NASA!!!...Psy-op, Photoshop, Terra-forming... What's Up, NASA?

[yrpplmean]

I don't know much about this subject, but what about "nighttime" and the radiation then? 

[JTCoyoté]

The only person I see making an idiot out of himself in this group is gone...... Are you trying to fill his shoes?

 I challenge you to tell me who this was. Do you accept the challenge?

 Nasa has said that the astronauts got extremely lucky that there where no sun flares or solar storms or they may have been killed.

 Are you doubting that the Van Allen belt is highly charged?

 Do you accept my challenge? Who is in on this.....

After reading this first, http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg218667#msg218667  would you please restate your challenge for us, Mr. "a thruster needs something to push against in order to work" burlguy...?

I'm only just getting back to this thread, after leaving about page 3 or so in order to do some meaningful research on 10 Amendment stuff about a year ago...  In any case once you've laid out your challenge, could you then explain to me exactly how it is that a thruster or rocket motor works in your physical universe... and does F=MA function in your universe?

JTCoyoté

" 'Tis one thing to be quick and slick of tongue,
yet it's quite another thing altogether, having
the sense to use it righteously."
~Anonymous

[JTCoyoté]

A discussion on the Van Allen Belts, from CLAVIUS...

"

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious
and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim
that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions
would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one
example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

If you have not yet read the radiation primer, you are invited to do so.

(The no landing conspirisists points are in bold italics.)


There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.

This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.

It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to
falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve
the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.

This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.

The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.

But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing
through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic
Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense
parts of the belts.

True, but the point was to validate the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted.

We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic
Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have
time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly.
The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in
the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]

This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.

A short, intense exposure is safer than continuous or periodic exposure at lower intensity.

Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.

The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary. It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?

It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield
from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near
this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the
astronauts adequate protection.

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!

Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo studies of the
Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was recommended for
the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided.
[Mary Bennett and David Percy]

"Shielding" does not always mean thick slabs of dense material.

Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous -- or prohibitively bulky.

As discussed in the previous question, shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding.

And it must be kept in mind that shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration worked out by the mission planners.

NASA apologists come up with different numbers for estimates of
the exposure in the Van Allen belts. This suggests they really don't
know what they're talking about. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]

All the estimates we've seen lie within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist estimates which generally have no quantitative support.

Computing the precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That's why the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:

   Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.

    Exact velocity. Exposure time is very important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists) lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the exposure time.

    Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle, how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below) can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the variables are hard to determine, they're typically approximated.

    Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much radiation is detected by dosimeters.

To summarize then, a fully accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point along the trajectory.

At each point in the trajectory we will have a function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating the hull and shielding.

And at each point along the trajectory the velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is multiplied by the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose.

This dose is simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue. Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles (but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury.

The procedure for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don't try to compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always measured, not computed.

So then was it measured on Apollo?

Yes. Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.

New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed
stronger and more dangerous than NASA says. [Bart Sibrel]

Sibrel misinterprets the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.

Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is now being made known, and that it's strong enough to have precluded a successful Apollo mission.

Unfortunately that's a very naive argument. The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S. research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has been used by all nations in designing communication satellites, probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage.

This is a very important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now. Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it's highly improbable the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the entire world for thirty years.

An orbital nuclear detonation in 1962 code-named Starfish Prime
created a third Van Allen belt composed of high-energy electrons.
This belt was a hundred times more intense than the existing
Van Allen belts and was computed to have a half-life of 20 years.
[Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 309]

Fig. 1 - The aurora produced by the Starfish
Prime high-altitude nuclear detonation.

The authors give no reference for the claim that this artificial radiation belt was "a hundred times" more "intense" than the naturally-occurring belts. Nor do they define what is meant by "intense". The Starfish Prime test did in fact produce a temporary artificial radiation belt, and it's true that this belt persisted longer than anticipated. But it was not an impediment to the Apollo missions because it had dissipated to a safe level by then, and was very small (and easily avoided) to start with.

Radioactive half-life applies to radioisotopes only. It does not apply to clouds of magnetically-retained charged particles. The authors imply that their theory is confirmed by expert authors, but in fact the author they cite discusses only the general concept of radioactive half-life. Bennett and Percy are responsible for having misapplied it to this problem. Radioactive half-life and particle belts have nothing at all to do with each other. The dispersal of this belt doesn't have anything to do with radioactive decay, and a great deal to do with solar weather and shifting magnetic fields.

The authors argue that such a radiation belt would still be highly intense to this day. However they have shown no evidence that any of the radiation from Starfish Prime is still there. Instead they refer to irrelevant scientific principles and claim it "must" still be there.

A secret study done by the Soviet Union and obtained by the
CIA determined that a meter of lead would be required to
shield against deep space radiation.

Many conspiracists allude to this alleged report, but none of them can attest to actually having seen it. Since they can argue the alleged report is closely held by the CIA and therefore still top secret, the conspiracists are protected from refutation. No one can prove the non-existence of any document, much less one that is allegedly classified by an intelligence agency. Unfortunately it's more straightforward to note that the conspiracists cannot expect the world to accept an argument based on evidence which they cannot produce. If it's so top secret, how do they know about it?

It's fairly easy to show that such a document likely does not exist. We know that great thicknesses of lead are not required to shield against particle radiation. We know that Soviet science and engineering were excellent. We note with no small amusement and no small suspicion that the conclusion of the alleged report contradicts the commonly accepted principles of physics, and that it instead bears a striking resemblance to the naive assertions of inexpert conspiracy theorists who claim that only thick sheets of lead are suitable for radiation shielding. The alleged report is plausible to the lay reader but utterly unconvincing to the scientist.

The Soviet lunar spacecraft design demonstrates they did not believe a meter or two of lead was required to shield against radiation.

History provides the final proof. Had the Soviets actually believed that great thicknesses of material were required to shield against radiation, they would have questioned the design of the Apollo spacecraft. The spacecraft clearly did not provide a meter of lead shielding, yet NASA claims it successfully traversed the Van Allen belts. Yet the Soviets acknowledged then and continue to acknowledge today that the Apollo program was a clear success.

In recent years the Western world has been able to examine the Soviet spacecraft design which was to have carried cosmonauts to the moon. They did not provide a meter of lead for their spacecraft either.

Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation
was a very grave concern.

And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there's a vast difference between a "concern" and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn't have been solved."


