Starship Asterisk*

Apollo 11 Landing Site Panorama

Explanation: Have you seen a panorama from another world lately? Assembled from high-resolution scans of the original film frames, this one sweeps across the magnificent desolation of the Apollo 11 landing site on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility. Taken by Neil Armstrong looking out his window of the Eagle Lunar Module, the frame at the far left (AS11-37-5449) is the first picture taken by a person on another world. Toward the south, thruster nozzles can be seen in the foreground on the left, while at the right, the shadow of the Eagle is visible toward the west. For scale, the large, shallow crater on the right has a diameter of about 12 meters. Frames taken from the Lunar Module windows about an hour and a half after landing, before walking on the lunar surface, were intended to initially document the landing site in case an early departure was necessary.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Beyond wrote:Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Maybe you need to reread the explanation ...

APOD Robot wrote:the first picture taken by a person on another world

I would say that makes this pretty amazing.

I assume this was taken with a film camera - I'm not sure how it would have helped in the event of the need for a quick getaway as the film would not have been processed in situ presumabley? Or am I missing something?

I think it is meant as more of "at least we got this" if they had to leave, not as an aid in leaving.

bystander wrote:

Beyond wrote:Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Maybe you need to reread the explanation ...

APOD Robot wrote:the first picture taken by a person on another world

I would say that makes this pretty amazing.

I saw a lot of 'live', including planting the flag. It seemed rather normal to me back then. Maybe that's why today's APOD seems so common to me.

I'm sure someone may have asked this before, but does anyone notice there are no stars at all? Not even the slightest glimmer of a trace. The moon atmosphere is virtually nonexistent. Stars should be like bright point lasers in the sky. Did they take this photo with digital or film equipment? Digital equipment existed back then, was it that bad? Can film be so bad to not see even one star? The foreground is perfectly clear so film is not damaged. Not even Sirius? No trace at all. Pure, unrelieved studio black. Hm. If it was in a studio and they put the wrong star pattern, some smart astro-girl or guy would eventually prove those stars were not in that direction at the time the photo was taken, so to avoid risks, put no stars in the studio, right? Maybe LRO will get hi res images to determine if there was a moon landing after all, 40 years ago. With 8 bit punch card computers and bad film.

Oh my goodness the shadows are all wrong!!

ro_star wrote:I'm sure someone may have asked this before, but does anyone notice there are no stars at all? Not even the slightest glimmer of a trace. The moon atmosphere is virtually nonexistent. Stars should be like bright point lasers in the sky. Did they take this photo with digital or film equipment? Digital equipment existed back then, was it that bad? Can film be so bad to not see even one star? The foreground is perfectly clear so film is not damaged. Not even Sirius? No trace at all. Pure, unrelieved studio black. Hm. If it was in a studio and they put the wrong star pattern, some smart astro-girl or guy would eventually prove those stars were not in that direction at the time the photo was taken, so to avoid risks, put no stars in the studio, right? Maybe LRO will get hi res images to determine if there was a moon landing after all, 40 years ago. With 8 bit punch card computers and bad film.

The reason stars are not visible is that they would not be visible in a very short exposure photo. The reason for an incredibly short exposure time is to avoid overexposing the bright lunar surface (which is also a light source). The main subject is the foreground, not the background sky. Lots of space probe images of planets don't show stars, does that mean they were faked in a studio or Photoshop? Remember to use Occam's razor but try not to get cut!

This crater(s) made the landing(s) quite risky ...

I suggest viewing another interesting picture here : http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg

It makes difficult to keep on believing that a gentleman came all the way from Earth in such a ridiculous Mickey Mouse vehicle to have a walk there ...

Surely they did a walk in the Nevada desert with some nice cosmonaut dress on ...

My wife and I had tickets to the Newport Jazz (Folk?) Festival but instead we stayed home to watch the landing. I'm glad we did.

This is a nice tribute to Neil Armstrong.

