|
Post by chrlz on Apr 8, 2011 22:16:30 GMT -4
There are a number of odd bits in the image - the 'jewelry' + watch on one of the hands, the strange hair effect, the overlap of what appears to be a female's blouse... It looks like there may be a woman seated behind him, and that perhaps it is a double exposure from 2 flashes hence the overlaps of some items that moved between the flashes. However, the image is way too small to examine properly, hence my request for a bit more context right at the start - other images that were taken at the time may reveal the other person or give clues as to what has happened, or if Buzz really does have >2 hands and a proclivity for strange jewelry and hairstyles..
Hello, s-m-kat, are you listening?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Apr 8, 2011 5:04:56 GMT -4
umm... context might be useful..
your pic?
are you asking for an analysis? if so...
where is a full-res version?
camera? settings?
exif data?
can we see the images immediately before/after this one?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Mar 6, 2011 3:06:32 GMT -4
Just for the record, I've thrown a few responses onto that blog (or whatever it is), focusing on a number of issues, including: - in a vacuum, things take a long while to get hot or cold, as there is no conductive or convective heating/cooling. - the cameras were big solid aluminium ones, painted with a suitable reflective silver coating - the cameras were being constantly moved around, so they would have been in shadow often, and when in sunlight, only one half of the surfaces would be illuminated, the others would be radiating heat back out... - that the arm-in-the-sun 'analogy' is ridiculously flawed (see below) - asked any of them to provide thermal transfer calculations... (grin) - asked any of them to provide all the factors that would be necessary to analyse a situation like this properly (after giving them most of them, to complete silence...) - asked if they thought NASA didn’t have suitable previous experience with cameras in space - and of course asked about the miraculous UV to IR process that Tony has invented.. Interestingly, I suspect that our biological/nervous response to getting a UV-induced sunburn is in fact a very large part of why one's arm feels 'hot' when in the Sun. Any biological whizzes here that can comment on that? 'Steve' has responded by saying my posts are too long winded, and that the outback sun 'has cooked your fritter'... I think that's game set and match, but would love to hear other educated opinions...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Mar 4, 2011 4:48:06 GMT -4
To LunarOrbit and chew, thank you for those videos. It's extremely rare that i really do laugh out loud while sitting at the pc... They are great!!!!
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Mar 3, 2011 16:44:43 GMT -4
So, them cameras were just sitting out there in the Sun? Never went into shadow as the astronauts moved around? And when they were in the Sun, how much of the camera was being struck by sunlight?
And I'd like to hear more about this UV to IR conversion process...
In other words, let's see some numbers and real heat transfer analysis that takes into account the REALITY. It's just more ill-informed, unsupported handwaving from people who couldn't analyse their way out of a wet brown paper bag.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 20, 2011 5:12:10 GMT -4
I confess to not being aware of last week's cme size and type.. so probably should defer to a better informed reader... but in the meantime.. NASA did have a set of protocols for making the decisions that might be required (I've got a link here somewhere...( see below)), from simply re-orienting the spacecraft to put most of it between the astronauts and the problem, through to a complete mission abort to bring them home to safety and/or treatment. The decision would be made not only on the amount of radiation, but also its type, speed and direction, the likelihood of it being a one off event as these often are, even whether there was any reasonable chance of avoiding it, and how far thru the mission it was. Bear in mind that back in the 60's, things were a bit more 'pioneering', you might say, so I suspect that if it was borderline they may have erred towards mission completion rather than a small risk of long-term effects to the astronauts (being expendable test-pilots and all.. . Also, these events are exceptionally rare and the craft were quite well shielded, so the chances of one affecting a mission were close to vanishingly small. Compared to the other risks inherent in a mission like that, it was almost a no-brainer. Added: It's AIAA Paper 69-19 "Radiation plan for the Apollo lunar mission", some of it quoted here: www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 20, 2011 1:58:59 GMT -4
Hello, all! - I see familiar faces here.. Sorry I didn't spot this thread earlier to introduce myself. I'm another scientist 'pretender' - I don't have many actual qualifications 'cept in Mech Eng, but have spent much of my working life around scientists, in fact for several years I was Operations Manager at a marine science and research centre, and got to tell many scientists and professors what to do (well... ok, I facilitated what they *could* do, so that's almost the same!) Sometimes experience trumps letters after your name.. I was a bright eyed, geeky and incredibly enthusiastic youngster at the time of Apollo, and both then and now I believe it was mankind's finest achievement in both science and engineering. I was somewhat astonished when I discovered, via the Interweb about ten years ago, that there was a band of Apollo deniers.. Frankly I think they are a slap in the face to the hugely talented thousands who worked tirelessly on making Apollo the success it was.. I'm currently developing an Apollo Radiation themed website, that hopefully will be ready for posting soon. And as I am standing on others shoulders, I do, and it will, thank many of the contributors here, Like Bob, Jay and others for their work. Anyway, I've lurked and frequently utilised this forum's expertise in the past, and thought it was time I joined up..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 19, 2011 19:36:37 GMT -4
hagbardceline, I'd like to re-iterate my request.
