Moon Sky Reality, moon lander, shadows (2008 Nov 30)

[M-tide]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081130.html

In the Apollo 15 panorama, there are no stars in the "sky." Are they blacked out with photographic license? Wouldn't moon skies be intensely bright with starlight (if you weren't looking too near to the impossibly bright sun of course)? Is this a dumb question?

[kennetw42]

I make the observation that the moon rover in the picture has mudgaurds on all 4 wheels. Why?. There is no mud on the moon and I doubt that it would have travelled at a speed that would cause thrown dust to be a problem. Obviously weight was not a problem in the space craft. Curious!!!

[kennetw42]

Ha, the conspiracy theory plot thickens.

[zhadum]

hum...

An Apollo 15 Panorama: Astronaut Exploring 30 nov 2008

ok, this is "panoramic" and a collage, but still gives a panorama. now, we can see the shadow of one of the astronauts, but the sun appears to be facing the astronaut... or be on the side at most, given the fact it is panorama. this panorama isnt 180 degrees, so, care to explain that ? what gives?

lunar landings were often said to be fake... this picture doesn't help the cause...

[pacfandave]

There seems to be confused lighting on the photo of Astronaut Irwin strolling on the moon. He casts a long shadow off to his right rear. The Lunar Rover casts almost no shadow. There is a shadow apparently from the LEM, which is off-camera, which indicates back-lighting. This shadow does not correspond to either Irwin's nor the Rover's. Scrolling to the right, one can see from the shadows of the rises that light is coming from the right. Would love to read an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

[orin stepanek]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081130.html

Lunar gravity is about 1/6th that of Earth! At least that's what I studied way back in my school days. So yes; there is less weight to contend with.

Orin

[orin stepanek]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081130.html

The bright light reflected off the moon's surface more than likely outshines any starlight and the camera shutter can't pick them up.

Orin

[emc]

There seems to be confused lighting on the photo of Astronaut Irwin strolling on the moon. He casts a long shadow off to his right rear. The Lunar Rover casts almost no shadow. There is a shadow apparently from the LEM, which is off-camera, which indicates back-lighting. This shadow does not correspond to either Irwin's nor the Rover's. Scrolling to the right, one can see from the shadows of the rises that light is coming from the right. Would love to read an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

hum...

An Apollo 15 Panorama: Astronaut Exploring 30 nov 2008

ok, this is "panoramic" and a collage, but still gives a panorama. now, we can see the shadow of one of the astronauts, but the sun appears to be facing the astronaut... or be on the side at most, given the fact it is panorama. this panorama isnt 180 degrees, so, care to explain that ? what gives?

lunar landings were often said to be fake... this picture doesn't help the cause...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081130.html

Today’s APOD is a panorama and encompasses 360 degrees of subject matter. It is easy to be confused by the shadows when looking at one two dimensional image. Maybe this will help... If you open the highest resolution available by clicking on the APOD, you can pan from left to right and see the rover tracks at both ends. Now imagine joining the two ends of the image by wrapping it around the inside wall of a cylinder. Viewing from inside the cylinder would reveal the shadows have the same source of light.

[rigelan]

Its a panoramic, they won't all shine the same direction.

[emc]

I make the observation that the moon rover in the picture has mudgaurds on all 4 wheels. Why?. There is no mud on the moon and I doubt that it would have travelled at a speed that would cause thrown dust to be a problem. Obviously weight was not a problem in the space craft. Curious!!!

Moon buggy rooster tails...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... C3CQ&hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrSWJuZcOw

and moon dust is nasty stuff...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005 ... nmower.htm

[rigelan]

There was another discussion of a panoramic from the moon

Old Photo Discussion (Dec 10 2006)
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... f=9&t=9146

Different photo, but same situation

[Chris Peterson]

In the Apollo 15 panorama, there are no stars in the "sky." Are they blacked out with photographic license? Wouldn't moon skies be intensely bright with starlight (if you weren't looking too near to the impossibly bright sun of course)? Is this a dumb question?

It was daylight on the Moon, so the camera exposures were set for daylight (short exposure times, small apertures). Set your camera for daylight and then take a picture at night; there won't be any stars. Stars are several orders of magnitude dimmer than a sunlit foreground. The only way you'd be able to see stars is if the foreground were completely overexposed (which the astronauts were taught to avoid doing, for obvious reasons).

Don't let the fact that the sky is black fool you into thinking it's night in this picture.

[Chris Peterson]

There seems to be confused lighting on the photo of Astronaut Irwin strolling on the moon. He casts a long shadow off to his right rear. The Lunar Rover casts almost no shadow. There is a shadow apparently from the LEM, which is off-camera, which indicates back-lighting. This shadow does not correspond to either Irwin's nor the Rover's. Scrolling to the right, one can see from the shadows of the rises that light is coming from the right. Would love to read an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

Maybe this will help:



The azimuth angles are arbitrary, but you can see that the shadows make sense. For instance, the Sun and the LEM shadow are 180° apart; the Sun and the astronaut shadow are about 90° apart, etc.

[orin stepanek]

Nice job moderators; tying 4 panorama posts into one.

Orin

[apodman]

... 4 panorama posts ...

Yeah, what is it about the moon?