The subject of Solar, and other radiation forms are discussed at this link... http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

--Oldyoti

"Fear can only prevail when victims
are ignorant of the facts."
~Thomas Jefferson

[JTCoyoté]

 Uh I would first not misquote someone such as you have...... What I said was that their thruster lacked the sufficient mass, and there would be no ground affect.... And then I wouldnt be an ass to someone that has been donating twords your cause Twice.

 You dont know me by the email name.

 Check my post and see what the responses are after I clarified peoples misguided assumptions.


 Maybe you better reread the post...

 And as for the challenges I guess you missed the pun of Voshkod.....

Well... that response was totally uncalled for... I'm not selling influence here...

I didn't quote you, I gave you a handle, like Alex "the bullhorn" Jones... or Mr. "I can type faster than you can" Sane... or Jackson "an f-stop has nothing to do with abstinence" Holly...

I asked you two questions based upon a statement you made concerning the Mars insertion... first off the less mass the vehicle has the greater the effect of thrust delivered by a given engine through a known time vector... a small fuel-efficient thruster acting upon a large vehicle over a long period of time, accomplishes the task as well or better from the standpoint of stress, then a large fuel guzzling thruster over a short period of time, but both work.  

Also, my understanding is that upon approach the velocity was considerably less than 25,000 miles an hour which was its estimated maximum at the end of the downhill slide... once the vehicle was on its downhill leg toward the planet it was slowed toward the end of the line beginning about 800 to 1200 or so miles out...

My problem with what you said was, it didn't make any sense... and I wasn't concerned with what other people said in response, I was concerned with what you said. At 25,000 mph, it would be virtually impossible for the planet to begin to capture the satellite, unless it was almost directly on an impact course... so your scenario made little sense... my understanding is that the final approach to insertion was brought on the order of 30% of the maximum interplanetary travel speed, or about 1/2 to 3/4 of Martian escape velocity.

The slowdown is accomplished by the orbiter's main engine, which in most of these cases is its sole purpose mainly to slow down the vehicle. Again in most cases as much as half of the vehicle's weight is comprised of fuel for this phase of the mission.  This large thruster gains efficiency as fuel is consumed by the way, since the vehicle loses virtually half of its MASS during this insertion burn... They also use the upper atmosphere to slow things down as well which was first tried in the late 1970s on Mars missions with success...

JTCoyoté

"Resistance to Tyranny, is obedience to God!"
~Thomas Jefferson

[JTCoyoté]

Ahh so you mean the Mars missions, or should I say supposed mars missions....

 Will get back to this I have to work on a Winchester 1890 3rd model. I bought it at a yard sale for 30.00 . The stocks gone, bolt is froze up and barrel bent and badly pitted. I have already straightened it and have "pull filed" the octagon edges/flat back. I had to take a stone to the receiver and drilled out the action take down screw. It had less than 5% of its bluing so I am only bringing it back to good/fair condition. It is more or less just bringing a relic back from the dead. The barrel is already got a new base coat of bluing on it and I love this "job/hobby". Oh yeah and it has matching numbers...

 Your last sentence here, that's always worth about double the price... pictures would be in order... and you only had to drill out one screw this time... better than with the Colt... do you have a line on the wood..?

Yes, restoration work is a lot a fun... especially when you can take what was a pile of rusting iron and rotting wood... put a little sweat into it, and then take it to the range...

Is it cartridge stamped, or will you be doing a chamber cast... and slugging the bore .223 to .225 groove dia. in all cases... but they will only feed right with the round they are chambered for...

--Oldyoti

"What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable,
than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other
for their mutual and surest support?"
~James Madison

[joeblack]

has anyone ever notice that the pictures of men on the moon, the back ground just drops off? if you were at the beach and took a picture of someone, the background would go on and on and on in the picture. you could tell that the beach was large and buildings were miles up the beach. the moon pics looks like they always land on the edge of the moon and there is never a vast background.

[iceman2]

Whats this got to do with radiation? do these guns give off  Gama rays or something? Anyway why is they could not perfect vertical take off pods back in the 1960's as they all kept crashing. then all of a sudden, it's on the bloody moon and it works! Thats that all about!   

[iceman2]

has anyone ever notice that the pictures of men on the moon, the back ground just drops off? if you were at the beach and took a picture of someone, the background would go on and on and on in the picture. you could tell that the beach was large and buildings were miles up the beach. the moon pics looks like they always land on the edge of the moon and there is never a vast background.

good point! I know, it was shot in a studio, if you look carefully, you can see the BEN HERR set in the background, The moon is only one third the size of the earth, so they will say thats why! 

[Letsbereal]

It supose to be 250 Celsius in the Sun on the Moon and - 250 Celsius in the shadow.

Think about what these temps will do with the film and the non-modified Hasselblad.


Crap from the Brotherhood or mind control answers. These man where selected on being sensitive to Hypnoses I bet your bottem dollar.

[Dustbunny]

More likely the year people fell asleep...

[Dustbunny]

http://pages.innerpotential.org/s06_disc11.html

who built the moon?
alan butler and christopher knight

uncovering a secret of the ages

wednesday 26 april 7pm

Whilst investigating ancient measuring systems for their last book Civilization One writers and researchers Christopher Knight and Alan Butler turned up some staggering facts regarding the Moon. They were astounded to realise that Earth's closest neighbour in space is just about the most unlikely heavenly body imaginable. After two years of dedicated research, only one conclusion was possible. No matter how odd it may seem, the Moon simply has to be an artificially created object.

No matter how sceptical you might be, Chris and Alan are convinced that anyone hearing their evidence will have to arrive at the same conclusion they did. The Moon is too large, too light in mass and has an 'impossible' orbit. There are so many mathematical coincidences that it must have been placed there deliberately. Even more fascinating is that whoever did so made it obvious what they did. The Moon carries irrefutable messages about its unusual origins.

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/34857-newtons-big-headache.html

Newton was a remarkable mathematician; he not only developed calculus, but he also worked out how his laws of motion and his law of gravity produce Kepler's Three Laws.

One of his less well known achievements, however, is his attempt to try to find solutions for more than two bodies, in particular, a solution for the Moon's orbit, which is significantly perturbed by the Sun.

The Moon's orbit around the Earth is approximately elliptical and inclined to the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But due to the Sun's perturbations, the Moon's line of nodes (ecliptic - orbit-plane intersection) precesses backwards and its line of apsides (perigee - apogee line) precesses forwards. And also due to those perturbations, the Moon has some periodic wobbles in its motion, some of which have been known for centuries.