Ann

ro_star wrote:I'm sure someone may have asked this before, but does anyone notice there are no stars at all? Not even the slightest glimmer of a trace. The moon atmosphere is virtually nonexistent. Stars should be like bright point lasers in the sky. Did they take this photo with digital or film equipment? Digital equipment existed back then, was it that bad? Can film be so bad to not see even one star? The foreground is perfectly clear so film is not damaged. Not even Sirius? No trace at all. Pure, unrelieved studio black. Hm. If it was in a studio and they put the wrong star pattern, some smart astro-girl or guy would eventually prove those stars were not in that direction at the time the photo was taken, so to avoid risks, put no stars in the studio, right? Maybe LRO will get hi res images to determine if there was a moon landing after all, 40 years ago. With 8 bit punch card computers and bad film.

Go outside in daylight and take a landscape picture that includes the sky.

How many stars are in your picture?

So yes, I've noticed there are no stars in this APOD picture... I wouldn't expect there to be, because it was taken in daylight.

Here's an LRO shot of the Apollo 17 landing site: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110908.html

This one picture is also eye opening ... http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5927HR.jpg

Ann wrote:This is a nice tribute to Neil Armstrong.

Ann

I think so, too.

Beyond wrote:
Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... déjà vu: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120827.html

Beyond wrote:Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Beyond....:kicks u: Moonpictures are always stunning and amazing...ever MOONlady who waves at Neil Armstrong and that incredible team.

owlice wrote:

Ann wrote:This is a nice tribute to Neil Armstrong.

Ann

I think so, too.

ditto

ro_star wrote:I'm sure someone may have asked this before, but does anyone notice there are no stars at all? Not even the slightest glimmer of a trace. The moon atmosphere is virtually nonexistent. Stars should be like bright point lasers in the sky. Did they take this photo with digital or film equipment? Digital equipment existed back then, was it that bad? Can film be so bad to not see even one star? The foreground is perfectly clear so film is not damaged. Not even Sirius? No trace at all. Pure, unrelieved studio black. Hm. If it was in a studio and they put the wrong star pattern, some smart astro-girl or guy would eventually prove those stars were not in that direction at the time the photo was taken, so to avoid risks, put no stars in the studio, right? Maybe LRO will get hi res images to determine if there was a moon landing after all, 40 years ago. With 8 bit punch card computers and bad film.

March 8, 2011 apod. Picture of Saturn with no stars in the back ground!!! Must be fake
Ouch just cut myself on a razor

Moonlady wrote:

Beyond wrote:Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Beyond....:kicks u: Moonpictures are always stunning and amazing...ever MOONlady who waves at Neil Armstrong and that incredible team.

MOONlady, methinks you are just a bit predjudice in the matter. However, though the moon, to me, may be blase', you are NO reflection of that To me, Moonlady is always Wild, wacky and Amazeing!!

neufer wrote:

Beyond wrote:
Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... déjà vu: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120827.html

That's because it's in black & white and not color.

ro_star wrote:I'm sure someone may have asked this before, but does anyone notice there are no stars at all? Not even the slightest glimmer of a trace. The moon atmosphere is virtually nonexistent. Stars should be like bright point lasers in the sky. Did they take this photo with digital or film equipment? Digital equipment existed back then, was it that bad? Can film be so bad to not see even one star? The foreground is perfectly clear so film is not damaged. Not even Sirius? No trace at all. Pure, unrelieved studio black. Hm. If it was in a studio and they put the wrong star pattern, some smart astro-girl or guy would eventually prove those stars were not in that direction at the time the photo was taken, so to avoid risks, put no stars in the studio, right? Maybe LRO will get hi res images to determine if there was a moon landing after all, 40 years ago. With 8 bit punch card computers and bad film.

You've already been given the answer to this, but let me add, while the lunar images were made on film (there were no practical digital cameras at the time), it would make no difference. While film is generally less sensitive than modern CCD and CMOS sensors, when the exposure times are normalized, each will record essentially the same thing for a normally lit scene like this. Digital images made by instruments orbiting other planets, or images made by astronauts from the ISS, seldom show stars... for the same reason that the lunar photographs don't.

bystander wrote:

Beyond wrote:Somehow, after Mars, this seems a bit... common.

Maybe you need to reread the explanation ...

APOD Robot wrote:the first picture taken by a person on another world

I would say that makes this pretty amazing.

Exactly, just imagine what it was like sitting in that capsule gazing out at the landscape of an alien world for the first time in human history. The universe got a little smaller that day, not quite as unreachable as it had been the day before.

when Armstrong..........taking a moment for a silent salute .........said ' drifting to the right a little ", are there any images of the location causing him to drift to the right a little ?