You claim there are anomalies/conflicts/variations of some significance in the scientific literature on VAB radiation.
I am preparing a website on the topic of radiation as it applied to the Apollo missions. It is largely complete but not posted yet. It will be a very comprehensive coverage, including looking at the analysis that led up to the missions, the spacecrafts trajectories and time in the belts, the actual types and potential dangers of the radiation, the shielding used, the estimated/ found/ subsequently recorded/verified amounts of radiation in the belts, and more besides.
On that webpage (and here also), I would like see that information to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible.
Do YOU?
If so, please cite, in detail and your own words, the 'anomalies' to which you refer. By PM if you don't wish to renege on your 'departure'..
Now here's the thing, hag.. I'm a rather tenacious, thorough sort of person. So if you do not come back here and provide the cites (or do the manly thing and apologise for misleading the forum if you realise you were mistaken).. then I'll pop over to your forum and ask the same question (very politely). Perhaps someone else over there is a bit better informed and will stand by their words.
As far as I can see, there is only one reason why you would not provide the citations, and it requires no rocket science to work it out...
So please prove me wrong, and help me in the fair dissemination of knowledge on this topic.
Thanks for your cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 19, 2011 5:23:21 GMT -4
I've provided reasons why I think the Van Allen Belts were an issue at the time Apollo allegedly flew: That they were there, but people weren't sure how dangerous they were. To this day, variable information is being published on them. I'm sorry, but this is just incomprehensible. Firstly, you keep repeating this claim of conflicting information on the VABs, as if somehow different opinions that are expressed, or new methodologies being applied and giving more refined information, is somehow proof of a hoax. That's simply ludicrous. IF you claim that there are significant conflicts - CITE them. This entire thread (and yes, I've endured read all of it) seems based on your handwaving without any proper cites, and completely ignoring all the information handed to you. BTW, just out of interest, I'm in the process of putting together a lengthy online dissertation about the radiation issues that applied to the Apollo missions, and I'm just not seeing these conflicts. It is a topic I can claim to be very familiar with, but I'm happy to learn something new. So now it's back to you - I'd like to be comprehensive in my coverage, so you tell me where (and what) those conflicts/variations are, please... Thanks in advance. And if they are simply the result of the refining process that has gone on since Van Allen seriously began looking at them, I'll be a little disappointed. But not surprised, having read the rest of this thread.. Added: PS - I now see he's run for it. Just in time... (I hope he has taken all those smilies with him...) Anyway, if anyone else has noted serious conflicts in VAB information, could you post the cites here? Thanks..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 18, 2011 18:08:33 GMT -4
I have to ask.. why? So I can tell them what their "UFOs" really are, although I don't expect them to believe me and I do expect that some of them won't like me. You nailed it! If you hang around places like Youtube, there is an endless supply of ridiculous vids, and a seemingly endless supply of idiots cheering the suppliers on (although it may just be a small team of trolls...) That's a good example - they often shoot themselves in the foot. I've found one way to deal with them is to firstly ask - when and where was this, and was the sky clear? (give them a little rope first..) {then a quick look at Stellarium..}- ok, so you must have ALSO seen venus/jupiter/whatever - where was your object in relation to them? And can you show me some footage/images you have taken of venus/jupiter/whatever so we can compare? Things tend to go very quiet, or the abuse begins, at that point! As twik said - maybe. Depends on the camera and the savviness of the user - the cheaper models do tend to make audible motor noises as they rack the focus back and forth, or tiny clicks as they swap the aperture around. More expensive cameras may be completely silent. But the thing is, an experienced user will *see* all these effects on, say, streetlights.. Again, a good test is to ask them to use the same camera and go film some known small point objects, like distant street/flood-lamps. The serious observer will bend over backwards to comply, the pretender will not go down those paths. Well, I could, but they aren't going to show much - it's how the process happens that is important. If it's any consolation, they are quite short and small videos, especially that first one.. And there's another complication - I'm just completely re-organising my online presence, and swapping providers... so now's not a good time! Not that I would claim to be a Jay.. but I am hoping to do just that! - it's come up at a number of forums, and I have collected and drafted quite a bit of material already. But realistically, it's probably 6mo away at the moment.. I'm doing a series on Apollo radiation first, as it's a bit of a pet subject...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 18, 2011 4:58:58 GMT -4
I've been checking out some so-called UFO sightings I have to ask.. why? BTW, I'm a long time lurker hereabouts, and couldn't resist this one - just registered specially! Kiwi - love your work! I'm a bit more into still images too, but I think I may be able to help, and I know this guy who has posted some stuff on utube.. Absolutely positively they can and do! First up, some of the colour and wavering is often due to atmospherics - when objects are low to the horizon and the air is 'unsteady' (which is often, and particularly when there is a body of water in the mix), the effects can be marked. Then, there are all of the following issues: 1. BokehWhen an object goes out of focus, it gets bigger. The appearance of the blob (which is NOT usable data) is called 'bokeh'. Anything that is even slightly out of focus, will contain false bokeh detail. BTW, changing the zoom, even slightly, will require re-focusing. 2. BloomingA bright point light source, on a camera that is adjusted for normal night viewing, will be significantly over-exposed and will 'bloom' outwards so it appears larger than they really are. So, Venus or Jupiter will not appear real size or shape unless they are properly exposed. Unless the user has manual exposure controls, and knows how to use them, it will be bloomed.. and here's where it really gets started: 3. AutofocusDOESN'T work on small point sources! The AF on all (affordable) cameras relies on contrast detection, and that requires a decent number of pixels of contrasty detail - stars and planets do not fall into that category. Most cameras use a 'feedback' loop, and the camera will rack the lens back and forth, trying to achieve focus, and very likely failing. Some cameras will simply give up after several attempts, or just keep on doing it. Interestingly, many cameras have manual focus, so you have to ask how competent is the user? 4. ExposureAs mentioned above, the camera is likely struggling to get enough light, but complicating that is the tiny bright spot - when it lands directly over what may be multiple exposure sensing points, the camera may again bounce the exposure up and down. Which adds to the blooming effect above, and also may introduce an aperture change. See next.. 5. ApertureMany of these cameras use very crude apertures to restrict the light, shaped as triangles, squares, hemispheres, even unsymmetrical polygons. If the object is bloomed or even slightly out of focus, it will take on aspects of the aperture shape... What's more, the shape may change quite substantially as the camera adjusts the exposure. 6. White BalanceMost cameras adjust white balance on the fly as well, so yes, its choice may affect the colours. However it doesn't usually adjust rapidly, so it would not normally cause fluctuations as you describe - they are more likely atmospheric issues, with the possible addition of refractive effects, and chromatic aberrations (CA) and/or the dreaded 'purple fringing'.All in all, the effects work great to impress the gullible! To image these objects properly, you need: 1. Manual focus (and the ability to use it) 2. Manual exposure (and... " ) 3. A tripod (one that costs more than $50.., and get your hands off it while filming..) (double entendre intended) As said, there's this guy I know very well... Try here: (hope I'm allowed to self-youtube-link as a newbie..) - not very professional, done using a very ordinary camcorder - and NO sound, sorry, just read the captions... There are 4 videos in that little series, and I think all of the above points are covered in them. Sadly my cam only has a boringly round aperture with a slightly squared off edge at the right angle... There are probably better ones, but that's my contribution. Hope that helps... (edited to add forgotten red text)
|
|