Question about the moon landing

[skippystars]

Hi again all.<br /><br />I'm not a "devils advocate" skeptic or anything but it's always good to learn new things.<br /><br />2 Questions to anyone that can help me with this.<br /><br />1) Why is it that in the pictures and videos of the moon landing you can't see a single star? Shouldn't the milky way be as visible as a beacon full of honey and milk..considering no light pollution?<br /><br />2) How come our American flag waves in the videos? I thought there was no air on the moon, or maybe there is just a little bit, enough to cause it do the like?<br /><br />Any help and/or clarrity would be greatly appreciated.<br /><br />SK

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'll get a link, but since you asked 2 quick question, I'll give two quick answers.<br /><br />1. It's due to the brightness difference between the objects in front (lit by the sun) and the stars being much dimmer. Photographic film has a limited range of ability to record images. If you could see the stars, the objects in front would be WAAAAY overexposed just white blurs.<br />The photos were taken on Hasselblad cameras (some of which my father in law worked on) so if you can see any detail in the foreground objects, the stars are hundreds of times fainter than they would need to be to be seen.<br />Use earth photos as an example.<br />To get a sunlit scene, the shutter speed will be maybe 1/500 sec? To see stars, it would be seconds. You can't do both at the same exposure.<br /><br />2. I'll let you look at the link, but the short answer is that there were rods holding the top of the lag out straight, and they wiggled when the pole was shaken.<br /><br />To get the answers to all your "moon hoax" questions, read this site link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[skippystars]

Thanks, that helped!

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />skippystars: 1) Why is it that in the pictures and videos of the moon landing you can't see a single star? Shouldn't the milky way be as visible as a beacon full of honey and milk..considering no light pollution? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You could compare those images you have to images that are definitely taken in space (the Moon sky should look the same), e.g.<br /><br />http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=fi&lr=&q=iss<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />skippystars: 2) How come our American flag waves in the videos? I thought there was no air on the moon, or maybe there is just a little bit, enough to cause it do the like? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Waving cannot be caused by a wind, since Moon has no atmosphere - not even a little bit (of course, there's some single particles, but it's practically a vacuum). Certainly, a flexible material will wave a bit when being moved, shaken or stirred because of inertial effects, but it should not act like being in a windy environment. Check again the videos you have / have access, and think if the waving is caused by wind or by inertia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>MeteorWayne: 1. It's due to the brightness difference between the objects in front (lit by the sun) and the stars being much dimmer.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is true, and many people don't remember that a daylit Moon is at least as bright as a daylit Earth. We're so used to thinking of the Moon as a night object on the sky that we don't consider it to be as bright as it is.<br /><br />Last weekend, I was photographing the Moon though my telescope at night. My father was surprised when I told him I used exposure times as short as 1/200 sec at F/8 and ISO 200. The moon really is quite bright. And of course, no stars showed up on my images either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

AHA! Then you really weren't there were you? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Were the star visible to the naked eye of the moonwalkers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Skippystars may have seen video of the launch. As such, there is a gas at relatively high pressures rushing past the flag. That would cause it to wave like here on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, because you can shield your eyes, or put the sun behind an object.<br />Even with the moon in the sky, here on earth, you can see stars. <br />In fact, if you shield the sun with the moon (an eclipse) plenty of stars are visible (or so I've heard, never having witnessed a solar eclipse <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> )<br />In fact you can see the brighter planets and during the daytime if you know exactly where to look, and can get your eyes to focus at infinity. A telescope makes it easier.<br /><br />Here down on the surface it's much harder than on the moon since the atmosphere itself is lit by the sun, hence is as bright or brighter than the stars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>MeteorWayne:<br />AHA! Then you really weren't there were you?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Argh! You got me there! It was all a lunar photography hoax! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Old topic discussed umpteen times.

 

[qso1]

skippystars:<br />1) Why is it that in the pictures and videos of the moon landing you can't see a single star? Shouldn't the milky way be as visible as a beacon full of honey and milk..considering no light pollution?<br /><br />Me:<br />Oh there is light pollution. Its called the sun.<br /><br />But as anyone who has ever tried night photography under a streetlight has found, stars do not show up in those pics either unless one has a very sophisticated camera. Its a question of exposure. To get the stars to show up in lunar surface photography, you have to keep the shutter open longer and doing this lets in the flooding sunlight and lunar surface reflected light.<br /><br />skippystars:<br />2) How come our American flag waves in the videos? I thought there was no air on the moon, or maybe there is just a little bit, enough to cause it do the like?<br /><br />Me:<br />The flag only moves when the astronauts move it. The flag itself actually had to be hung out on a pice of wire otherwise it would hang unfurled just as a flag here does on a windless day. The other time the flag can be seen moving is from one of the LM liftoff vids where the LM ascent stage engine plume is disturbing the flag. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

Whoever was the %@&#ing idiot who thought up these theories that the moon landing was a hoax, knows nothing of the physical world!!<br /><br />The reason why the flag would have been waving, is because of it hanging on a rod. Most likely the astronauts would have twisted the pole back and forth to dig it deeper into the moon's soil, similar to the way you would place a tents stakes into the ground. There is less gravity and no air pressure to push against it, so it would wave for much longer than it would on Earth. <br /><br />The photos and video that were taken from the moon landings simply look too real to be fake. I mean come on, special effects were not that good in the 60's! Have you ever seen space sci-fi movies from the 60's!? The only thing they are good for is to laugh hysterically at! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes, the flag was waving around due to the inertia from the twisting movements as the astronauts pushed the pole into the ground. And the other video of the flag waving was when the LM took off and was caused by its exhaust.<br /><br />I agree that the moon landings were not fake, and nor was the original footage.<br /><br />But - I would not use the example of bad special effects in the 60's!<br /><br />2001: A Space Odyssey was released the year <b> before </b> man landed on the moon... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

weeman:<br />Whoever was the %@&#ing idiot who thought up these theories that the moon landing was a hoax, knows nothing of the physical world!! <br /><br />Me:<br />They did however, know how to get a controversial book published and make money off of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

Speed, I understand that 2001 had great special effects for its time. However, they don't compare to the footage that was shot from the moon landing. The astronauts bouncing, riding the moon buggy, and the famous picture of Earth from the surface of the Moon, would rival most special effects of present day! <br /><br />The book being published doesn't really mean anything to me. Anyone can get anything published and make some money off of it, because there will always be the crazy wackos that will follow in the writers footsteps <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I even read a book years ago that was about 250 pages on the Mars Face! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2001: A Space Odyssey was released the year before man landed on the moon...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yep, I've seen that movie (don't get me started...), let's just say that it doesn't look very real. It looked okay for its time but 2001 also proves that Stanley Kubrick did not film any faked moon landings.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

That Mars face book was probably the one by Richard Hoagland, and to be sure, these writers will have their followers.<br /><br />The 2001 special effects were great for their time and compared to movies up to that time as you mentioned. Today, or I sould say 1997...the HBO series "From The Earth To The Moon" produced by Tom Hanks, had some excellent lunar walk footage but even it didn't compare to the Apollo missions.<br /><br />I watched Apollo 14-17 which had uninterrupted TV coverage lasting hours and in Apollo 14s case got to see the astronauts walk off into the distance towards cone crater with their Modular Equipment Transporter (MET) cart...unedited. If that was a sound stage, it would have had to have been in a huge building. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>