Periods:
Nodes: 18.5996 years (backwards)
Apsides: 8.8504 years (forwards)

The next question is why the apsides move twice as fast as the nodes. Newton intended to answer that question by developing perturbation theory, treating the Sun as an add-on to the Earth-Moon system. However, he could not make the numbers work out right, and he was forced to fall back on the more-or-less empirical approach of all his predecessors. He used his theory to tell him what effects to watch out for, and then he determined the sizes of those effects from observations.


But I have recently verified the cause of his headache. Using the computer-algebra package Mathematica, I have verified the most important parts of the Hill-Brown lunar theory (their way of solving the equations of motion), including the source of Newton's headaches.

The lowest-order perturbation theory produces equal precession rates, and predicts a rate of

(3/4)*(ns^2/nm)

where nm is the Moon's rate of orbiting of the Earth relative to the stars, and ns is the Sun's apparent rate. It gives a period of

17.825 years

That is reasonably close to the nodes' rate, but is only half that of the apsides' rate. So I think that Newton had succeeded in finding the lowest-order result, and only that result.

However, the Hill-Brown and similar theories do much better, and taking six extra terms yields:

Nodes: 18.7042
Apsides: 8.72755

The numbers are much better, though about a percent off. The first two extra terms have the answer:

Multiply the nodal rate by 1 - (3/8)*(nm/ns) + (26207/9216)*(nm/ns)^2 + ...

Multiply the apsidal rate by 1 + (75/8)*(nm/ns) + (390815/9216)*(nm/ns)^2 + ...

These terms have sizes:

Nodal: 1, -0.0281, -0.0159, -0.0027, -0.0003, ...
Apsidal: 1, 0.7013, 0.2373, 0.0723, 0.0218, 0.0067, 0.0022, ...

Which has been aspirin for Newton's more recent successors.

-

Something like that had happened before him. Johannes Kepler was working on Mars's motions, and he found an error in Copernicus's work. Copernicus made the plane of Mars's orbit pass through the "mean Sun" (where it would be if it followed its averaged-out motion) instead of the true Sun, and got a wobble in Mars's orbit inclination. Kepler corrected that by making the plane of Mars's orbit pass through the true Sun instead, and he found that that pesky wobble was gone.

"Copernicus did not know his own riches!" he said.

And neither did Newton, as my discussion has shown.

[JTCoyoté]

Whats this got to do with radiation? do these guns give off  Gama rays or something? Anyway why is they could not perfect vertical take off pods back in the 1960's as they all kept crashing. then all of a sudden, it's on the bloody moon and it works! Thats that all about!   

They worked on the moon because the lunar gravity is 1/6th that of Earth... a 180 pound man tips the scales at only 30 pounds there... the engine thrust being the same however had no problem overcoming that at all...

JTCoyoté

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, but
we have this consolation with us, that the harder
the conflict the more glorious the triumph."
~Thomas Paine

[JTCoyoté]

has anyone ever notice that the pictures of men on the moon, the back ground just drops off? if you were at the beach and took a picture of someone, the background would go on and on and on in the picture. you could tell that the beach was large and buildings were miles up the beach. the moon pics looks like they always land on the edge of the moon and there is never a vast background.

At sea level, if you stand on the beach, when the ocean is fairly placid, like early in the morning... the horizon for a six-foot man is approximately 2 1/2 miles out, if you are standing on a Pier six feet above the water at the edge of the ocean, the horizon is now 5 miles... on the moon being only one quarter the size of the Earth, this horizon effect drops off more rapidly... on the moon, a six-foot man standing at the edge of a flat plain, would see the horizon drop away 1/2 mile from where he stood... this would be noticeable instantly.

Another thing, there is no atmosphere on the moon... there is no scattering of light as we have here on earth with our thick atmosphere chocked full of water vapor making things appear more distant because of the intervening haze which makes hills in the distance look more pastel than those in the foreground, giving the sense of distance that we conventionally hold...

Being here in the high country of Colorado, where the air is rarefied and extremely clear, particularly early in the morning... where the humidity is low and therefore little water vapor to scatter light, the sky is a much darker blue than you will see a sea level, the distant mountains look as though you could reach out and touch them... yet from my backyard the line of sight distance to the closest of these gorgeous peaks, is over 7 miles, though in the thin, clear, crisp, morning air, it appears to be just over the rise, maybe a mile away.

Comparing the lunar landscape and it's airless stark contrast, to anything here on earth however, is like comparing soup to nuts.

JTCoyoté

"The greatest remedy for anger is delay. "
~Thomas Paine

[iks83]

Finally someone who talks some sense. I bet when you finished reading the thread you will need a new keyboard cause you smashed the old one with your head. And since you are a mature moderator I would like to ask you to set the topic back to its original title dealing with the moon hoax because Sane highjacked it quite sime pages ago and spammed it with all kinds of occult stuff that cant be proven or comes from shady sources that has nothing to do with the moon but was used as an excuse for OMFG SEE NASA IS THE DEVIL ALL IS FAKE STOP DEBUNKING ALL NONSENSE ABOUT MOON FAKERY BUT LOOK HERE INSTEAD AT ALL THIS OCCULT STUFF THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!!

[Jackson Holly]

In any case, back when this thread first started, Jackson posted a photograph taken from HiRISE, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter... showing this shot of Opportunity on Mars...

Well, as of 17 July, we have photographs in high resolution from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, (LRO) of five, so far, of the Apollo landing sites, including their lunar module landing/launch platforms... I believe that the labels are wrong, A14 is actually A15, A16, or A17... there was no rover on 14... 15 was the first... anyway, if you look close in the bottom pic, you can see the wheel tracks and then the rover at the end of the trail, I believe the bottom photo is actually of A17.

Welcome back to the thread JT ... if I were going through what you are now ... I am sure I could not find two thoughts to rub together. 

1.) About those July 17 photos of the Apollo sites ... first, do you know why they were not released in color? Also, they promised closer, more highly detailed shots to come ... have they gotten those out yet?

2.) On the pic labeled A14 ... is that a cart trail? If so, why would you think the other sites don't show numerous rover tracks?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3.) Did you get a chance to see this clip?

The action that starts about 5min:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9kon-URcko&NR=1

What would you say is going on here?

[Jackson Holly]

What falls off the  LEM at 4:30-4:40?

 At the 5:00 mark you can see that he is fighting the cables and is really try to get them to free up by bouncing which I assume would cause the track to release its brake and allow it to glide. Wonderful they thought of all of this, they did gather the brightest minds.

