|
Post by theteacher on Jul 6, 2011 16:52:11 GMT -4
Carrying the Fire is where Collins makes his most clear and directed statement as regards this point. Great. I have the book right here on my desk. What page(s)? And what on the the page(s) would you like to comment?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 6, 2011 16:57:31 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction proves Apollo to be far more bull than far out science. It is not necessary to know in detail, why the eyes work like they do. It is adequate to know how they work. In the same way it is possible to eat right on time, even if you do not know why the digestion system works as it does - obviously.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 6, 2011 17:11:51 GMT -4
Hi, DrTea, MaryB, BSpassky, BFischer, Sicilian, etc..Over at BAUT, this troll: - refused to give citations - made some actionable claims and then backed down - used strawmen at every opportunity - avoided direct questions and so on, and has now been rightly banned. Do NOT let him/her get away with those techniques here. I invite readers to take a look hereWhen I have a little more time, I'll provide a list of all the false claims, uncited quotes, and unanswered questions so s/he can answer those issues here. BTW, I think these displays of incompetence are VERY useful to show: - the complete ignorance of Apollo deniers - their willingness to use ANY behavior they think will help their cause, including lying about their claims and also their non-existent 'expertise', and pretending they are more than one person. Me, I'd be ashamed. But, I understand their desperation - it is a lost cause after all.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 6, 2011 17:23:24 GMT -4
Fattydash is actually correct in his explanation of how the eye/brain adapts to large changes in light level.
That Michael Collins did not know this correct explanation shows only that he is not a trained biologist, but rather the pilot/astronaut we know him to be.
And the fact that the bulk of the response is a very slow change in the sensitivity of the retina actually UNDERSCORES the astronauts' inability to see stars with the naked eye during the daytime. You don't have to look at a daylit scene (or a spacecraft cabin lit with fluorescent lights) for long until your retinas to adjust to daylight sensitivity. It would then take many minutes of dark adaptation before they could see stars.
I.e., it's not sufficient merely to view the sky while blocking all sunlit (or artificially lit) objects in your field of view, as difficult as that is when neither the spacecraft nor the suit helmets are designed to do that. You must first dark-adapt your eyes, and that's a slow process for which the astronauts simply had no time.
They could see stars on the night side of earth and moon for the simple reason that they were in the dark long enough to regain night vision. Of course, they'd still have to turn off or block off cabin lighting to do it.
The actual question at the press conference had to do with seeing stars through the solar corona. I don't know if you've ever witnessed a total eclipse, but the corona is bright enough to obscure any average stars behind it. Just look at the SOHO coronagraph images; stars are visible only outside the corona.
So fattydash presents an excellent example of an argument that starts from a correct premise, then rapidly follows a non sequitur to a totally bogus conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 19:38:57 GMT -4
That Michael Collins did not know this correct explanation shows only that he is not a trained biologist, but rather the pilot/astronaut we know him to be. If I understand what's being said, we don't even necessarily know that he didn't know the correct explanation. Just that it doesn't appear in the book.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:18:31 GMT -4
The question asked by Patrick Moore at the post Apollo 11 press conference was given a three component answer by Neil Armstrong. He did not formally indicate there were three components to the answer, but take a look, youtube search "Apollo 11 post flight press conference" and you'll hear his answer about 47 minutes in. The answer to Moore's question features 3 important points.
!)Armstrong answered that at no time did the astronauts see stars from the surface of the moon during the EVA.
2)His answer also includes the astronauts not seeing stars from the sunlit side of the moon while in the CM.
3)The answer also includes the point that when they first approched the moon from its dark side, a point in the journey when they witness an eclipse of the sun, Armstrong could not recall the stars/constellations that he did see. This is the point in the journey, the eclipse point, where the astronauts view the solar corona. Patrick Moore was particularly interested in this moment, what was visible.
Collins follows Armstrong with a statement that he could not recall seeing any stars/constellations at that time. The time being reffered to here by Collins is the time of the eclipse, the solar corona viewing. Some observers believe Neil Armstrong disapprovingly nudges Collins after the command module pilot contradicts the mission commander. See what you think about the nudge. If it is there, it is subtle.
And so, Collins contradicts Armstrong in that the commander is admitting stars at this time, at the point of the eclipse and the viewing of the solar corona, and there were said to have been many of them, like a night out here on earth when star visibility is good, or perhaps better given the alleged circumstances. Armstrong does not recall which stars/constellations he did see.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:24:32 GMT -4
For the teacher.
