp lines dividing the differing shades of gray in the background of the Apollo photo, and are there any reasons to suspect that these sharp lines are in any way artificial?
The sharp lines are caused by the rolling terrain. There is a drop off past Irwin then a rise in the middle that again drops off until the mountains in the background rise up. I'll let the photo experts here provide more details about lighting, reflectivity, and such if needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 19, 2010 14:58:33 GMT -4
Depends on what you mean by rumpled. Both suits have folds and seams. Irwin's suit however is dirty as should be expected. How could Nicollier's suit have become soiled in earth orbit? Thank you very much for your reply. By rumpled I mean the surface texture rather than the colour of the suits. Space exploration is a new interest for me and I'm very much a beginner. I will of course do some research myself, but if you can point me towards any good resources showing how the Apollo 15 and Shuttle suits are constructed, particularly how they are pressurised, that would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 19, 2010 15:07:38 GMT -4
1) Why is Nicollier's visor clear, compared to Irwin's mirrored visor? In both suits the mirrored visor could be raised if they were in the shadows so they could see better. As Nicollier seems to be not in direct sunlight I assume he raised it. 3) What is the ragged looking item beneath Irwin's right elbow? Nicollier's suit looks much more streamlined by comparison. Looks like a sample bag attached to his PLSS, not a part of the suit. 4) Is Nicollier's suit only partially inflated, and if so, would this be due to any kind of loss of pressure, say from an inner suit? By comparison, do Apollo suits always have a more rumpled appearance than Nicollier's? In the Apollo A7L suit the outer white layer is not pressurised at all, only the inner suit is. www.clavius.org/img/naked-suit.jpgThis is what the pressurised inner suit looks like. No idea about the construction of the modern shuttle suits. 5) What might account for the sharp lines dividing the differing shades of grey in the background of the Apollo photo, and are there any reasons to suspect that these sharp lines are in any way artificial? They are just the changing terrain, without atmosphere they would be pretty sharp. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 19, 2010 15:08:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Apr 19, 2010 16:33:21 GMT -4
Since no-one else has had a go at the first part of question 2 yet: First, I don't detect much of a difference in the overall light between the scenes. However, I do note that there are yellowish highlights on Nicollier's suit; yellow highlights that are directly opposite gold foil. Any excess of yellow will most likely be due to specular reflections from that foil, which tends to cover a large percentage of space equipment. Similarly, whilst I don't see any excess blue at all in the photograph of Irwin (if there were, the reds of the suit hose connectors and flag stripes would be tinted slightly purple), I do see the "haziness" but only in places which are in shade and therefore only lit by heligenschein (spp?) light from the surface, which is diffuse and low contrast, which isn't helping the film capture detail. If you examine a hi-res (over 1 MB file) scan of the original, you will see that the whole image is affected by what looks like poor exposure metering more than anything else... |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 19, 2010 17:03:22 GMT -4
Wait--he didn't get that you can raise and lower the visor? How little research does it take to learn that?
|
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 19, 2010 17:59:53 GMT -4
Wait--he didn't get that you can raise and lower the visor? How little research does it take to learn that? I know. Looking at the rest of Professor Rourke's web site it seems to me that he's an accomplished mathematician (at least I'm guessing he is; most of his stuff is waaaay over my head) and of well-above average intelligence. To be frank, I'm quite shocked at the naivety (and as you say Gillian; lack of research) in some of his arguments. I can understand a first-grader being taken in by the whole fake moon landing thing; but a Professor of mathematics? I find that somehow slightly disturbing  |
|
