The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

Wow! Urthecast,1 meter resolution from the ISS, almost real time video of Earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... VCdye2-vUQ
I can't wait to see what Munecast(?) shows us through one of those cameras. From only 50km (LRO altitude), and with no dense atmosphere like the Earth, we should be able to see the astronauts individual footprints! That will put an end to the Hoax conspiracies for sure, and if there are any alien bases up there, they won't be able to hide from such an eye in the sky. Cool.

[Sparky]

That will put an end to the Hoax conspiracies for sure,--

Don't bet on that! Convincing someone to change their "religion" or beliefs is near impossible with some people. The U.S. has a bunch of real nut jobs in positions that can influence the more moderate nut jobs to lean even more toward the absurd...

[GaryN]

Convincing someone to change their "religion" or beliefs is near impossible with some people.

I must be one of those impossible people! Oh, I do think they went to the Moon, but my conspiracy is that the environment they found WRT the light conditions, does not match what we are lead to believe. The Moon is very bright, we think, just look at it up there!

Some NASA reports that would suggest the lighting conditions in space or on the Moon are very low, and photography or video is not as simple as it is on Earth. For that reason, my reference to a MuneCast camera was an attempt at cynicism. An identical camera to Urthecast, orbiting the Moon, would see nothing.

NASA CONTRACT NAS 9-14413. FINAL REPORT. APOLLO EXPERIME]NT S-211. LOW BRIGfHTNESS, ASTRONOMICAL...(pdf)
http://www.google.ca/search?ix=aca&sour ... 010480.pdf

An Investigation of Earthshine Lighting Conditions for Lunar-Surface Operations.(pdf)
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=a ... 6BZkPrbv6Q

A History of Apollo TV cameras. (pdf)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf

[Sparky]

I have been looking at "How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings".

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film, the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field, and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place.

According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images.

The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland and in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters. When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out-of-focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer.

Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.

Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record, the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else). As a professional photographer and a filmmaker, I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of any such problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality, the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.

This, to my photographically untrained mind, is strong evidence.

Later in the same paper:

This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky, as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.

No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.

Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned “glass cities” on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image are huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software.

Misunderstood evidence, leading to a highly speculative (nut job) conclusion.

Before the injection of this nonsense, the arguments were strong. This sort of affiliation tends to make me step back from the "strong arguments", even though I know that each argument must stand on it's own merit.

[GaryN]

This clip from a documentary about the making of Barry Lyndon describes the camera and f0.7 lens that Kubrick obtained from NASA. The lenses were no good to them, they couldn't see anything when hooked to the 3 tube colour cameras supposed to show the far side of the Moon. I wonder where the camera and lens are now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA
I also just realised, though haven't watched all the original series to verify, that the SS Enterprise of Capt. Kirk had no observation deck. All the images of planets and stars were on display screens on the bridge. I think it was realised fairly early on that space was pretty well black for the most part, but where would be the 'romance' to the tax paying public if NASA was to come out and say that space was black. The whole idea of employing Kubrick was to spice up the Apollo missions. The gold foil on the lander and other areas was his idea it seems. It does nothing, I read, but looks good!
Also, I didn't know until recently reading those NASA reports, that they had to do so much work to get the images they did. Not just the film, but the developing, and then a whole lot of digital post-processing on the early IBM mainframes.
I do think though that the images obtained with the FUVC device prove they got to the Moon, and much of my argument for the blackness of space, as far as human vision goes, is based on the FUVC images being genuine.

[GaryN]

Just how bright was it on the Lunar surface for the Apollo missions?
This declassified document should put and end to the argument that it was too bright for the astronauts to have been able to see stars.
Interesting data on vision and light levels.
Google 19750065843_1975065843.pdf to get to the report.

[Lloyd]

Electric Sun Discussion Thur 8 PM Eastern
* Gary and Sparky, speaking of the boring Sun, I interrupt briefly to make this announcement of a discussion about said celestial object, that may not be boring. See for the link: http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 065#p66192. Maybe, when learning occurs due to the discussion, the discussers or their peers will address the matter of Stars being much closer than they Appear, which I still think is possible, as well as your theory about dim space light.

[GaryN]

I have a new, revolutionary model of the Sun, Lloyd, based on a melding of my own E/M model, some of Bahram Katirais ideas, and parts of the Cosmology section from Oahspe. It all makes sense (to me!), and can be explained simply by a close analogy to accepted fluid dynamics science, and a correct model of the Aether. I do not have a finished product yet, but if the discussion you have set up gains any traction, I'd like to have it included.

as well as your theory about dim space light.

Not my theory Lloyd, NASA fact. I don't think there can be any doubt after reading their 1964 report that the first astronauts to land on the Moon should have been almost blinded by starlight, and not blind to the stars because of the Lunar surface brightness. A little more research into the times they were on the Moon, and the position of the Sun and Earth with respect to their location, should put an end to the debate. I say should, as as with the EU idea, very, very few people seem to even care that the reality we have been spoon-fed for centuries by those in power, is total, unprovable speculation, nothing more. Is my disdain showing yet?

