Though experiment: you’re on the moon. Stand in the shadow of the LEM. Now look at the Moon’s surface. Can you see anything? If so then scattered light from the surfact is in fact reaching the shadowed portion of the LEM.
Arg. Change “Though experiment” to “Thought experiment.”
Not necessarily. The same geometry that explains the phases of the moon also dictates where it will appear in the night sky. One half of the moon is always lit by the sun (except during a lunar eclipse), and the phase comes from which direction we are looking at it.
Consider a full moon. We see the full lit face of the moon because the Earth is between it and the sun. A lunar eclipse can only take place during a full moon. Because of this arrangement, as the Earth turns we see the moon rise just as the sun sets. And if you stay up all night, the moon will set as the sun rises. In fact, if you have a sundial you can tell time by the full moon (but only a full moon), just swap p.m. for a.m.
During a half moon, it’s different. A half moon will be at its highest (assuming you’re not in the Arctic or Antarctic Circle, I’d need pencil and paper to work those out) at sunrise or sunset (depending on whether it’s waxing or waning), and this makes sense too. Imagine it’s a half moon visible at sunset, and you’re standing so that your right shoulder is facing the setting sun. Someone standing in front of you would see half your face lit from the side, and half in shadow. Now look up, you’ll see half the moon lit and half in shadow. As the Earth makes a quarter rotation, the moon will set six hours later. For a sunrise half moon, it’s the opposite. The moon would rise six hours before the sun.
It all gets a bit more complicated, what with seasons and the changing length of days and such, but that should be enough to picture what’s going on. As to whether the moon rises into the sky at night, well that’s a matter of definition. A full moon is visible for the full night, a half moon will be up half the night and so on.
Ok, I don’t have access to an FTP, so you’ll have to either draw this picture in your head or draw it out as I type it (well, as you read it anyway).
First, we have a sphere. On paper we’ll have to do with a circle. To the right of this circle is another circle: the sun. (we can ignore the earth for this effect). Draw a straight line from “the sun” to “the moon.”
Now, here’s the reflection part. I think we’ve understood that light will reflect, it is now a qeustion of WHERE it will reflect. Answer: it will reflect anywhere within the tangent line of the circle at the point of intersection (that is, the one point the tangent line touches is where the light path in question touches). This is an essentially random scattering, but with a seemingly impossibly large number of both dust particles and dust particle shapes, it isn’t a leap of faith to see that the light gets reflected in a 180degree hemisphere around any particular area.
[sub]to prove this to yourself, draw a series of random “particles” that you feel represent what rock dust looks like. How many of these particles could reflect light in such a manner as to illuminate the shadow?[/sub]
Because white light is what was reflected (there is no color “gray”), anything white will appear much brighter. The more reflective, or the more white, anything is that is struck by the reflected light the more it will seem bright.
Because we are looking at it from the side–that is, horizontally–if the reflected object is “in” a shadow, only 50% of the light will strike it. This is from a 2D perspective. Since we are in a 3D world, it is even less than that (since the sides also add light to it).
The atmosphere or lack thereof is completely irrelevant. An atmosphere will aide in stopping or otherwise reflecting more light before it gets to the object in question (you’ve driven through fog, I’m sure) but in principle it is not the effect you want to have described, and in any case an object can be in a shadow and remain visible. Your problem seems to be with the intensity of the lighted object-in-shadow. This can be attributed to
- Its color (white)
- The reflected light’s color (white)
- Hi Opal!
- The lack of a scattering atmosphere (this is an intensity only affect). Remember, light coming into earth is partially reflected off the atmosphere. As well, the atmosphere itself tends to scatter it once it is in here. The moon, lacking those effects, should (and apparently is) be brighter in this manner. However, room brightness (in this manner) is even bettern than our moon pictures because of verticle reflective surfaces which not only illuminate our object, but unfortunately serve to dampen our shadow itself.
As far as your “New Moon” thing goes, you can see the new moon. At least, I’ve seen it. Its more of a dark dark gray then a midnight black, but its there.
Hopefully I have not contradicted myself or otherwise spoken from my ass.
VarlosZ: If you’re reading this, nice comeback. Your contributions will be missed.
Robot Arm: I knew I shouldn’t have brought up the blast crater until we were done with the second-illumination-source question! But let me ask a question or two.
Regarding the first “misunderstanding”—I would accept at face value that “most” of the operation of the LEM takes place thousands of feet above the Moon (though it seems like last-minute adjustment blasts would be necessary in order to touch down squarely). But if you can, please explain the following:
“Because the lunar atmosphere is a near-perfect vacuum, no air currents are set up that would scour the surface at a distance as might occur during a landing on Earth.”
How does the presence or lack of an atmosphere affect the development of such a crater? In the absence of any medium (ie air) to slow or redirect particles being expelled from the engine’s exhaust, wouldn’t they just continue down in a straight line toward the moon? Increasing their velocity, as Sam Stone would point out, in the lack of an atmosphere? Wouldn’t this create a BIGGER “crater” than one would expect on earth?
As for the second point, anyone who’s watched the video of the lunar rover driving around with its wheels buried almost a quarter of the way up can tell that the dust on the moon is far fluffier than wet sand—after all, the rover should be a lot lighter than it would be on earth, right?
On to Sam Stone…
Your first link is the one we’ve been discussing: NASA’s official report.
Your second link is far more interesting; it appears to show an entirely DIFFERENT set of numbers than are presented in the table within the official report, which is viewable at http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg (check out the exposure levels of Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 in the two reports). What’s going on there?
Your third link only seems to make the danger of space radiation seem greater. NASA, noting that “space radiation exposures are typically higher and more damaging than those for ground radiation workers because space radiation is usually more energetic,” sets an acceptable limit of 25 rem in 30 days for blood-forming organs. If I’m to believe Bobort’s estimates of the astronauts’ total exposure, we’d be talking more like 50 rem in 9.5 days (the average length of an Apollo mission, as calculated from the mission duration figures in your second link). I’d say that would be considered, by NASA’s own rules, an unacceptable risk to the astronauts’ blood-forming organs.
As for link 4, I’m getting a “connection refused” message. Sorry!
[Moderator Hat: ON]
BickByro said:
Nope. You’re not the OPer and the title is pretty clear in its intent. Therefore, I have no reason to change it.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Apparently not.
Which is true. Dispersion in an atmosphere causes “fill” lighting.
There is no atmosphere on the moon, so the fact that light disperses in an atmosphere, while true, is irrelevant. Those points are both true. I do not recall Sam Stone claiming that there was atmosphere on the Moon, and I cannot find anywhere where he claims that atmospheric dispersion is what illuminates things on the Moon. I would be fascinated to see where he suggests there is. If he does, that’s quite a dumb thing to say.
Excuse me? Are you saying you’ve never actually seen an object that was in shadow?
Look, just answer one question; if the moon can illuminate objects 250,000 MILES away, why can’t it illuminate objects four feet away?
That’s nonsense. I have photographs right here in my damned house wherein you can see things in shadows.
Link? Which photo?
Sure, why not? Haven’t you ever looked into a hole and seen the bottom? I have.
You cannot seriously be suggesting that something in shadow on the Moon would be invisible.
Yes, you would. Which is why a bright object sitting in direct sunlight will often have a bright spot on the ground between it and the sun. If I leave my car sitting in the driveway with the sun beaming down on its side, you can see light reflected back onto the ground. Surely to God you’ve seen that effect.
You simply do not understand the physics.
If you’re standing in a shadow on the Moon, you are not in the “presence of sunlight,” except that sunlight which is reflected from the moon towards you.
If you are standing outside on a moonlit night, you are not in the presence of sunlight, except that sunlight which is reflected from the moon towards you.
They are equivalent states. EXACTLY equivalent, except in the latter case the moonshine’s brighter, so it should illuminate you even more. If the moon can illuminate things here, it can illuminate things there.
Okay, so you say no. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that I can see things in shadow. Even sharply contrasted shadow. You can, too. Suggesting that the Moon photographs must be fakes because sometimes you can’t see things obscured by shadow is a really bizarre position to take. Since you can sometimes see things in shadow and sometimes not, why should I not believe, based on the otherwise devastatingly overwhelming evidence, that Moon photos are the real McCoy? I do, in some Moon photos, see that some things are obscured by shadow pretty much completely. In some exposures, the shadow’s completely dark, and in some, it’s not. Isn’t that what you’d expect?
And the astronauts did get doses of alpha radiation. You’re getting doses of it right now. So? We’ve provided you with links suggesting the amounts would not kill anyone instantly - maybe years down the road, and as I’ve pointed out, Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Swigert died young, of cancer. only twelve years after his mission. So it’s quite possible the Van Allen belts did kill someone.
This has been explained elsewhere. A few things were mislabelled, and in the case of many photos that purport to have the same background, they don’t. A simpler and much more plausible reason than a giant secret hoax, don’t you think?
I’ve seen many of the alleged photos where the background never changes, and it seems to me that the reason the background looks the same is because you can move a kilometres closer or further from a freakin’ mountain and it’s not going to look any different. Of course the background doesn’t change. Given the hundreds and hundreds og photos taken on the Moon, I’d be shocked if many photos didn’t capture the same off-in-the-distance mountains and craters.
Because the LEM’s engine wouldn’t have been pumping out enough juice, on landing, to create such a crater. The raw thrust being pumped out by the LEM wasn’t that great; IIRC, it was in the order of 1300 pounds of thrust on landing, but I’ll try to find a cite. The LEM rocket didn’t go any higher than 10,000 lb of thrust, and on landing they’d be throttled way down, carefully setting themselves on the ground. Since what’s underneath the LEM is rock, I don’t expect that a small rocket engine would make much of a dent in it.
aynrandlover wrote:
Yeah, but it sure as heck doesn’t reflect much white light. The average albedo of the lunar surface is a paltry 7%. In the lunar “seas” (the maria), such as the Sea of Tranquility where Apollo 11 landed, the moondust is even darker, and the albedo is less than 5%.
The lunar maria are about the same color as coal dust.
Things are starting to pick up around here! I hope I don’t actually have to do any work at work any time soon or it might take forever to catch up…
White Raven: That was the OP’s link.
emarkp: Again, it isn’t a matter of visibility so much as illumination.
Robot Arm: “As to whether the moon rises into the sky at night, well that’s a matter of definition. A full moon is visible for the full night, a half moon will be up half the night and so on.”
I take that to mean that a new moon will be up none of the night? Hmm. So is aynrandlover crazy when she says “you can see the new moon. At least, I’ve seen it. Its more of a dark dark gray then a midnight black, but its there”?
Now, aynrandlover, let me draw out your little diagram so I can see what you’re talking about…
Okay. Looks good. But I lose you here:
“This is an essentially random scattering, but with a seemingly impossibly large number of both dust particles and dust particle shapes, it isn’t a leap of faith to see that the light gets reflected in a 180degree hemisphere around any particular area.”
We’ve begun with a diagram of the sun and moon showing, essentially, light reflecting off a perfectly smooth sphere–one might almost say a reflective lens. Then all of sudden we’re looking at tiny particles of dust and calculating THEIR reflective angles. What’s the connection? It seems like we must have skipped a step on the way from the moon to moon dust.
I think this might be the missing step: Though dust particles COULD be multi-directional reflectors individually, their effect in aggregate would not be to illuminate around a full 180 degrees but rather to reflect the overwhelming majority of light back the way it came.
I agree with you that random scattering might occur in all 180 degrees, but I do not think the amount of reflection would be the same in all 180 degrees.
You make a questionable point later as well:
“As well, the atmosphere itself tends to scatter [sunlight] once it is in here. The moon, lacking those effects, should (and apparently is) be brighter in this manner.”
The problem, I think is again the question of aggregate versus discrete reflection. After all, many here have already noted that the earth, BECAUSE of its atmosphere and oceans, has a greater reflectivity factor than the moon (I’m not sure HOW much this factors into overall brightness, but apparently it does).
The facts, as they have been presented here, would seem to boil down to this: earth’s atmosphere causes it to reflect more raw sunlight back into space, but it also causes light down here on the ground to be more scattered. The moon, in the absence of an atmosphere, does not reflect as much raw sunlight back into space, but once the light is on the surface, it is not nearly as scattered as on earth because there is no atmosphere to cause it to be.
I think.
Which makes sense. Look at it this way; the ONLY part of the Moon that reflects light is the surface, because - well, because that’s the only thing the Moon has. It’s just a big round rock. If you’re standing on the surface of the Moon, you’re seeing pretty much everything there is to see.
The Earth, on the other hand, reflects light at the atmospheric level, from clouds, and from the surface. If you’re standing on the Earth, you’re standing at the bottom of a giant sea of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. So while you might not get the entire reflective effect, because you’re at the bottom of the atmosphere, Al the Alien does get it all from his vantage point 100,000 miles away, because he’s seeing all the reflective layers.
Imagine being a fish at the bottom of a fifty-foot-deep lake. A lake reflects a LOT of light, and from my helicopter above your lake, the lake looks very shiny. But to you, the lake seems very dark; the bottom reflects very little light because most of it is scattered and/or reflected by the time it gets to you.
Yup, two reasons I reposted it:
-
I felt that page two should have the link available. (a bit redundant, but humor me)
-
With as much as you are going with the “crackpots” ideas, I was posting the link again in case mabey you had missed it.
Personally I dont think they are going to “convince” you. It seems to me that you are the type that WANTS to believe its false. (Do you believe aliens built the pyramids?) No amount of arguing and pointing out facts is going to convince you. Look at the creationists who “believe” the crap that is thrown at them without looking at the evidence, and even ignoring it when it is pointed out.
I could point out specifics but it wont do any good. You want to believe this, and that fact is obvious. You brow beat one specific point as if that proves the whole thing, while the rest of the “evidence” that supposedly proves the moon landing was a hoax has been discredited. Ok, so the Earthshine plays no part in a lightsource…so what? Read the things these people point out. None of these people, with the exception of lunar ticks or whatever the site was called, suggested anything of the sort.
All that is fine and all, and im certainly not saying you dont have a right to argue what you believe in, Just pointing out the reason I posted the OP’s link.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle
Bick: Try this out. In this diagram, S is the sun, E is the Earth, and Y is you on the moon’s surface. (Just ignore the periods; it’s the only way I could find to put enough space between the S and the E) As you can see, the sun would make you cast a shadow towards the right of your monitor. If there were no other light source, this shadow would indeed be impenetrable. However, there is also, on the other side of you, the Earth. Sunlight hits the Earth, which is reflected back to you. Since it is not as bright as the Sun, it does not make you cast a second shadow. However, it is bright enough to illuminate anything in the shadow you are casting from the sun.
S…E
___Y___
If you’re still with me, try this one, in which “I” stands for me, on the surface of the moon with you.
S
______Y_____I__
Here, light from the sun is making you cast a shadow in my direction, although I am not actually IN your shadow. Sunlight is also hitting me, and reflecting off of my bright white spacesuit back into your shadow, partially illuminating it. No, it is not enough to make you cast two shadows, but it can lighten your shadow somewhat.
All of this is, of course, ignoring any light being reflected from the moon’s surface, which is considerable. The moon’s surface is very, very uneven. Light hitting any given moon rock is refracted in millions of directions, many of them into areas not directly exposed to the sun, lighting them. Go outside, on Earth, at noon, and stand under a tree. Can you still see? Yes. Why? Because sunlight is reflecting off the surface of the Earth and bouncing into the shadow of the tree. Is there any reason why you think this would not happen on the Moon? And if you bring up atmosphere dispersion, I’m going to smack you. That has nothing to do with the question at hand. [Tim Curry] "Atmosphere dispersion was just a red herring. [/Tim Curry] An atmosphere will reflect light in all directions, including back the way it came. On Earth, this means that we get fractionally less light because of the atmosphere, but the light is spread around more. At any rate, the moon’s lack of atmosphere renders this entire issue moot. RickJay and Sam Stone are not contradicting each other.
Now, this is really bothering me: comparing being able to see things in shadows on the moon with being able to read a newspaper on Earth by moonlight is entirely appropriate. It gets dark at night because the Earth is between us and the sun. In other words, night is THE SHADOW OF THE EARTH! And it’s a hell of a bigger shadow than one cast by an LEM, yet you can still see pretty well down here even when the ONLY available light is being bounced off a rock 250,000 miles away!
As for radiation, as an independent observor, I’m going to take the word of the people who know the difference between alpha radiation and UV radiation. Honestly, Bick, what’s it going to take to convince you that the radiation threat was not terribly significant? We’ve got people who can use terms like “250sMv” with a straight face. Can you just accept that they know what they’re talking about? Or is there no evidence short of personally completing an advanced degree in Astrophysics that will convince you? Get a little perspective: you admit that you never questioned the Apollo program until you saw this Fox special. Now, you’re accepting this Fox program’s word over the unanimous consensus of the entire world’s scientific community. Remember, this is Fox we’re talking about. This is the network that brought you “Cops,” “World’s Scariest Police Chases,” the ongoing “When Animals Attack” saga, the network that thought fucking “Cop Rock” was a good idea. Do you think maybe they aren’t the most reliable people in the world?
Great, that vein in my forehead just burst again. I gotta go get a band-aid.
But wait, there’s more!
RickJay: If dispersion in an atmosphere causes “fill” lighting, as you and Sam Stone agree, then the lighting in the shadows of the moon should be less than it is on earth–after all, there is no atmosphere to provide fill lighting. This, to me, seems to undermine some of the “reflected light” arguments against the my “second lighting source” argument re: the lunar photos, such as the lightbulb-and-cardboard-box analogy.
You say: “I have photographs right here in my damned house wherein you can see things in shadows.”
Yes, I’ve SEEN objects in shadows, too, photographed or otherwise. But I assume you’ve seen other photos in which an object ended up significantly less clear/bright by dint have being positioned in a shadow. We’re talking about the astronaut/LEM appearing ILLUMINATED while in shadow, not merely visible/identifiable. Here’s the link–if you can look at it without laughing there are some interesting photographic points: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/aylett/eth69.html
Almost any one of them would be worth discussing, but the foot of the LEM and the light blue heels of Aldrin’s boots in the sixth photo are particularly good examples.
In the other photos, you’ll note, the lunar surface does not appear glaringly bright at all, which would answer your question “if the moon can illuminate objects 250,000 MILES away, why can’t it illuminate objects four feet away?”
This is particularly clear in the fourth photo, where the ground behind the lunar rover (and definitely NOT in a shadow) appears quite gray. Why can’t the moon illuminate itself? It’s even less than four feet away!
As for your car, I’m sure no matter how bad the paint job is, the car’s windows could account easily for any glare reflected to the ground.
You also say:
“…the astronauts did get doses of alpha radiation. You’re getting doses of it right now. So?”
Do I really need to explain to you that increased amounts of radiation are present upon leaving the earth’s protective atmosphere? Don’t be ridiculous! No one here has yet accounted for all the radiation that would be experienced in the different regions of space between here and the moon. I’ve demonstrated that NASA was aware of two possible hazards involved in the moon mission and that, by Bobort’s estimates of total-trip exposure, the risks involved to the astronauts’ blood-producing organs would have fallen outside NASA’s own safety guidelines. Doesn’t that even make you stop and think?