 In another couple of years you more than likely wont be able to find these films on the internet.

@ 4:30 ... I thought that was something an astronaut threw out the hatch ... and that the OP had included it because it looked the same as a heavy package would look in 1G ... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@5:00 ... I hate to keep harping on that one segment of footage, but it looks the same to me as well, just as you described it ... he is fighting against an obstruction (wires?) ... and I wanted JT's take on it.

[JTCoyoté]

@ 4:30 ... I thought that was something an astronaut threw out the hatch ... and that the OP had included it because it looked the same as a heavy package would look in 1G ...  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@5:00 ... I hate to keep harping on that one segment of footage, but it looks the same to me as well, just as you described it ... he is fighting against an obstruction (wires?) ... and I wanted JT's take on it.

There really isn't anything in those video images, it's an attempt by someone to discredit the entire moon mission by not knowing about the memo/expos almost 35 years ago now, that much of the film footage, particularly from the early missions, was reconstruction... Most of the still footage the photographs was not...  So poring over all this video trying to figure out which is real, is really a huge red herring that goes nowhere... since some is actual and some is not...

The reason why the lunar reconnaissance orbiter photos aren't in color, is because they were taken in grey scale black-and-white in the first few powered up orbits of its mission. It's only now being calibrated and readied to rock 'n roll. These are preliminary photographs that were posted on the NASA website, by a fellow who is working on the LRO project.  Coincidentally, his father was one of the men who built the life support packs for the original Apollo astronauts, that were discarded as extra weight onto the lunar surface prior to the launching of the astronauts back to the orbiting lunar command module...

I got to about page 5 or 6 here, Jackson, and then about every other page you would see the same silly questions... the same red herrings and strawman clap-trap... almost in the same order and stated over and over again page after page... things that were addressed in the first five pages of this thread. You know my background as well as anyone here regarding these subjects, and there are certain threads of inquiry here, that are serious and should be explored... the idea that the lunar landings were faked, must be proved... but pouring over a bunch of possibly real, or remade footage scripted off of the dialogue and minute by minute schedule of the actual missions... is a red herring!

The images that we will eventually receive from the and LRO, will be equal to or of greater resolution than those from the HiRISE Mars reconnaissance orbiter, because the LRO's orbit is much closer to the surface due to the moon's smaller mass...

Most of the people who somewhat believe or who have some scientific training, shouldn't be swayed one way or the other by some of the public relations footage that was commissioned by NASA, to spur interest in the space program. There was a reason that all of this was entered into in the months after the July 20 Apollo 11 landing. Primarily because of the waning interest in space exploration, especially by the young and the increase in inner space exploration through the use of drugs music and sex by the younger generation... that was primarily the reason for the post mission video work... You must remember, that even within the New World order... there are competing factions in the minion levels below the Cap Stone.

The specially built Hasselblad cameras, were truly special build units... they were constructed of titanium, and other alloys used in spacecraft manufacture, which have extremely low coefficient of expansion ratings to increase operation range through wide-ranging temperatures... These still cameras were designed to function across a 400 to 500° range, even the least toleranced pieces of these mechanisms were constructed of these alloys and would function at lunar temperature extremes without a bit of problem...

In the last few missions the problems with videotape and television cameras were solved, by a then emerging technology called the charged coupled device... CCD...

JTCoyoté

"When men yield up the privilege of thinking,
the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon."
~Thomas Paine

[Jackson Holly]

JT:

There really isn't anything in those video images, it's an attempt by someone to discredit the entire moon mission by not knowing about the memo/expos almost 35 years ago now, that much of the film footage, particularly from the early missions, was reconstruction... Most of the still footage the photographs was not...  So poring over all this video trying to figure out which is real, is really a huge red herring that goes nowhere... since some is actual and some is not...

WOW 
This is a pretty startling admission coming from you, someone so well informed. I had read somewhere that much of the footage (and stills as well) were admittedly staged for propaganda use ... but I haven't talked about it here, because I truthfully can't find online where I read that ... it was probably in a book long ago. Do you recall where that info came from, because as far as I am aware NASA now flatly denies that anything was faked/staged.

The specially built Hasselblad cameras, were truly special build units... they were constructed of titanium, and other alloys used in spacecraft manufacture, which have extremely low coefficient of expansion ratings to increase operation range through wide-ranging temperatures... These still cameras were designed to function across a 400 to 500° range, even the least toleranced pieces of these mechanisms were constructed of these alloys and would function at lunar temperature extremes without a bit of problem...

Also, I can't find mention of any special alloys used on the hasselblads ... only that they were white/silver for extra reflectivity and that they had the viewer mirrors removed, because since they were to be mounted on the chest one could not look down and see the image anyway. (Makes me wonder how they were able to look down and make the necessary settings).

However, they were manual, no meters, with auto-winders and large roll backs. As far as I can find out there was no especial steps taken to prevent fogging of the film or overheating/freezing except the coloring.

I know for a fact that airport x-rays will fog regular speed films ... and NASA I believe was said to use a lot of hi-speed B/W. Have you any info on how radiation in space/van Allen belts compares to the amount of radiation in airports? Do you know if the film used in the pre-Apollo Moon mapping (that processed on board) was shielded and kept at proper temps?



