Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    (1) You have no right to say anything on the subject of radiation.

    Well, I do. I'm an engineer, and part of my job involves (or used to involve) engineering for space. I have yet to meet a conspiracy theorist who knows the least thing about radiation. There is no reason involving radiation why the Apollo missions can't have been successful. For the skeptical, I have the same sentiment expressed over the signature of Prof. Van Allen himself.

    (2) You don't know shit about the pix.

    Well, I do. I'm one of the world's experts in Apollo photography.

    B O'Leary said it himself that NASA filmed stuff here which they could not film there.

    No.

    I contacted Brian O'Leary and he said he was misquoted in the Fox program. He was answering a hypothetical question, but it wasn't presented that way in the final video. In his interview with the Fox program he mentioned several times that he believed the missions were real -- including the photography. The Fox people just chose not to use that, and to imply otherwise. Dr. O'Leary and I have been through the "problematic" photographs together.

    (3) Kindly do shut your mouth when it comes to matters you have absolutely no knoweldge about.

    I could say the same. I am a qualified engineer and a highly experienced photographer, with training in photographic analysis as well. I have studied these conspiracy theories for about six years and I have come to the conclusion that none of the proponents has the least qualification in science or engineering to speak authoritatively on the matter. Further, I have found that many of their claims can be dispelled by a simple glance out the window at how light and shadow really behave.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    The radiation may not kill the astronauts (I agree with you on that) but how did the "films" survive the journey?

    By a combination of their being well-protected, and of the radiation environment in space being far more benign than is generally touted by the conspiracy theorists.

    The original specification for the lunar surface Hasselblad called for it being radiation-hardened to 600 rads, or more than the lethal dose for the astronauts. I've held and used one of the original Hasselblad cameras adapted for the moon, and it's a heavy sucker. It's very well hardened. It's definitely not a camera with "apparently very little shielding".

    1. extreme temperature (hot & cold) on Moon

    The temperature of what? Keep in mind that the moon has no atmosphere. On Earth the air acts as a medium through which heat is transferred. On the moon heat can transfer from one object to another only by direct contact, or by radiative heat transfer (i.e., like solar heating). When scientists speak of the "extreme temperatures" of the moon, they're talking about the rocks and the dirt. There's no air temperature to take. The rocks and the dirt reach certain temperatures because of their optical properties and thus their propensity to absorb or reflect solar energy.

    Lunar dust and rocks take in about 90% of the energy that hits them. Other objects like aluminum take in only about 10% of the energy; the rest is reflected away. That means aluminum objects don't get as hot. Materials like space suit fabric reflect about 80% light, and so absorb only about 20% of the incoming solar energy. They don't get as hot either.

    The Apollo cameras had coatings on them much like Thermos bottles, intended to control how much heat the camera absorbed from the sun. And in practice the sun takes a long time to heat anything, and a long time for that heat to percolate through the camera mechanism to the film. And it also takes a long time for something to cool down when it gets to the shade. So if you're turning and working, constantly in and out of the shade, you get a fairly even heating.

    The film used a special film base made of polyester called Estar. That was developed by Kodak for use in the CORONA spy satellites. In the 1960s Estar was relatively secret because of its use for space surveillance. Nowadays you can readily buy Estar-based film. Polyester is good because it stays flexible when extremely cold, and doesn't melt when it gets extremely hot.

    NASA will provide you with the thermal analysis of the Hasselblad cameras. If you have training in heat transfer and thermodynamics, you can see that the cameras simply don't get too hot or too cold because they were designed to carefully control how they dealt with heat.

    2. cosmic rays in space

    There just aren't that many. We see the effects of cosmic rays in astronomy nowadays because our instruments are much more sensitive. I have examined very high-resolution scans of many of the original Apollo transparencies (they used slide film, not negative print film) and I have seen only a very few spots that would seem to be the result of a cosmic ray hit.

    3. more penetrating radiation from the Sun, and other sources....

    UV and x-rays probably wouldn't penetrate the camera body. Cosmic x-rays are actually less penetrating than diagnostic x-rays used on Earth. Gamma rays would penetrate the camera body, but there isn't that much gamma radiation normally in space.

    If a solar flare had occurred, things would be different. But for the normal background radiation in space, including stuff from the sun, there just wasn't enough of it to harm the film.

    So, you think we had the technology to film it?

    I do. I'm a photographer and I'm also an engineer. It's my opinion that the camera and film technology was sufficient to withstand the environment of space. Ironically now is when we have problems, because we're taking more sensitive equipment into space.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube