Comments and questions about the
APOD on the main view screen.
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:22 am
This is actually pretty cool...
-
heehaw
Post
by heehaw » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:47 am
I bought my first television set specifically for Apollo 12, wanting to see action on the Moon from my own apartment. Sigh! The first thing they did with their TV camera was accidentally point it at the Sun, completely and permanently ruining it. And then there was Apollo 13. And after that I was hitchhiking around the world, and no TV in Africa, or even in American Samoa...
-
isoparix
Post
by isoparix » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:23 am
Did this mission have a rover? Did he walk or drive to Surveyor 3?
-
JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
Post
by JohnD » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:53 am
isoparix, are you referring to the apparent tread marks in the regolith, bottom left?
Nasa Moon Rover first used on Apollo 15, and subsequent missions, so not on 12.
That imprint certainly looks unlike the many other foot prints. The absence or not of Rover tread marks is a frequent tool of Monn Lnading deniers. Here's one they will enjoy!
John
-
Any
Post
by Any » Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:49 am
It looks like someone altered the picture. Astronaut shaking hands with a sock puppet? You have been trolled.
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:09 pm
Any wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:49 am
It looks like someone altered the picture. Astronaut shaking hands with a sock puppet? You have been trolled.
Is he tickling Kermit under the chin?
-
De58te
- Commander
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:35 pm
Post
by De58te » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:30 pm
Something about the picture puzzles me. Is the terminator between day and night so abrupt on the Moon? Being an amateur photographer I know that they didn't use a flash bulb to light up the Surveyor. The shadows would turn away from the camera. So the surveyor must be lit up brightly by the Sun. Then why is the Apollo 12 lander which appears to be maybe 1,000 meters away, not just as lit up by the sun? Did they build the Surveyor out of really reflective material but build the Apollo lander with really light absorbing material? I would think the two space "ships" would be built with similar material.
-
cintune
Post
by cintune » Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:26 pm
If this was scanned from a darkroom print of a film negative it could be that whoever made the print adjusted the exposure through dodging or burning.
-
neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Post
by neufer » Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:44 pm
cintune wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:26 pmDe58te wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:30 pm
Something about the picture puzzles me. Is the terminator between day and night so abrupt on the Moon? Being an amateur photographer I know that they didn't use a flash bulb to light up the Surveyor. The shadows would turn away from the camera. So the surveyor must be lit up brightly by the Sun. Then why is the Apollo 12 lander which appears to be maybe 1,000 meters away, not just as lit up by the sun? Did they build the Surveyor out of really reflective material but build the Apollo lander with really light absorbing material? I would think the two space "ships" would be built with similar material.
If this was scanned from a darkroom print of a film negative it could be that whoever made the print adjusted the exposure through dodging or burning.
Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century
Art Neuendorffer
-
neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Post
by neufer » Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:46 pm
heehaw wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:47 am
I bought my first television set specifically for Apollo 12, wanting to see action on the Moon from my own apartment. Sigh! The first thing they did with their TV camera was accidentally point it at the Sun, completely and permanently ruining it. And then there was Apollo 13. And after that I was hitchhiking around the world, and no TV in Africa, or even in American Samoa...
How does one hitchhike to American Samoa
Art Neuendorffer
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:56 pm
neufer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:46 pm
heehaw wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:47 am
I bought my first television set specifically for Apollo 12, wanting to see action on the Moon from my own apartment. Sigh! The first thing they did with their TV camera was accidentally point it at the Sun, completely and permanently ruining it. And then there was Apollo 13. And after that I was hitchhiking around the world, and no TV in Africa, or even in American Samoa...
How does one hitchhike to American Samoa :?:
What do you call hitching a ride on a freighter or some other ship not intended for the commercial transportation of people? (I know people who have traveled this way.) Hitchcruising? Hitchfloating?
-
BDanielMayfield
- Don't bring me down
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
- AKA: Bruce
- Location: East Idaho
Post
by BDanielMayfield » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:48 pm
De58te wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:30 pm
Something about the picture puzzles me. Is the terminator between day and night so abrupt on the Moon? Being an amateur photographer I know that they didn't use a flash bulb to light up the Surveyor. The shadows would turn away from the camera. So the surveyor must be lit up brightly by the Sun. Then why is the Apollo 12 lander which appears to be maybe 1,000 meters away, not just as lit up by the sun? Did they build the Surveyor out of really reflective material but build the Apollo lander with really light absorbing material? I would think the two space "ships" would be built with similar material.
The lander wouldn't have been anywhere near the terminator, for they needed these landings to be in full sunlight.
I don't wish to stoke the faked moon landings crowd, but on earth distant objects appear dimmer due to atmospheric extinction caused by dust in the air. But on the moon there is no air, so De has raised a good question.
Bruce
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:02 pm
De58te wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:30 pm
Something about the picture puzzles me. Is the terminator between day and night so abrupt on the Moon? Being an amateur photographer I know that they didn't use a flash bulb to light up the Surveyor. The shadows would turn away from the camera. So the surveyor must be lit up brightly by the Sun. Then why is the Apollo 12 lander which appears to be maybe 1,000 meters away, not just as lit up by the sun? Did they build the Surveyor out of really reflective material but build the Apollo lander with really light absorbing material? I would think the two space "ships" would be built with similar material.
It's just a badly processed version of the image. Go to the image in the
master catalog and it looks
much better.
_
AS12-48-7134HRsm.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Paul Becker
Post
by Paul Becker » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:27 pm
Salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
It could suck an ancient virus from the sea
It could put the dog out of a job
Could make traffic stop so little thoughts can safely get across
It's the rules
It's the rules
Guaranteed or not
It's the rules
-
MarkBour
- Subtle Signal
- Posts: 1377
- Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:44 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
Post
by MarkBour » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:59 pm
So, the oldest profession ... on the moon ... appears to be spare parts salvage.
I suppose that if they had landed next to Luna-9 and vandalized it, instead of Surveyor-3, that would have sent a different message.
Mark Goldfain
-
JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
Post
by JohnD » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:44 am
Gosh, it does look different, in the distance.
And in the foreground. It's been cropped for the APOD, and the slightly wider view removes the appearance of a tyre track.
Suspicion often creates what it suspects (CS Lewis)
JOhn
-
BDanielMayfield
- Don't bring me down
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
- AKA: Bruce
- Location: East Idaho
Post
by BDanielMayfield » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:08 pm
JohnD wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:44 am
Gosh, it does look different, in the distance.
And in the foreground. It's been cropped for the APOD, and the slightly wider view removes the appearance of a tyre track.
Suspicion often creates what it suspects (CS Lewis)
JOhn
Then, that being the case, why use a version of this historic photo that gives moon landing denighers more reasons to denigh when much better versions like the one Chris has shown are readily available?
Bruce
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.
-
JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
Post
by JohnD » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:27 pm
No idea, presume that APOD got the image via another source. But anyone can go to the Apollo 12 webpage and the Images, especially magazine No.48. Lots of images of the Surveyor from AS12-48-7098 (OF300)
See:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html#Mag48
It's obvious that Al Bean carefully took pics as he approached the probe, before he stepped around it. The place where I thought there were tyre tracks is clearly free of any imprint in an early one:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7119.jpg
John