This is said to be one of the Apollo cameras ... or very similar.

~~~~~~~—> http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/

EXCERPT:

This camera had to work in the extreme conditions of space, with vacuum and temperatures varying from 120° C in the sun to minus 65° C in shadow. The camera was painted silver to make it more resistant to the variations in temperature. Conventional lubricants had to be eliminated as they would boil off in the vacuum of space. It was fitted with a Zeiss Biogon f-5.6/60 mm wide-angle lens and a polarizing filter, which reduces reflections.

It also had a glass plate with engraved grid-aligned crosses (Reseau plate) fitted close to the film plane. These crosses was recorded on every photo as a means to measure angular distances between objects in the frame. The same method was used in aerial photography at the time.
An accidental exposure showing the Reseau plate crosses against a blurry space suit. Photo by NASA.

When on the lunar surface, the camera was mounted on a bracket on the chest of the astronaut’s space suit. This both provided some support to the camera, and made it possible to manipulate the rings and levers with both hands. A trigger was fitted under the camera to make it easier to fire.

Exposure

The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were f-5.6 for objects in shadow and f-11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.
The Hasselblad film magazine with exposure guidelines. Photo by Eric Long.

Focus

The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the area. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being f-5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job. I have an old Kodak compact camera with this system myself, and it works surprisingly well.

Framing

The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[yrpplmean]

Quote from: Jackson Holly on August 01, 2009, 08:43:37 AM

R A D I A T I O N

Check out this MUST SEE NASA video first posted by jerseyshoredave a few pages back:


http://video.csupomona.edu/NASA/DestinationTomorrow25-245.asx


They do NOT sound like they went to the moon and back Nine(?) times already. Sounds more like they are at first base/ground zero. Certainly NOT a tiny little problem that they can poo-poo.

They were VERY LUCKY back in the day!

I listened to this and it sounds like they have just learned about the radiation and are finally able to speak to it about it publicly as to make themselves look and sound good.  Increase in radiation is their excuse to stay grounded?  Has the sun changed in temperature (and wind spurs) that much in what 50 years?


Its like they don't know anything and they are studying everything now.  Do they really think we can't understand anything?

[iks83]

I listened to this and it sounds like they have just learned about the radiation and are finally able to speak to it about it publicly as to make themselves look and sound good.  Increase in radiation is their excuse to stay grounded?  Has the sun changed in temperature (and wind spurs) that much in what 50 years?


Its like they don't know anything and they are studying everything now.  Do they really think we can't understand anything?

Wtf read further down... I already said they were talking about long exposure to radiation which IS a problem. A 8 day trip to the moon gets you exposed to radiation like one year on earth or so. But if you spend 6 months in space its a problem since your body cant repair the damage. I wish people would read before they post... they just see one post they wanna comment to and ignore that the answer was already given later on and repeat the same crap that has already been said before.

[yrpplmean]

well excuse me if I stepped on your toes iks83 I was just giving my opinion

some of us aren't that knowledgeable as others here on this forum, but we can at least participate.  sheesh  Some ppl r mean

[Jackson Holly]

~~~~~~~~—> http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2009/07/white-house-welcomes-astronauts-for.html


~~ N  A  S  A    F  O  O  D ~~



President Welcomes Astronauts For 40th Anniversary of The Apollo 11 Mission:
Space Food Development And America's Food Initiatives

Monday, July 20, 2009

How NASA Space Food Technology Permanently Changed American Eating Culture





EXCERPTS:

At the White House this afternoon, President Obama welcomed Astronauts from the Apollo 11 space mission to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first walk on the moon, which took place on July 20, 1969. In the photo above, the President stands in the Oval Office with mission commander Neil Armstrong (2nd right), who was the first man to walk on the moon, and second in command Buzz Aldrin, the mission engineer and second man to walk on the moon, and Astronaut Michael Collins. It's estimated that more than five million people watched the first moon walk on television, and Armstrong's slightly garbled "That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind" has become the stuff of legend.* Today, the future of the space program is being guided by new NASA chief Charles Bolden, and at today's meeting, the Apollo 11 Astronauts encouraged the President to further pursue a mission to Mars.

From a foodist standpoint, it's fascinating to note how the food technologies developed for the space program have been widely adopted into current use; processed foods, convenience foods, snack foods, and fast foods all use techniques and packaging that were developed for the missions to the heavens.  It's particularly interesting from the standpoint of unintended uses of technology, because while the original goal of the spacefood program was to create highly nutritious items with long shelf life, these kinds of food items are now widely credited with being some of the primary bad choices for Americans who are suffering food-related diseases such as heart attacks, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. And they're the kind of foods First Lady Michelle Obama is encouraging America to eat with the utmost moderation, and which food advocates such as author Michael Pollan are counseling eaters to avoid entirely. On the other hand, these technologies have also created incredibly beneficial food scenarios, when used appropriately.

While techniques for amping up nutrition content, and drying foods and creating longer shelf life had been around long before NASA started focusing on them (think seafaring mariners, and their hardtack...) it's quite possible that fast and processed foods wouldn't be so alarmingly prevalent in our food culture if millions of Federal dollars hadn't been invested in Space Program food development; this investment speeded up that development, as well as focused attention on the topic without benefit of long-term studies of consequences.

O O O O O

Private food companies were getting big Fed dollars to develop these food items, too, as described below, and they turned around and used the newly developed techniques to alter the American food chain, irrevocably, by using the space food technologies to create foods sold in the mass marketplace. These initially were foods that Pollan describes as being falsely marketed under the guise of "nutritionism"--foods that are claimed to be the nutritional sum of their parts, but which may well be completely devoid of sustenance (see the ad for Space Food Sticks, at bottom of post). And America's enduring romance with space travel can't be overlooked in this equation: Any food that was advertised as "space food" had an immediate, huge bump in popularity, because it was assumed to be highly nutritious, as well as hyper modern. Our building addiction to fast and processed foods could thus be characterized as patriotic and forward thinking, because the bravest of our citizens were eating these in space. And while the whole spacefood teching certainly has had its benefits, for instance in creating foods for emergency aid rations and refugees and packaged foods for the elderly, the overall costs to eaters are increasingly emerging, especially in light of this new study from USDA, which finds that Americans seem to be fat because the culture is swamped with fast and processed foods, rather than devoid of access to fresh, whole foods.

At the very least, NASA had a big role in making processed foods not only acceptable, but privileged, the foodstuffs of heroes and legends. And it's an interesting dichotomy that the techniques used to nourish humankind on the journey to the farthest edges of the known universe and the imagination, has, back down on Earth, been translated into many foods that are nutritionally bankrupt. Unintended consequences, both positive and negative....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Food Safety And NASA: Irradiation and HACCP

During the earliest missions, Natick Labs had the biggest cobalt-6o gamma ray irradiator in the US (possibly the world), and this was used to irradiate spacefoods, to ensure there was no bacterial contamination; Astronauts potentially getting the hurls & squats while orbiting the earth was a huge consideration. Irradiation is now widely and pervasively used today to treat meats, spices, nuts, and, most recently, certain kinds of fresh produce to eliminate food borne pathogens--and you'd never know it, because the foods are not required to be labeled as treated.

Critics claim irradiation exposes eaters to all kinds of dangers, such as free radicals and radiation (more of those nasty unintended consequences!). The no-labeling requirement for most irradiated foods is a source of huge contention among food advocates. Most recently, activists lobbied fiercely against the appointment of current Food Safety Savant Michael Taylor, the newest fellow to join President Obama's Food Safety Working Group, because he's a proponent of irradiation. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, which much of our current food safety standards revolve around, was codified in large part for NASA.