As for the repeating backgrounds, I don’t know of any link to the footage from the Fox special in which the two IMMEDIATE backgrounds (ie the foregrounds minus the astronauts) were exactly the same. I’ll concede you have a point about mountains remaining stationary when viewed from afar. Everyone interested should check out the examples on http://www.zyworld.com/nasa/1.htm to see if this is really what is going on. Particularly in “fake picture 1,” the hills in the background don’t really look that far away, considering their level of clarity in light of the obviously quite close focal point of the photo. For an astronaut with a fixed-focus camera… well, you all can judge for yourselves.
Let’s move on: “Since what’s underneath the LEM is rock, I don’t expect that a small rocket engine would make much of a dent in it.” Actually, there is a lot of dust on the lunar surface, and if the rover could kick it up, so could the LEM. You’ll also notice that no visible dust settled on the feet of the LEM, which one would expect at least a bit of.
Finally… ah, tracer! Thanks for the supplemental documentation–I don’t know much about albedos. But that lunar buggy photo I mentioned above pretty much bears out your “coal dust” comparison.
I can see I’m beginning to frustrate some people.
Let me start with you, White Raven. I don’t believe the aliens built the pyramids. I’m not a hard-core skeptic type, of course—I freely admit that I kinda believe in those big-black-eyed aliens, though I certainly don’t have any concrete reason for doing so.
But don’t try to peg me as a “type that WANTS to believe”–I’m no Fox Mulder jack-of-all-trades supernaturalist, and I certainly can back myself up with better arguments than your average crackpot conspiratorialist. To compare me to a Creationist bears a certain rich irony to me that I suppose you don’t understand.
In any case, I really haven’t meant to “brow beat one specific point”—I’ve tried to stick to the topic in the interest of not appearing “dodgy.” And I have looked at the evidence put before me, but so far nothing has conclusively shot down my primary point, IMHO.
Then you say:
“Ok, so the Earthshine plays no part in a lightsource…so what?.. None of these people, with the exception of lunar ticks or whatever the site was called, suggested anything of the sort.”
And are you trying to tell me that ONLY the Luna Ticks debunking web site proposes Earthshine as a secondary light source? If so, it seems plenty of Dopers are getting their facts there. Read the posts.
On to Nimune…
“…there is also, on the other side of you, the Earth… it is bright enough to illuminate anything in the shadow you are casting from the sun.”
I’ve gone over this already. The effect you describe DOES NOT OCCUR on earth when the moon and sun are up at the same time. The earth may be quite a bit brighter than the moon, but I firmly maintain it is not brighter on the order that would be necessary to make your statement true. The sun is simply WAY too bright.
As for the reflective-spacesuit theory, yes, the suits were white. But if you’ve ever seen them up close, they’re certainly not reflective in the way that, say, a photographer’s reflecting screen is. They’re not going to produce the effects visible in the linked photographs I posted.
More on the RickJay/Sam Stone controversy later…
I have to admit, I was thrown when I read the sentence: “It gets dark at night because the Earth is between us and the sun.” I never thought I’d see that one! But after a little more thought I understood what you were saying. And yes, we have established that one can read by moonlight. Does that necessarily mean that any object placed beneath a shadow on the moon will light up as though there were a light shining directly on it? If you look at the rover photograph, I think you’ll agree the answer is no.
Moving on… Look, I made a mistake on the radiation thing. Alpha vs. UV, of course. Mea culpa. I didn’t think it through completely. That certainly doesn’t discredit the other very valid points I raised. Check out the two data tables that have been presented—the first two Apollo missions have identical stats on one table, quite different ones on another. It doesn’t take an advanced degree to figure out there’s something strange going on there.