[BMAONE23]

I make the observation that the moon rover in the picture has mudgaurds on all 4 wheels. Why?. There is no mud on the moon and I doubt that it would have travelled at a speed that would cause thrown dust to be a problem. Obviously weight was not a problem in the space craft. Curious!!!

Moon buggy rooster tails...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... C3CQ&hl=en


What is especially evident and should serve to squelch moon hoax theories to all but the stupidest ignoranus is the end of this video. The lunar dust that is being "Kicked-up" by the wheels but slowly though abruptly settles to the surface. Not as fast as it would in our gravity but more abruptly than it would in earths atmospheric conditions.

[Chris Peterson]

What is especially evident and should serve to squelch moon hoax theories to all but the stupidest ignoranus is the end of this video. The lunar dust that is being "Kicked-up" by the wheels but slowly though abruptly settles to the surface. Not as fast as it would in our gravity but more abruptly than it would in earths atmospheric conditions.

Also apparent in this and other videos showing kicked up dust is the obvious ballistic path followed by the dust particles- something you never see if there's any atmosphere. So if these videos were faked, it would have required no ordinary sound stage, but one that could be evacuated to a decent vacuum. No amount of trickery with film speed can cause dust to move the way it does in the Apollo videos.

[BMAONE23]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081130.html

In the Apollo 15 panorama, there are no stars in the "sky." Are they blacked out with photographic license? Wouldn't moon skies be intensely bright with starlight (if you weren't looking too near to the impossibly bright sun of course)? Is this a dumb question?

The Lunar surface isn't white like it appears from earth. It appears brightly white because the surrounding darkness leaves little other comparison. The Lunar surface is actually a dark gray, like the color of a parking lot in daylight. Go to your local grocery store at night and look up. Is the sky awash in stars???? The lunar surface is reflecting the sunlight back in all directions, even into the camers lens. This bright ambient light forces the necessity for a faster shutter speed so that the film isn't saturated by light. The faster shutter speed all but negates the ability to image stars in the lunar sky. (though you can still see one bright star in the sky)

[BMAONE23]

hum...

An Apollo 15 Panorama: Astronaut Exploring 30 nov 2008

ok, this is "panoramic" and a collage, but still gives a panorama. now, we can see the shadow of one of the astronauts, but the sun appears to be facing the astronaut... or be on the side at most, given the fact it is panorama. this panorama isnt 180 degrees, so, care to explain that ? what gives?

lunar landings were often said to be fake... this picture doesn't help the cause...

I make the observation that the moon rover in the picture has mudgaurds on all 4 wheels. Why?. There is no mud on the moon and I doubt that it would have travelled at a speed that would cause thrown dust to be a problem. Obviously weight was not a problem in the space craft. Curious!!!

There seems to be confused lighting on the photo of Astronaut Irwin strolling on the moon. He casts a long shadow off to his right rear. The Lunar Rover casts almost no shadow. There is a shadow apparently from the LEM, which is off-camera, which indicates back-lighting. This shadow does not correspond to either Irwin's nor the Rover's. Scrolling to the right, one can see from the shadows of the rises that light is coming from the right. Would love to read an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

As you stated "this panorama isn't 180 degrees" It is actually a 360 degree panorama with the left edge and right edgeshowing the same physical location. The best way to determine this is to look at the rover tracks as they leave and enter the image on both edges at the same location.
Or, if you have the ability, print the image out and see how well both edges line up.
If you can't print the entire image, you can use MS paint.

1) open full size image
2) right click on image and "COPY"
3) open "Paint"
4) [edit] "PASTE" image
5) crop either side of image and save image as a new name
6) repeat steps 4 & 5 (using opposite side of the image for step 5)
7) Print both images and place them together

you will see that it is a 360 degree panorama.

Next looking at the image you will notice that the astronauts shadows and rover's shadow all point to the same vantage point (a little above and right of the lower astronauts shadow and below the horizon) indicating that the shadow (light) source is above the horizon and 180deg from this vantage point. Or exactly where the sun is located in the 360deg image.

[NoelC]

The answers have been well-stated above.

I have come to believe the popularity of the lunar conspiracy theories comes at least in part from this:

In this day and age, most Americans can't set the clock in their now obsolete VCR, fix even the simplest problem with their car, keep their computer running for more than a few months without having to reinstall everything, or frankly do much of anything that requires care, thought, and excellence. The film "Idiocracy" comes to mind. I'm sorry if this hurts to hear. It *should* hurt.

The shocking reality is that as a society in total we're now more "stupid" and "incapable" than ever. We expect to trade ever more worthless money (made of course in the stock market or by "flipping" a house) for goods and services. Goods made elsewhere, and services that never seem to deliver results any more (because the service providers are, tada!, our fellow Americans). It's really no surprise what's happening to the economy.

Thus, in light of our modern surroundings, people today find it hard to believe that folks in the middle of the "low tech" last century could pull it together well enough to go to the moon, walk on it, and come back alive. Especially considering today we have rubber O rings sealing rocket motors, insulation that continues to break off, and shuttles with no capability to fix broken tiles in flight. Hell, we've even canceled the shuttle program without a follow-up plan in place.

"Smart" and "capable" don't come from sitting on our fat asses in front of the HDTV, they come from getting out there, working hard, and DOING things.

In the 1960s people DID things.

It is a sad state of affairs.

-Noel

[BMAONE23]

[emc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyyoSAX2kw&NR=1