Under HACCP, raw ingredients are tested during production, and also when the ingredients are turned into processed foods. It was adopted in a variety of industries as a safety standard in the late 1990s, but is still the source of argument today, as standards get legislated in and out of existence for various food products (for instance, E coli is listed as an adulterant for some cuts of meat, rather than a pathogen when using HACCP standards...and this has led to repeated food borne disease outbreaks). On the other hand, HACCP is the single attempt to create uniform standards, and in some categories of food, it's working swell. Still, you can't overlook those unintended consequences....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Next: Cosmic Cuisine, And A White House Kitchen Garden On Mars?

Interestingly, after exhaustive psychological studies of the impact of space travel on mood, NASA has identified fresh foods as a huge stress reducer for Astronauts, so they're very interested in really getting the space gardening protocols developed. The hydroponic gardening systems have major applications here on Earth (assuming we don't run out of water) for urban and community gardens as well as places that have problems with ravaged soils...which is much of the world. In this case, the unintended consequences seem like they could be low--but not so fast. Those lovely crops are going to be teched out--and perhaps genetically modified--because they're going to be growing in a different kind of gravity than on Earth, and of course scientists are seeking to boost nutrition values per veggie, as well as speed up the growth process. Seeds, of course, will have to be carefully preserved with a variety of chemicals so they can germinate in space, as will any starts that get sent to the stars; no bacteria, again, will be a big consideration. Unintended consequences? Sure. Whether these consequences are good or bad remains to be seen, here in our unintended-consequences food economy. The Obama admin is encouraging the G8 and its partner countries to invest $20 billion in food aid for developing countries over the next three years, as part of the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative, and certainly all kinds of food technologies will be embraced and encouraged. Our children will probably witness the unintended consequences of all of this, good and bad.


CLASSIC Space Food Commercials:

http://www.spacefoodsticks.com/pres.html

[Dustbunny]

http://www.slooh.com/space_telescope_for_kids/space-missions/lunar-risings/Space_Camera_Moon_Lunar_Rasing_Mission_Pack.html

Welcome to the Phases of our Moon trial mission pack! Your trial mission pack is comprised of two free missions to the moon. If you would like to go on more missions, you will need to purchase the pack for $4.95. In this mission pack, we will track the moon up-close. Glide over its surface like an astronaut, during its entire cycle of phases. Take recon photos to share with friends. Watch craters and jagged lunar mountains change radically as the sun’s shadow-line creeps along the broiling surface. Earn a badge for completing the mission pack. Just choose the mission you want and wait for the countdown. Otto will launch you into space automatically, and be your personal guide as you use the Slooh worldwide telescope network.

http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=SP_090730_Moon Again_ep3

[JTCoyoté]

JT:
WOW  
This is a pretty startling admission coming from you, someone so well informed. I had read somewhere that much of the footage (and stills as well) were admittedly staged for propaganda use ... but I haven't talked about it here, because I truthfully can't find online where I read that ... it was probably in a book long ago. Do you recall where that info came from, because as far as I am aware NASA now flatly denies that anything was faked/staged.


Also, I can't find mention of any special alloys used on the hasselblads ... only that they were white/silver for extra reflectivity and that they had the viewer mirrors removed, because since they were to be mounted on the chest one could not look down and see the image anyway. (Makes me wonder how they were able to look down and make the necessary settings).

However, they were manual, no meters, with auto-winders and large roll backs. As far as I can find out there was no especial steps taken to prevent fogging of the film or overheating/freezing except the coloring.

I know for a fact that airport x-rays will fog regular speed films ... and NASA I believe was said to use a lot of hi-speed B/W. Have you any info on how radiation in space/van Allen belts compares to the amount of radiation in airports? Do you know if the film used in the pre-Apollo Moon mapping (that processed on board) was shielded and kept at proper temps?