I don’t see why the fact that I never questioned this until the Fox special should be held against me. First of all, Fox may not be the most legitimate name in broadcasting but I’ve never seen them pull of a full-hour Trilateral Commission special or a We Really Do Need to Stockpile Guns and Ammo Lest Uncle Sam Turn Us Over to the New World Order special. Especially when you consider that there were basically no counterarguments given, they really packed a lot of different evidence (of varying degrees of legitimacy, to be sure) into that show.
Anyhow, would you think me any less crazy if I had been a firm believer in the conspiracy BEFORE I saw the Fox special? Could anybody present the other side of the argument without you admonishing them to “get a little perspective?”
Let me make this clear: I am neither arguing because I am a conspiracy believer (though I am becoming more convinced as this thread goes on) nor to amuse myself. What I saw on Fox honestly scared me; I don’t see how anybody could watch the two films superimposed on each other or the double-speed moonwalking/rover driving and not be a little scared.
So I went immediately to the SDMB (where else?) to find a thread like this one where maybe two people would be going at it, presenting opposing arguments and evidence. It turned out I was the only one even interested in examining the evidence on the “other side”–everyone else is content just to call the believers idiots, crazies, etc. etc. I also checked out the debunking sites posted by the OP, and found Luna Ticks had several errors on it (more of which I swear I’ll get to soon!). This really bothered me, because what if I had been the type to just drop it there–Luna Ticks is wrong, therefore the whole thing is phony? I felt it would be useful to discuss Luna Ticks’ errors with the SDMB in the interest of de-bunking the debunking.
That’s all there is to it.
Well, for starters the moon can’t illuminate itself, it can only reflect light from the sun. You do realize, don’t you, that all visibile objects by definition are reflecting light into your eyes. This is how vision works. Sure, those hills look grey to you, but the fact that you can see them at all is proof that they are reflecting light.
Secondly, objects in the distance on the moon do not become fuzzy and indistinct as they do on Earth. That fuzziness you see when looking at a distant mountain is caused by the atmosphere between you and the mountain. On the moon, no atmosphere equals objects that are still distinct even from great distances. Plus, since we’re talking about a featureless gray wasteland, there are no objects (trees, animals, Starbucks, etc.) we can compare it to to get a sense of scale. The result is, it is very difficult to tell if that’s a big hill nearby, or a giant mountain miles away.
“Cop Rock” was on ABC.
I would imagine shadows on the Moon ARE less illuminated than shadows would be on Earth on a similar surface. I would fully expect that if you were to construct the same situations here on Earth during the day, the shadows would be FAR lighter. The shadows in the Moon photos look really dark to me. Using the same photos, look at the shadow on the left side of the LEM in picture 1. It’s very dark. You wouldn’t see that on Earth; if I look at the side of my house away from the sun, it’s not that dark.
And here’s the crux; I have seen NO photo in which it appeared there was an extra light source. The only photo I could see at the site you provided which might fit this description was the famed “man on the moon” shot, which looked overexposed to me. To boot, looking at the reflection in the astronaut’s helmet (I think that’s Aldrin) it would appear that he is standing relatively close to the LEM. Judging from where the LEM is and where the sun seems to be shining from, he is sanding about where he might be catching reflection off the LEM. Hell, maybe that’s why he was standing there. I find that more believable than a hoax. Frankly, if this one overexposed shot is the basis of a hoax accusation, I’m a little skeptical.
As a matter of fact, that photo and the “blue heels” are a perfect example of a non-starter. The heels of his boots AREN’T BLUE. Look in the other photos. Since I don’t imagine they’d have suddenly made him wear blue boots in the middle of a hoax shoot, I suspect that what we have here is a classic case of a false color. It happens in photos, and it’s as likely to happen on the Moon as it is here.
No, it doesn’t. Maybe you could explain it, then. I think you’re wildly underestimating the amount of light that scatters off a seemingly non-reflective surface, but if not, answer the question; how can you say the Moon would not illuminate objects a few feet away when it can illuminate things thousands of miles away?