I do not have my book with me. You should have no trouble finding the relevant passages. Take a look at the part when he describes their arriving at the moon's dark side. It is a very dranmatic moment. In that general area of the book, I believe it is there, Collins discusses some points dealing with navigation and he also talks about cislunar space as being starless owing to the cabin's bright sunlit interior and the consequent pupillary constriction which was responsible for the starless feature of the cislunar sky.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:38:14 GMT -4
For the teacher.
Yes you are absolutely correct about pilots' appreciation of their visual physiology. They could not care less about some of the details. The names of the photosensitive chemicals for example. I bet many, most probably, that once heard and read the names, have long forgotten them.
However, pilots nevertheless have great practical knowledge, especially as regards how long it takes their eyes to adapt, and how to help that process along, perhaps help it along. They also know things like the most sensitive part of the retinae is in the non color sensitive periphery. This is why pilots and others in the know, tip their head, angle it so that dim light will strike in such a way as to impact the retina's periphery and not the much less light sensitive center.
So though they are exposed to all the terms physiologists use when they are introduced to the subject, as time goes on, what they develop is a deep practical understanding of dark/light adaptive mechanisms. What to do when. That said, the fairly simple basic principles as to why their eyes work the way they do, are not forgotten.
If one looks at aerospace medicine texts, authors often emphasize the importance of pilots studying these principles with great attention. It is important for them to have a good basic sense as to what is going on, as visibility concerns are often paramount.
|
|
|
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 fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:44:26 GMT -4
Count Zero.
Take a look at NASA's own web site "Lunar Science for Kids", not to mention many others. Many professional astronomers, including NASA astronomers point out that stars would actually be better seen from the lunar surface. This is typically when they are discussing the issue outside of the context of Apollo. Some astronomers actually change their answer with regard to this when hoax implications are realized.
Often times, when astronomers are discussing why one cannot see stars here on earth during the day time, this comes up. The moon situation is used as a counter example. No atmosphere, therefore one sees stars from the surface of the moon in the day time. Check out Lunar Science for kids. Also can be found on NASA's Cosmocopia and many other places.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 6, 2011 22:51:38 GMT -4
Count Zero. Take a look at NASA's own web site "Lunar Science for Kids", not to mention many others. Many professional astronomers, including NASA astronomers point out that stars would actually be better seen from the lunar surface. This is typically when they are discussing the issue outside of the context of Apollo. Some astronomers actually change their answer with regard to this when hoax implications are realized. Often times, when astronomers are discussing why one cannot see stars here on earth during the day time, this comes up. The moon situation is used as a counter example. No atmosphere, therefore one sees stars from the surface of the moon in the day time. Check out Lunar Science for kids. Also can be found on NASA's Cosmocopia and many other places. The stars look the same from the Moon as they do from Earth, so why would they waste their short time on the Moon looking at stars? I can tell you that if I was on the Moon I would look at two things: the Moon and the Earth. I could get a better view of the stars from Earth with a cheap telescope from Walmart than the astronauts could from the Moon with their naked eyes.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:57:16 GMT -4
I agree Lunar Orbit, no need to look at stars assuming this were all real. It is the Apollo astronauts themselves, Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins who emphasize no stars.
When Moore asks his question, one would expect, yeah, I saw this and that, a star here there, a planet, venus was bright. No big deal. But they make it clear, no stars. It is the fact that there are no simple casual encounters with what should be obvious, stars. No need to emphasize, just acknowledge they are there. But surprisingly, they are denied, not absolutely, but nearly so. It is very much not consistant with the environment and our physiology.
|
|
|
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 fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 23:05:01 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.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 6, 2011 23:08:04 GMT -4
Often times, when astronomers are discussing why one cannot see stars here on earth during the day time, this comes up. The moon situation is used as a counter example. No atmosphere, therefore one sees stars from the surface of the moon in the day time. This counter example is both correct and incorrect depending on the circumstances. One could see stars in the daytime from the surface of the moon if one could shield his eyes from light reflecting off of surrounding surfaces. For instance, the astronauts could see stars when inside the LM and looking through the overhead rendezvous window. However, one would have great difficulty seeing stars if his eyes were unshielded, as the astronauts' eyes were when outside the LM. At virtually all times while outside the LM the astronauts eyes were being flooded by light reflecting off the ground. Trying to see stars in that circumstance would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while looking straight into a streetlight.
|
|