[GaryN]

I recieved a reply from someone at the NPS in Monterrey (nps.edu) who said that to take a picture of the Sun from space, I would need to use a Neutral Density (ND) filter if I wanted to see the true colour. Other types of filters will show the Sun in different colours, but an ND filter is a 'dimmer', and reduces the intensity of all wavelengths equally. So here is an image, taken from Earth.
http://mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com ... edit-2.jpg
200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.
So would the same setup used from the ISS show the same thing? That will continue to be an unanswered question, as nobody seems to want to try it. Surely NASA can spare 1/8000 sec to find out? NASA, NPS, nor anyone else can find me an image taken from space through an ND filter, and nobody finds that odd

[GaryN]

I'm trying to determine the times when the the Apollo astronauts would have been subject to full Sunlight conditions and bright surface illumination that would make it impossible for them to see the stars. My interpretation of everythjing I have found so far indicates there never were any blindingly bright periods. This document talks about the limitations of low light levels, but I can find nothing about just how bright the light levels got.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategie ... raints.pdf

[Lloyd]

* I think I read once that the Sun had to be somewhere around 10 AM in order for the astronauts not to get too hot or too cold.
* This webpage agrees: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_time_of_ ... n_the_moon. It says:

I think most missions went early in the lunar morning before it had a chance to warm up. I am not sure but possibly one mission went at the lunar dusk when things were cooling down. A lunar day is about two Earth weeks long, so "morning" and "dusk" are a good long time!

[GaryN]

Yes, they did go in the Lunar morning Lloyd. In the pdf I posted previously on the constraints of the Lunar lighting, at the end are some diagrams showing the monthly cycle. The Lunar surface is only lit by the Sun for the first 14 days, but ideal EVA conditions are shown for the period when the surface is only lit by Earthshine. However, in practising for the landing, they trained with goggles fited with ND filters passing between .002 and 2.9% of the light intensity at the training location. So even though the Sun is up, for the times they were on the Moon, it was never bright, compared to Earth light.
The other document, 19750065843_1975065843.pdf would seem to indicate they were never in bright sunlight, as they left while it was still only early as far as the Lunar day goes. In which case, with the very low surface albedo, there should never have been a time when the surface was bright, as we would think of bright on Earth. Ample for the amazing capabilities of the human eye though.
Anyway, they were never on the surface during 'mid-day' Sun, and I was wondering what the light level would be then, wrt Earth noon lighting, but haven't found that info yet. Total soalr irradience was never measured on the Moon, they just assume it is the same as Earth levels, the Moon being at the same distance from the Sun on average. I believe it is very different. However, in my continuing, tho' sporadic reading of more of the Oahspe cosmology, it is stated that both light and heat on Earth and the Moon, are a result of the 'lensing' of Solar EM radiation, and that the Sun is not a hot incandescent globe providing the kind of heat you get sitting in front of a nice fire. Also found a reference to "the Earth was laying on it's side at that time", which fits in with what I, and I think one or two other TBers consider likely.
My new model of the Sun is slow going just now Lloyd, but I think you'll like it. It is way, way different to neutron star cores or fusion, and may be just as crazy , but I think it should score well in the Creative Thinking category at least. You have to accept the existence of the Aether though to give it consideration.
My time at the moment, now we have some decent-ish weather, is spent collecting information and images for my other project, a publication to be titled "A Revolution in Geology: A field guide to indicators of large and small scale electrical and plasma modification of the Earths surface." Shall I put you down for a first run copy?

[GaryN]

The ISS should have a good view of the Venus transit on 5 June 2012, and being as this is the last time it will happen for over 100 years, will they be observing? I know they are always busy checking each others health problems, but maybe they could spare a few seconds to snap a shot? Or how about a video? Just need to pop an ND filter on, shouldn't be a problem for NASA, should it? And it will be visible from the Cupola for part of the time, even if there are no other viewing ports anywhere else on the station.

Larger image available on Picassa.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 3521320898

[GaryN]

So they are going to image the transit!

High above Earth, astronaut Don Pettit is preparing to photograph the June 5th Transit of Venus from space itself.
Astronauts were onboard the ISS in 2004, but they did not see the transit, mainly because they had no solar filters onboard. Tiny Venus covers a small fraction of the solar disk, so the sun is still painfully bright to the human eye even at mid-transit. Pettit's foresight to bring a solar filter with him makes all the difference.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... itofvenus/
I wonder why he didn't choose an ND filter, but for sure I'll be watching this closely.

[GaryN]

Venus transiting the Sun. The first of two orbits where it will be visible from the ISS.
12.5 Mb ogg video download:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1--nP ... 2xhclluRU0