This is said to be one of the Apollo cameras ... or very similar.

~~~~~~~—> http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/

EXCERPT:

This camera had to work in the extreme conditions of space, with vacuum and temperatures varying from 120° C in the sun to minus 65° C in shadow. The camera was painted silver to make it more resistant to the variations in temperature. Conventional lubricants had to be eliminated as they would boil off in the vacuum of space. It was fitted with a Zeiss Biogon f-5.6/60 mm wide-angle lens and a polarizing filter, which reduces reflections.

It also had a glass plate with engraved grid-aligned crosses (Reseau plate) fitted close to the film plane. These crosses was recorded on every photo as a means to measure angular distances between objects in the frame. The same method was used in aerial photography at the time.
An accidental exposure showing the Reseau plate crosses against a blurry space suit. Photo by NASA.

When on the lunar surface, the camera was mounted on a bracket on the chest of the astronaut’s space suit. This both provided some support to the camera, and made it possible to manipulate the rings and levers with both hands. A trigger was fitted under the camera to make it easier to fire.

Exposure

The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were f-5.6 for objects in shadow and f-11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.
The Hasselblad film magazine with exposure guidelines. Photo by Eric Long.

Focus

The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the area. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being f-5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job. I have an old Kodak compact camera with this system myself, and it works surprisingly well.

Framing

The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have stated before that there have been reconstructions, this was known over 30 years ago... what NASA is saying now, is probably referring to their official record, on film releases... it is well known that a lot of the film was damaged or destroyed... and that recovering this has been an official position for over 30 years...

Much of the performance that gained Hasselblad its reputation to begin with, was the use of space-age technology in the production of their cameras, keeping these units as simple 2 position point and shoot and manual, foils Murphy big time ... as far as being painted silver, I find that a little far-fetched, since leaving the bodies of the cameras as titanium/aluminum and stamped Invar alloy buffed and/or polished, would be the most reflective method across the broadest spectrum that could be used, and was most likely the scenario. As to freezing, there has to be something to freeze... the moon has no atmosphere and therefore water vapor or any vapor is virtually nonexistent... the only thing that would cause and mechanism to seize up would be temperature extremes causing expansion and contraction of mechanical parts... this was the reason for the use of these space-age alloys.

As far as radiation protection of the film, my understanding is that the camera enclosures for both the unexposed and unexposed reels, were lined with lead, as were the camera cases... I can almost guarantee that the amount of x-rays that were prevalent throughout the entire trip were no where near as concentrated as the focused beam of x-rays it takes to expose film in an airport scanner... even the Van Allen belts are no where as concentrated or as dangerous as an equal amount of time underneath an x-ray machine...

A good 75% of the discussion here, has nothing to do with whether or not we went to the moon... it is mostly about analyzing the film footage to discover which scenes were staged, and which scenes were real... the admission of NASA reconstructions, I read years ago in a magazine interview with NASA officials, might have been Sky and Telescope, or Scientific American, or in one of the trade publications I used to subscribe to back then... the point was that it was reconstruction based upon the actual audio record and schedule of the missions to repair/replace damaged or destroyed footage... it has obviously backfired in a way that animated reconstructions would not... they would be obvious as reconstructions... then their are the "We didn't go to the moon because RADIATION and then there is the MASONS!" Sheesh...

The bottom line is, the discussion here is degenerated to being about who did a better job, Hollywood with Apollo 13 and others, or NASA 30 years ago with their excerpt reconstructions...

If some ass-hat ran up to me with the Bible and a video camera, and demanded... "are you JTCoyoté?... We have information here that you were never in the Colorado State House working on the 10th amendment back in the mid-90s, and that all of your audio footage from talk radio and phone interviews are faked... I want you to swear on the Bible..." I would punch the arrogant son of a bitch in the nose then tell him, "get the flock away from me, you rumor mongering liar, or I'll sue your fat ass...!" I don't care much for Marxist, fascist, prevaricating, witchhunters!

JTCoyoté

"The strength and power of despotism
consists wholly in the fear of resistance."
~Thomas Paine

[Outer Haven]

I think that astronaut on the show on Friday was either a disinfo agent sent on the show to spread NASA lies (he told the truth to sound more credible) AND to divide the truth movement (see? now people are arguing about this), OR a genuine person who simply lacks the courage to admit the truth.

[luckee1]

I think that astronaut on the show on Friday was either a disinfo agent sent on the show to spread NASA lies (he told the truth to sound more credible) AND to divide the truth movement (see? now people are arguing about this), OR a genuine person who simply lacks the courage to admit the truth.

People have been and probably will always argue.  No matter if we took Joe from the Waffle House up there.  This thread has been going on far longer than the the appearance of Alex's guest.  I found out the Conspiracy Theory of the lunar landings, first back in '91.  The fact is none of us regular people will ever get to go to the moon, so the theories abound.

[Jackson Holly]

JT:

I have stated before that there have been reconstructions, this was known over 30 years ago... what NASA is saying now, is probably referring to their official record, on film releases... it is well known that a lot of the film was damaged or destroyed... and that recovering this has been an official position for over 30 years...

I have been googling around today again trying to find mention of 'NASA photo reconstructions' ... still can't find anything ... nothing in Scientific American archives so far and Sky and Telescope's archives are not functioning now (under construction). But like you JT, I am sure I read it somewhere and that was probably the first kernel of my doubts about authenticity.

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging their fakery ... as most people reading these pages will surely see this as I do ... one faked picture puts it all in serious jeopardy ... because, as you say, examing the 'record' now is, " ... mostly about analyzing the film footage to discover which scenes were staged, and which scenes were real ...", or if indeed any scenes were real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Still no info on special alloys, titanium or other, used in the Apollo Hassies.

[joeblack]

proof!!!

[luckee1]

Where the heck did you find that?   

[iceman2]

Computers are great things arn't they

But this proof they have landed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npM-tWbyyiI&feature=fvw

[Unintelligable Name]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npM-tWbyyiI&feature=fvw

Oh dear god it's Predator! Aaaaaaaah!

[yrpplmean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npM-tWbyyiI&feature=fvw

lol oh my what a neat trick lol

Has anyone heard of security cameras that can actually size a person down "naked-wise"?  I can't remember where I saw it at, but they said they were making cameras that they can see right through your clothes as if you were walking on the street naked!  Has anyone got any info on this?

[37]

The new airport scanners do that.  AJ has talked about it a lot.

Look, I don't know anymore if we went to the moon.  I completely believed it...back when I trusted institutions like the federal government, mainstream media and NASA.  But, I don't anymore.  They are all liars.  Together they have the ability to completely warp my perceptions.

So, they can tell me they went to the moon.  But, I doubt I will ever completely believe it.  Perhaps they were capable of going and coming back etc.  That doesn't mean they spent the money to do it. 

I doubt that Kubrick really had anything to do with it.  But, I will tell you this.  Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on 2001: A Space Odyssey.  If you haven't seen it...get out from under your rock.  Few people realize what the monolith is.  It is a symbol for the things that make us evolve.  Outside influence, or our own achievements, which make us see reality in a different way.  Kubricks "monolith" is a movie screen turned on it's side.  Clarke's was a pyramid inside a sphere.  Kubrick was implying that what we see evolves us.  In the story, the first monolith is a communal fire.  Controlling fire made us see things differently.  The second monolith is on the moon. 

Clarke and Kubrick seem to be saying that they believed that going to the moon would be an evolutionary step.  "A giant leap", so-to-say. 

Personally, I believe that Kubrick and Clarke were initiates in Mystery Babylon.  And, it is my opinion, that this cult believes in evolution...and they also believe that the unevolved must perish.  Would a powerful secret society try to engineer evolution through deception?  Possibly.  Is there any indication that the Eugenics/Mystery Religion may have had a hand in the "Great Leap" that was the Apollo(Sun God) missions to the moon?




I have no way to tell if we went to the moon.  Only because I have given control of information to people with no moral compass...