I don’t even understand this at all. Some parts of the Moon are darker or lighter than others. It’s not a uniform texture, so some parts appear darker. That surprises you?
My car’s red. Part of the glare is red. The windows are not red.
I have said on at least four occasions now that the Apollo astronauts did recieve substantial doses of alpha radiation. Would you like me to repeat it a hundred times? Now, here’s the counter question:
SO WHAT?
They got a dose of alpha radation. They knew it was a risk and they took it. It wasn’t enough to fry them in their seats, but you could argue it was a cancer risk. And one Apollo astronaut dropped dead of cancer only twelve years later. Whaddyaknow?
How does the presence of alpha radation make the Apollo missions impossible? Or a hoax? It makes them RISKY, maybe even a cancer risk. They still happened. I don’t think it’s much of a surprise that NASA was taking risks with the astronaut’s lives; it was an openly dangerous enterprise. Hence Apollo 1. Hence Neil Armstrong and his copilot nearly getting killed on a Gemini mission. If they wanted to avoid danger they’d never have even started the Mercury missions.
It makes me think exactly what I have said again, and again, and again; they WERE taking a risk. They knew it. Why does risky=hoax?
You cannot possibly judge, from a photograph taken on an alien world where there are none of the visual cues you’re used to, the distance of anything. I had already reviewed this page and it just looks like a series of photos that happen to have been taken from the same angle.
I would not expect that at all. I would expect the dust to have been blown out before the feet touched down. In fact, I’m honestly quite curious as to how dust would get on the lander’s feet. The dust would have been thrown sideways, before the lander hit the ground, and would not have billowed at all.
You’re reading way too much into the name “High Radiation Area.” The purpose of Radiation Area, High Radiation Area, and Very High Radiation Area signs is to give workers an order-of-magnitude idea of what kind of radiation field is in a particular area. They’re just straightforward and obvious names. “High Radiation Area” certainly doesn’t mean “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
Certainly. It’s a matter of degree–the Apollo astronaut’s dose falls into a sort of gray area between acute and chronic dose, and you’re not going to be able to find a convenient table summarizing the effects of doses for such a time period.
You’re really grasping at straws here. Trivially, you’ll remember I quoted a lower limit of 25 rem before; you’ll find different numbers throughout the literature depending on how old their numbers are, what exactly they’re talking about, etc. I really don’t think there’s a conspiracy-planted urban legend about the Apollo astronaut’s dose going around… (Which is not to say the 50 rem number isn’t an urban legend. I’ve heard it often enough, and it seems to be quite wrong. But the idea that it was started by government conspirators with ulterior motives is ridiculous.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that because the article has a scientific-sounding name it must therefore be the final authority an all aspects of the radiation exposure during the Apollo missions. That’s absurd. I’ll bet that if you went to NASA’s archives and gathered together all the verbiage on the radiological aspects of Apollo you couldn’t lift it with both hands. To quote from the document’s Preface:
Further along:
Look more carefully–the two tables are in different units. Rads are a measure of energy deposited by ionizing radiation per unit volume. Rem are a unitless measure of biological effects on humans, specifically carcinogenicity (is that a word?). The two are related by the Quality Factor, which is different for the various types of radiation, so you can’t even expect a linear correlation between the numbers in the two tables.
Whoa there, that wasn’t an estimate. That was an educated guess as to the upper bound, and it certainly didn’t come from NASA so the fact that it’s greater than their guideline is meaningless.
Think about this one in conjunction with the answer to, “Why aren’t there any stars visible?” and you’ll have your answer.
Re: New moon. New moon is an event, not an interval. It is the moment when the moon passes from waning to waxing, and it always occurs when the sun and moon are together in the sky, at nearly the same Right Ascension. No, the new moon cannot rise at night.
From Brick’s link above…
No, if the moon was not a reflective surface the shadow would be MUCH darker. In this case, as the picture clearly shows, it is only a bit darker.