You can choose to believe we went to the moon.  I have chosen to not care.  It is of almost no importance to my life as a slave on the global plantation.  Just something else to divert my attention from what is going on around me. 

Believe what you want. 

[yrpplmean]

thanks 37, are there links here that discuss this? or threads?  I just watched some youtube videos and it is crazy.   

[iceman2]

thanks 37, are there links here that discuss this? or threads?  I just watched some youtube videos and it is crazy.   

I need a clocking device, I did look for the store ( but I could not see it) 

[luckee1]

I need a cloaking device, I did look for the store ( but I could not see it) 

I almost didn't see your error!  Fixed 

[iceman2]

I almost didn't see your error!  Fixed 

10 out of 10

[JTCoyoté]

JT:

I have been googling around today again trying to find mention of 'NASA photo reconstructions' ... still can't find anything ... nothing in Scientific American archives so far and Sky and Telescope's archives are not functioning now (under construction). But like you JT, I am sure I read it somewhere and that was probably the first kernel of my doubts about authenticity.

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging their fakery ... as most people reading these pages will surely see this as I do ... one faked picture puts it all in serious jeopardy ... because, as you say, examing the 'record' now is, " ... mostly about analyzing the film footage to discover which scenes were staged, and which scenes were real ...", or if indeed any scenes were real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Still no info on special alloys, titanium or other, used in the Apollo Hassies.

When I read it back then... the idea of reconstructing damaged and destroyed footage, I had no compulsion to suspect anything other than what they said they were doing... most of what I have seen shows nothing more than footage from the moon...  some of the stuff, that is showing up as NASA footage, is questionable as to whether or not that is its origin... and not outtakes from Capricorn One or some other Hollywood effort.

The point I'm trying to make is that all of this banter... determining what is staged, and what is real doesn't alter the facts... The logic here regarding the film is kind of like examining film from the Kennedy assassination... like alleging that the Zapruder film can be shown to have been manipulated and "faked", therefore, the Kennedy assassination never took place... So, some film is seen as staged/fake, thus and therefore, the moon landings must be fake. I'm sure you can see the fallacious logic here.

Most people here are basing a lot of their opinion on what can only be described as their own lack of understanding with regard to how things appear, rather than the way they mistakenly think things should appear... An example would be the "no stars in the background sky" scenario... Their ill-informed logic tells them the sky is black therefore stars should be visible in the photos and on the film, right??... No, not necessarily... Anyone who has a background in photography knows what happens if you take a camera that can be manually adjusted for shutter speed and f-stop, loaded with 200asa film outside at midnight on a starry night, and set the camera at a bright sunny day setting like 1/200th of the second shutter speed at f/11. Then aim it toward the horizon showing about half land and half sky in the viewfinder, and snap the shutter.  When the film is processed, everything will be extremely dark including the sky. Any streetlights may show up dimly, but for all intents and purposes you will see essentially an underexposed black image... this is why only a very few of the brightest stellar objects show up as faint dots in some of the NASA frames. While all of the right legal in foreground objects, astronauts, rocks, craters, lunar landers, flags, and rovers, all show up properly exposed.

 Now  if the moon is glowing on the horizon in the view-finder of your camera when you snap your daylight/night shot, it will show up on your film, slightly underexposed, but it will show up because its brightness is within the capture limits of your camera set at 1/200 of a second exposure at F/11, but only barely. Contrast that with what the astronauts were doing. Fully lit daylight objects on the lunar surface, with the black sky because the moon has no atmosphere to scatter light around... the exposure time and f-stop was set for a bright sunny day... only the brightest of the bright stars and the daylight lit Earth would ever show up in the sky on such an exposure.

From the very beginning when the equipment was described, the cameras, and other things, they were said to be specially built by the companies for the lunar project... that right there is enough to tell me that the Hasselblads were not even close to being off the shelf units... being an optical engineer, I can pretty much without having ever looked at one of these cameras, tell you what they would have done back then, given the technology of the time, to make them operate flawlessly on the moon.

People tend to think that because we now have the Internet, monster computers, Photoshop, and youtube, HDTV, that somehow back in the 60s we were in the stone age or something... nothing could be further from the truth. We had something then, that was fairly common and in wide spread use at the time. Something we still have, but is used much less now... back then we knew how to use our 1500-2000 CC cranial PC and its five built-in sensing systems, designed to self enhance, increase memory utilization thereby expanding computing power to the point of self-aware self-actualization and interface with others in softcellular computer networks light-years more advanced and far beyond the ability of a building full of Cray computers.  On top of that, the platform comes complete with a self recharging biomass conversion system and an array of four incredible 28 jointed appendages, of extremely deftness and sensitive coordination and synchronistic ability...  it is at the end of two these appendages we find a 10 digit printer.

JTCoyoté


"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
~Thomas Paine

[yrpplmean]

thanks JT for your information

I agree I am not that knowledgeable in Science at all.  Actually, quite the opposite lol

But I do know that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and there are more galaxies than the number of sand grains on earth!  In all the Apollo pictures (videos), it is pure black in all of them.  Shouldn't there be something at least?

[JTCoyoté]

thanks JT for your information

I agree I am not that knowledgeable in Science at all.  Actually, quite the opposite lol

But I do know that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and there are more galaxies than the number of sand grains on earth!  In all the Apollo pictures (videos), it is pure black in all of them.  Shouldn't there be something at least?

They are all there, and in some frames some of the brightest stars can be seen, those of first magnatude or greater... the vast majority however just didn't have enough time to be recorded before the shutter closed... Without the understanding of how photographs and film work... or even imaging systems like CCD's work, it's very difficult for people to understand that the night sky here on earth, or the daytime sky on the moon as seen by the eye is different than what the camera sees... the background stars which are dim compared to what is being photographed in the foreground will not register on the film because of their dimness, and the insufficient time that these objects are given to expose the film at daytime camera settings...

If one of the cameras on the moon had been set with its field of view directly into one area the sky held steady there with its aperture at f/5.6... the camera's only shadows setting... and the shutter was left open for a half an hour... you would see hundreds of thousands of stars on the film... this is how Star photographs are accomplished and has been the process since astrophotography was first utilized... the dim light builds up with time as it exposes the film or pixels

In normal use by the astronauts, shutter and f-stop settings on the camera is set to capture the astronauts, the lunar landscape, the rover, the experiment of the day, or what ever... the shutter speed of these cameras were designed to obtain maximum resolution and film saturation at two basic settings for shutter speed, and two settings for f-stop.

The most beautiful Astro photographs are always time exposures, unless they are of planets, the moon, or the sun... your eyes are much more sensitive and versatile than any camera ever made, yet they require a period of dark adaptation from daytime vision to nighttime vision in order to become sensitive enough to extremely dim light for viewing the stars. A good experiment... on a beautiful starry night, sit inside your living room with all the lights on... quickly open the door run outside and look up seeing what you can see, and remembered this view... Then go inside, turn out the lights that are shining outside your house, sit down in your favorite lawn chair with your eyes closed, and wait approximately 5 minutes, (normal night adaption usually takes upwards of an hour)... but after five minutes open our eyes and look into the same area that you looked before and see how much more you will instantly be able to see. This is essentially the same thing you do by holding the shutter open on the camera, your eyes have converted to their nighttime mode... you're iris has expanded wider so that it drinks and more light and the retina has become sensitive...

While you're sitting there contemplate the idea that perhaps the people who are making the allegations know even less than you do now about the science, the astronomy, physics, optics, and the incredible intuition that an understanding of these disciplines can have on your grasp of the subject...

JTCoyoté


"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
~Thomas Paine